Dr Noreen O'Meara

The legal orders of the EU and Council of Europe (notably via the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)) have shaped the development of European Criminal Law over several decades. While both systems offer protection of fundamental rights, they are at different stages of evolution in human rights terms. On the EU’s part, an emphasis on fundamental rights was initially gradual, both judicially and legislatively. The role and prominence of fundamental rights in EU legislation and case law became more marked from the 1970s, with a swathe of non-discrimination case law directly impacting national laws on, for example, equal pay and sex-discrimination. Over time, as EU competences grew and reached deeper into what are traditionally regarded as constitutionally-sensitive policy areas (including security, asylum and immigration, criminal justice), the associated growth of EU fundamental rights law accelerated. Since the entry into force of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (‘Charter’ or ‘CFR’) in 2009, the Court of Justice has taken numerous opportunities to interpret and apply its provisions.

A negotiation process underway to design a global treaty on plastics waste pollution presents a unique opportunity to concretise plastics governance at international level. The mandate to negotiate an internationally binding legal instrument was laid down in UNEA Resolution 5/14, adopted at the UN Environment Assembly (UNEA) 5.2 in March 2022. Setting that mandate was historic in recognising the multiple threats posed by the rising scale of plastics production, consumption and waste for our climate, biodiversity, and emerging concerns for human health. The resolution effectively acknowledged that binding international legal obligations are needed to tackle the complex and diverse problems caused by plastics pollution globally, rather than reliance on voluntary agreements and goals.

This volume examines the state of EU security and justice law after the Lisbon Treaty and the Stockholm Programme. It provides a critical examination of EU law in the fields of immigration, asylum, counter-terrorism, citizenship, fundamental rights and external relations.

This paper considers the impact of Brexit on extradition, with particular reference to the UK-Ireland extradition relationship, and the UK's post-Brexit extradition prospects. Reflecting on the evolution of the culture of extradition between Ireland and the UK offers a more nuanced understanding of the dynamics at stake. CJEU perspectives on challenges to the execution of arrest warrants on human rights grounds, in the context of Brexit, and political moves in renegotiating extradition, will be fundamental to the development and success of future arrangements. This paper argues that future UK-Ireland extradition need not be a crisis scenario, if strong efforts are made to mitigate risks. All future options involve elements of regression from the existing EAW framework - drawbacks which are already playing out during transition. It is imperative that judicial and political authorities involved in post-Brexit extradition are pragmatic when discharging duties, and overcoming the problems likely to arise, on whatever basis future extradition arrangements take shape.

Protocol 16 ECHR will provide for an extension of the advisory jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), enabling highest national courts to request advisory opinions on questions of principle concerning the interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) or its Protocols. This extension of the ECtHR’s advisory jurisdiction aims to achieve two goals: a reduction in the ECtHR’s excessive docket, and the enhancement of dialogue between the ECtHR and (highest) national courts. While the aims of this reform initiative are laudable, we argue that Protocol 16 is likely to fail to achieve its objectives. Our analysis suggests that rather than facilitating the Court’s adjudicatory function, extended advisory jurisdiction has the potential to impact on the Court’s constitutionalist function in a manner which can be better achieved through the Court’s contentious cases. The burden this procedure will place on the Court’s already overstretched resources would risk delays to contentious cases and potentially undermine judicial comity should requests for advisory opinions be declined. Furthermore, evidence of ‘constructive’ dialogue between highest national courts and the ECtHR is emerging in contentious cases without the need for an extended advisory opinions mechanism. Rather than achieving its objectives, Protocol 16 risks exacerbating the Court’s backlog and nullifying the positive effects of advisory opinions on dialogue.