School of Law

The priority given to the development of research skills during doctrinal legal education often neglects the importance of equipping PhD students with the pedagogical skills necessary to fulfill their important educational role as academics. Thus, in many instances there is a significant gap in the requisite skill base that PhD students acquire when they complete their doctrinal education. This paper outlines a first step that has been taken to address this deficiency in postgraduate legal education in Ireland. The PhD community of the University College Dublin (UCD) School of Law convened an internal Syllabus Design Workshop in April 2010 in order to provide doctrinal students with an opportunity to design a university module and to explore the issues which arise in undertaking such an exercise. The first part of this paper outlines how the workshop was conceived and convened, and provides an account of the considerations that each student had to take into account in the design of a syllabus. From here, we address the content of the workshop and reflect upon some of the important issues which were
raised. Finally, we offer a number of recommendations in relation to the development of doctrinal students as future educators. By highlighting the importance of uniting research and teaching, it is hoped that this paper will contribute to postgraduate legal education in Ireland,and also internationally.

In the midst of the European Union (EU) genetically modified organisms (GMOs) regime, coexistence of GM and non-GM crops alongside each other remains technically within the competence of the Member States. Post EU authorization of a GM crop, Member States may legally take appropriate measures to limit or prevent the presence of GMOs within non-GM crops. In July 2010, as part of a Cultivation Package, the Commission created a new Coexistence Recommendation that supports a flexible approach to more stringent coexistence measures by the States, while attempting to maintain control over the legitimate objectives justifying the measures. This article analyzes the impact of the 2010 Recommendation upon coexistence in the context of the existing practices and the previous 2003 Recommendation, taking into account its status as a soft law document and the ‘domino effect’. It is argued that the 2010 Recommendation may have greater practical and legal ramifications for coexistence than might first be thought. In attempting to create guidelines that allow a more flexible and inclusive approach towards national measures, the 2010 Recommendation may act as a catalyst to eventually exclude GM cultivation within Member States.

Debate persists within the European Union (EU) regarding the balance of power between the EU and its Member States, reflected in intertwined issues such as sovereignty, Kompetenz-Kompetenz, direct effect, and primacy. A significant tool for Member States is Article 4(2) TEU, which requires that the EU respect the national identities of the Member States. The Lisbon Treaty developed the status and content of Article 4(2) TEU, with the result that this provision may enable Member States to reassert an element of sovereignty and to evade the absolute control of the principle of primacy. Although seemingly limited in application due to the wording of the provision, there is significant potential for Member States to develop their national identities further and, thereby, to exploit Article 4(2) TEU, as exemplified by the French Charte de l’Environnement. This potential raises significant challenges for the EU, which it will need to address if it wishes to ensure harmonization and uniformity in the relevant areas.

The question of whether and to what extent sovereignty has been transferred to the European Union (EU) from its Member States remains a central debate within the EU and is interlinked with issues such as Kompetenz-Kompetenz, direct effect, and primacy. Central to any claim to sovereignty is the principle of primacy, which requires that Member States uphold EU law over national law where there is a conflict. However, limitations to primacy can traditionally be found in national jurisprudence and the Maastricht Treaty introduced a possible EU limitation with the requirement that the EU respect the national identities of Member States. The Lisbon Treaty provided only minimal further support to the principle of primacy whilst simultaneously developing the provision on national identities, now found within Article 4(2) of the Treaty of European Union (TEU). There are indications from the literature, national constitutional courts, and the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) that the provision is gathering strength as a legal tool and is likely to have a wider scope than the text might indicate. In its new role, Article 4(2) TEU bolsters the Member States’ claim to sovereignty and the possibility to uphold aspects crucial to them in conflict with EU law and the principle of primacy. Consequently, it is central to the relationship between the constitutional courts of the Member States and the CJEU, and where the final elements of control remain in ‘hard cases’. However, it does so as part of EU law, thereby facilitating the evasion of direct fundamental conflicts and reflecting the concept of constitutional pluralism.

EU Member States face a quandary: after decades of demanding powers to choose whether or not to cultivate GM crops, the EU has returned some limited but significant powers to them. A directive permits Member States to “opt-out” from GM cultivation, provided that they meet relevant criteria. Member States need to decide urgently and carefully whether and how to restrict GM crops, as the permeable nature of the environment facilitates the spread of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) once cultivated. One consideration is agri-sustainability. In principle, GM crops could promote agri-sustainability, including through increasing agrobiodiversity, as they facilitate introducing new traits or species into an ecosystem. However, the nature of their modifications allows for the applicability of patenting law, which enables the legal “enclosure” of the crops’ genetic make-up. This impacts negatively upon the long-term availability of plant genetic resources and agrobiodiversity, as farmers and other breeders operate in a context where accidental cultivation of patented material can still attract liability. This article argues that legal enclosure could justify imposing restrictions on GM cultivation in order to conserve agrobiodiversity as an exhaustible natural resource essential to agri-sustainability. To improve the likelihood of restrictions being upheld legally at both the EU and WTO level, such justifications must be distinguished clearly from any broader environmental concerns, as both the EU and WTO impose stringent restrictions where environmental objectives are raised.

The cultivation of genetically modified (GM) crops in the European Union (EU) is highly harmonised, but with persisting conflicts over authority. The European Commission responded to internal and external pressures with a more flexible approach to coexistence, a proposed opt-out clause, and a promise to review the existing EU GM regime, providing an opportunity to consider and suggest paths of development. This article considers the post-authorisation policy-making powers of Member States and subnational regions, in light of subsidiarity-based multilevel governance. It considers the different approaches to risk-centred issues and more general policy choices. Overall, the developments occurring at the EU level are strengthening subsidiarity-based multilevel governance within the GM cultivation regime, but with significant opportunities to improve it further through focussing particularly on the complementary powers, coordination and the regional levels.

EU Member States face a quandary: after decades of demanding powers to choose whether or not to cultivate GM crops, the EU has returned some limited but significant powers to them. A directive permits Member States to “opt-out” from GM cultivation, provided that they meet relevant criteria. Member States need to decide urgently and carefully whether and how to restrict GM crops, as the permeable nature of the environment facilitates the spread of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) once cultivated. One consideration is agri-sustainability. In principle, GM crops could promote agri-sustainability, including through increasing agrobiodiversity, as they facilitate introducing new traits or species into an ecosystem. However, the nature of their modifications allows for the applicability of patenting law, which enables the legal “enclosure” of the crops’ genetic make-up. This impacts negatively upon the long-term availability of plant genetic resources and agrobiodiversity, as farmers and other breeders operate in a context where accidental cultivation of patented material can still attract liability. This article argues that legal enclosure could justify imposing restrictions on GM cultivation in order to conserve agrobiodiversity as an exhaustible natural resource essential to agri-sustainability. To improve the likelihood of restrictions being upheld legally at both the EU and WTO level, such justifications must be distinguished clearly from any broader environmental concerns, as both the EU and WTO impose stringent restrictions where environmental objectives are raised.

Environmental governance in Northern Ireland has been highly problematic and the subject of intense criticism. Since the collapse of the devolved government in January 2017, environmental policy development and urgently needed processes of environmental governance reform have stagnated. Combined with the continuing uncertainty surrounding Brexit, this situation has the potential to exacerbate an already challenging governance context and the severe environmental consequences of political inaction are already becoming clear. This article will reflect on how future environmental governance arrangements in Northern Ireland might develop in light of both distinctive local challenges and reforms that have been proposed for other parts of the UK post-Brexit. Its central theme is the potential for the distinctive environmental governance vulnerabilities present in Northern Ireland to be compounded by Brexit. It concludes that a process of reform centred on the development of common framewo...

The European Green Deal (EGD) is an ambitious strategy. However, significant events, incidents, and demands, from democratic backsliding in the EU to the Covid-19 pandemic, are causing the ground to shift underfoot. These events go beyond ordinary changes or even individual crises, cumulatively fuelling a “new normal” of turbulence for the EU, encompassing rapid, unpredictable changes. This turbulence can help and hinder policy design and implementation, requiring policy actors to think outside the box and beyond the status quo. This article investigates how the European Commission and other key actors can engage effectively with turbulence to ensure the successful delivery and implementation of the EGD. The first half of the article strengthens and adapts turbulent governance literature (Ansell & Trondal, 2018). It delineates how turbulence differs from crisis; expands the forms of turbulence to include horizontal scalar and policy turbulence, as well as its transversal attribute; ...

This evidence is written by Dr Ludivine Petetin from Cardiff University and Dr Mary Dobbs, from Queen’s University Belfast. Both Ludivine Petetin and Mary Dobbs are Lecturers in Law with expertise in agri-environmental issues who have been engaging with stakeholders in Wales and Northern Ireland respectively on the impact of Brexit. They are currently writing a book on Brexit and Agriculture.