The European Union (EU), Research Paper Example

The European Union (EU) is in a precarious spot. Its effectiveness is severely limited by its lack of influence in the internal, federal workings in its member countries. The increased globalization of recent years has provided more support for a centralized authority for civil, criminal, moral, and other dilemmas. Nonetheless, the EU’s members predominantly joined in support of a noninterference approach to governmental feedback, so changes and reforms have gone through multiple levels of analysis, mixed signals, and red tape. Many of these fears stem from political differences which emphasize the socialist undertones of recent adapations’ goals: “respect for human dignity, democracy, rule of law” (Melli, 2011, 232). Instead, Borgers (2007) writes that theoretical frames of reference have only contributed to ‘the substantial watering down of automaticity in mutual recognition” (p. 100). It has not delayed the EU’s reforms- but has produced more concerns about the efficacy of those changes which are currently in place.

Civil Procedure

The EU established the Common Frame of Reference (CFR) as a set of guidelines which can be applied to the internal laws of countries across the world. The CFR acknowledged the shortcomings of EU reaction times and of the situation-specific laws and actions which are formed in response to emergencies. These contingencies often require optional components which are not site-specific either (Meli, 2011). In particular, the EU remains very involved in contract law, because these civil arrangements often cross international borders. There is less controversy surrounding the role of international recommendations for federal monitoring in contract law (ibid.).

Criminal Procedure

Although human rights have long fallen under the authority of international organizations, such as the European Union, the increasing globalization of federal criminal procedures has held up EU procedures as a model of sophisticated morals in an objective setting (Plachta, 2007). Schomburg (2000) writes that the administration of criminal justice is among the most individualistic of federal initiatives, and the European Court of Justice has no presiding official. National courts can be fortified or weakened by the preliminary ruling of the European Court of Justice; this ruling provides a direction and support for member countries as they provide an interpretation of the criminal obligations involved and of the necessary national response and any need for the implementation of new laws (Borgers, 2010).

Evidence

Judicial records represent a large portion of criminal evidence. Due to natural tragedies, such as fire or flood damage, the security of these records is often compromised. In addition, the transfer of evidence can create holes in federal accountability and security. For these reasons, standardized, multilingual request forms were utilized to track and codify information (Plachta, 2007). The EU and the Council of Europe frequently consort to create a network of mutually-supportive organizations (Schomburg, 2000). EU member countries admitted that they often answered surveys with little reflection, making the validity of qualitative studies highly suspect (Christin et al., 2005).  In addition, competencies are rarely assessed in the consideration of successes and failures, and the flexibility of these competencies make assessment more difficult and personal understanding more likely (ibid.).

Conclusion

Since the European Union adopted a constitutional framework built around the concepts of the Lisbon Treaty, its codified changes have utilized this legal precedence for the justification of harmonization in the further centralization of its procedures (Meli, 2011). However, it is no small wonder that the European Union has had problems with standardization; its designation as a ‘European’ Union has excluded potential advocates from other global arenas and has even left out Switzerland and Liechtenstein (among other countries). Thus, the EU is by no means a thorough representation even of that one continent (Schomburg, 2000). This mutual recognition is one of the most powerful weapons which non-judiciary unions have at their disposal, because individual member countries still possess the freedom to determine their level of involvement in EU mandates (Borger, 2010).

References

Borgers, M. J. (2010). Mutual Recognition and the European Court of Justice: The Meaning of Consistent Interpretation and Autonomous and Uniform Interpretation of Union Law for the Development of the Principle of Mutual Recognition in Criminal Matters. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law & Criminal Justice, 18(2), 99-114. doi:10.1163/157181710X12659830399536

Meli, M. (2011). The Common Frame of Reference and the Relationship between National Law and European Law. European Review of Contract Law, 7(2), 229-234. doi:10.1515/ERCL.2011.229

Plachta, M. (2007). Criminal Records in an Era of Globalization: Identifying Problems and Conceptualizing Solutions within the European Union. International Criminal Law Review, 7(2/3), 425-447. doi:10.1163/156753607X206471

Schomburg, W. (2000). Are we on the Road to a European Law-Enforcement Area? International Cooperation in Criminal Matters. What Place for Justice?. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law & Criminal Justice, 8(1), 51-60. doi:10.1163/15718170020519030