<script type="text/javascript">
<!--
document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>');
document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://www.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=undefined&type=result"></script>');
-->
</script>
AbstractThis article analyses the way UN sanctions are implemented in the European legal order. As a basis for the analysis, the European Court of First Instance's (CFI) rulings in the Yusuf/Kadi/Ayadi 1 cases and the European Court of Human Rights's (ECrtHR) judgment in the Bosphorus 2 case are applied. The main critique of the author is that the CFI misconstrued the hierarchy of norms within the Community legal order when it argued that the EC/EU (European Community/European Union) is bound by UN Security Council resolutions in the same way as the Member States. Moreover, the conclusion drawn from this by the CFI that UN law enjoys supremacy over primary EC law is also rejected by the author. Finally, it appears that European courts are unwilling to provide judicial review against UN sanctions, which results in a lacuna concerning fundamental rights protection for affected individuals and organisations.
citations This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 7 | |
popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |