Petition of Berger
In: American journal of international law: AJIL, Band 43, Heft 4, S. 807-807
ISSN: 2161-7953
332710 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: American journal of international law: AJIL, Band 43, Heft 4, S. 807-807
ISSN: 2161-7953
In: American journal of international law: AJIL, Band 43, Heft 2, S. 377-377
ISSN: 2161-7953
In: American journal of international law: AJIL, Band 42, Heft 4, S. 941-942
ISSN: 2161-7953
In: American journal of international law: AJIL, Band 42, Heft 3, S. 731-732
ISSN: 2161-7953
In: American journal of international law: AJIL, Band 42, Heft 2, S. 479-479
ISSN: 2161-7953
In: American journal of international law: AJIL, Band 42, Heft 2, S. 493-493
ISSN: 2161-7953
In: American journal of international law: AJIL, Band 42, Heft 1, S. 220-220
ISSN: 2161-7953
In: Revue du droit public de la science politique en France et à l'étranger, S. 1733-1769
ISSN: 0035-2578
SSRN
Working paper
In: American journal of international law: AJIL, Band 71, Heft 3, S. 533-534
ISSN: 2161-7953
In: American journal of international law: AJIL, Band 49, Heft 1, S. 87-88
ISSN: 2161-7953
In: American journal of international law: AJIL, Band 48, Heft 3, S. 504-505
ISSN: 2161-7953
In: International law reports, Band 21, S. 178-181
ISSN: 2633-707X
Naturalization — Disqualification for Refusal to Serve in Armed Forces — Effect of Request for Exemption under Treaty Regarding Military Service — The Law of the United States of America.
This article critically evaluates the right to petition the European Parliament, a right which has not managed, to date, to constitute a credible alternative for citizens' participation in the EU. It argues that there are two main reasons for the shortcomings of this right. First, before Maastricht, the Petitions' Committee suffered the consequences of a broader decline of parliamentary petitions within and beyond Europe. Second, after Maastricht and Lisbon, the petition right was affected by the (partly complementary and partly divergent) rights to complain to the European Ombudsman and to sign or support a European citizens' initiative. In addition, and possibly as a consequence of the above reasons, throughout its life, the petition right and the Committee on Petitions more generally have not benefited from significant resources, while their visibility has been very limited. A comparative examination of the three rights (petitions, European Ombudsman, citizens' initiative) in terms of access, scope, user-friendliness and outcome is undertaken. Looking at the future of the petition right, in an era marked by the resurgence of online petitions, the article argues that the Petitions' Committee should strategically focus on areas which are not covered by the two aforementioned rights, namely the national level and broader policy choices in the EU, in order to maximize its input and relevancy within the EU's decision-making world.
BASE
In: Yearbook of European law, Band 40, S. 82-110
ISSN: 2045-0044
Abstract
This article critically evaluates the right to petition the European Parliament, a right which has not managed, to date, to constitute a credible alternative for citizens' participation in the EU. It argues that there are two main reasons for the shortcomings of this right. First, before Maastricht, the Petitions' Committee suffered the consequences of a broader decline of parliamentary petitions within and beyond Europe. Second, after Maastricht and Lisbon, the petition right was affected by the (partly complementary and partly divergent) rights to complain to the European Ombudsman and to sign or support a European citizens' initiative. In addition, and possibly as a consequence of the above reasons, throughout its life, the petition right and the Committee on Petitions more generally have not benefited from significant resources, while their visibility has been very limited. A comparative examination of the three rights (petitions, European Ombudsman, citizens' initiative) in terms of access, scope, user-friendliness and outcome is undertaken. Looking at the future of the petition right, in an era marked by the resurgence of online petitions, the article argues that the Petitions' Committee should strategically focus on areas which are not covered by the two aforementioned rights, namely the national level and broader policy choices in the EU, in order to maximize its input and relevancy within the EU's decision-making world.