No abstract

No abstract

In the Yusuf

The European Parliament's (EP) public refusal to consent to several international agreements gives EU citizens a voice in international relations, which, with all its flaws, draws on a source of democratic legitimation that is independent and separate from the EU member states. These acts of contestation vest the EU's actions under international law with a popular backing that is not ultimately rooted in the member states. The EP's new role and visibility also creates a degree of competition between the EP and national parliaments, since the latter while they can exercise political power within the EU legal order, cannot represent EU citizens to the outside. It further gives support to the Court of Justice of the European Union's (CJEU) implicit claim that the EU possesses original (sovereign) rights. This article sheds light on how the EP's new role may strengthen the link to its citizens and influence the relationship between the EU and its member states.

The use of targeted sanctions has dramatically increased. The EU runs 29 different sanctions regimes, mainly geographically defined but also including two counterterrorist regimes. These measures are under great judicial pressure: more than 250 natural and legal persons have challenged their listings. In several high profile cases, the EU courts struck down sanctions based on UN lists, autonomous EU sanctions, counterterrorist sanctions and sanctions against third country regimes, triggering significant reforms in EU listing procedures. This article sets out the different regimes and addresses questions such as: what standard of judicial review should the EU courts apply? What is the relevance of the case law on counterterrorist sanctions for third country sanctions? Can the EU courts acknowledge procedural improvements in the UN context? Are EU sanctions preventive measures? Are they suitable to achieve their own objective of changing behaviour?