Mutual recognition is generally forgotten in debates about new modes of governance, even though it is a particular powerful example. Its invention was crucial for the completion of the European Union’s single market, and in the late 1990s it was transferred to the field of Justice and Home Affairs. Outside of the EU, mutual recognition is also gaining in importance. This book discusses mutual recognition in the context of the debate on new modes of governance and analyzes its potential to solve governance problems, focusing on the preconditions it needs for its functioning (e.g. trust of the Member states), the positive implications of achieving coordination through it, as well as its negative side effects (e.g. the danger of a regulatory race to the bottom). Particular focus is on the contentious services directive as a prominent example of using mutual recognition. In addition, contributions look at the application of mutual recognition in the market for goods, in the area of Justice and Home Affairs, in tax policy, and in the World Trade Organization, so that the book achieves a comprehensive assessment of mutual recognition as a new mode of governance. This book was previously published as special issue of the Journal of European Public Policy.

Based on the research of the EU-6th framework funded research consortium on 'New Modes of Governance in the European Union', this volume explores the roots, execution and applications of new forms of governance and evaluates their success.

Do the traditional tools of governance make sense in the decidedly nontraditional political entity that is the European Union? Or are the realities of the unique EU system generating new, and sometimes eclectic approaches to policymaking? This book responds to these questions, and explores the development of governance approaches in policy areas.

Although there is a vast body of literature covering the ongoing debates concerning the novelty and gravity of the contemporary terrorist threat, as well as the most appropriate response to it, few authors have thus far analysed the complex set of counterterrorism measures that both the individual Member States and the European Union (EU) have attempted to develop. This volume offers a critical analysis of the measures the European Union has taken to combat terrorism and how, in a number of key areas, EU counterterrorism policy is more of a paper tiger than an effective counterterrorism device. Several legal EU counterterrorism instruments have not been properly implemented at the national level and questions have been raised regarding their effectiveness, appropriateness, and proportionality. The capabilities of EU agencies in the area of counterterrorism remain rather weak and the EU Counterterrorism Coordinator does not have any real powers apart from persuasion. However, this does not mean that EU level action cannot offer any value-added in the fight against terrorism. There are several areas where the EU can provide genuine value-added in the fight against terrorism due to the transnational nature of the contemporary terrorist threat and the nature of a borderless Europe.

This volume considers how different jurisdictions are integrated economically whilst at the same time maintaining regulatory pluralism and diversity.

This book explores the relationship of mutual trust and fundamental rights in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) of the European Union and asks whether there is any role for proportionality. Mutual trust among Member States has long been presumed by the Court in a manner that mutual recognition was prioritised in regard to, but to the detriment of, the protection of fundamental rights. After thoroughly reviewing this relationship, this book offers a comprehensive framework of proportionality and explores its impact on the protection of fundamental rights in a mutual trust environment. It applies a theoretical and a normative framework of proportionality to two case studies (EU criminal and asylum law) by reference to several fundamental rights, enabling a carefully constructed analysis with useful parallels. The book argues that such analysis, based on proportionality, is not always desirable and helpful for the protection of fundamental rights in this area and thoroughly explores its impact on the protection of fundamental rights vis-à-vis mutual trust.