Angaben zur Quelle [Bearbeiten]
| Autor | Damian Chalmers, Christos Hadjiemmanuil, Giorgio Monti, Adam Tomkins |
| Titel | European Union Law. Text and Materials -- Updated 2008 Version |
| Verlag | Cambridge University Press |
| Jahr | 2008 |
| URL | https://books.google.de/books?id=xvAGWfi2EjwC |
Literaturverz. |
yes |
| Fußnoten | yes |
| Fragmente | 11 |
| [1.] Ama/Fragment 005 26 - Diskussion Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2017-06-04 22:07:41 WiseWoman | Ama, Chalmers et al 2006, Fragment, Gesichtet, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, Verschleierung |
|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 5, Zeilen: 26-34 |
Quelle: Chalmers et al 2006 Seite(n): 41, Zeilen: 22 ff. |
|---|---|
| The Treaty of Nice22 was mainly concerned with the minutiae of institutional reforms. It addressed the composition of the institutions. Reforms were made to the Community Judicature. It was agreed that there should be no more than one Commissioner from each Member State from 2005 onwards. The method for the allocation of seats in the European Parliament was altered. Most contentiously, the distribution of votes between national governments within the Council — for the purpose of the Qualified Majority Voting System — was recalculated and the voting rules were altered. Even within governmental confines, Nice was seen as a disappointment. The Treaties were now a confusing and incoherent mess.
22 See Treaty of Nice, signed on 26 February 2001 available on: http://www.eurotreaties.com/nicetreaty.pdf. |
The Treaty of Nice was mainly concerned with the minutiae of institutional reform. [...] Beyond this, it addressed the composition of the institutions. Reforms were made to the Community judicature. It was agreed that there should be no more than one Commissioner from each Member State from 2005 onwards. The method for allocation of seats in the European Parliament was altered. Most contentiously, the distribution of votes between national governments within the Council for the purposes of QMV was recalculated and the voting rules were altered. [...]
Even within governmental confines, Nice was seen as a disappointment. The Treaties were now a confusing and in coherent [sic] mess. |
The source is not mentioned. |
|
| [2.] Ama/Fragment 012 15 - Diskussion Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2017-06-04 22:11:32 WiseWoman | Ama, BauernOpfer, Chalmers et al 2006, Fragment, Gesichtet, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop |
|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 12, Zeilen: 15-25 |
Quelle: Chalmers et al 2006 Seite(n): 4, Zeilen: 1 ff. |
|---|---|
| [...]; following this, the term was to lie largely dormant for many centuries.
The Roman Empire and Christianity dominated the organization of political life and neither had much use for the term. Europe re-emerged as an important political idea from the eighth century onwards.44 Alongside particular religious beliefs, Europe also became associated with a particular form of political economy, namely rural trade. Increasingly, the rural town became the centre of the local economy. Trade relations between towns expanded across Europe so that, from the fifteen [sic] century onwards, trade flourished between the Italian ports in the south and Flanders in the north, in which the role of the merchant was pivotal.45 44 See Chalmers, Damian / Hadjiemmanuil, Christos / Monti, Giorgio / Tomkins, Adam, European Union Law. Text and Materials, Cambridge 2006, p. 3. 45 Ibid., p. 3. |
Following this, the term was to lie largely dormant for many centuries. The Roman Empire and Christianity dominated in the organisation of political life and neither had much use for the term. Europe re-emerged as an important political idea from the eighth century onwards. [...] Alongside particular religious beliefs, Europe also became associated with a particular form of political economy, namely that of rural trade. Increasingly, the rural town became the centre of the local economy. Trade relations between towns expanded across Europe, so that from the fifteenth century onwards, trade flourished between the Italian ports in the south and Flanders in the north, in which the role of the merchant was pivotal. |
The source is mentioned, but the extent of the copied text does not become clear to the reader. |
|
| [3.] Ama/Fragment 013 01 - Diskussion Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2017-08-16 15:04:41 PlagProf:-) | Ama, Chalmers et al 2006, Fragment, Gesichtet, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, Verschleierung |
|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 13, Zeilen: 1-19 |
Quelle: Chalmers et al 2006 Seite(n): 4, 5, 6, Zeilen: 4: 23 ff.; 5: 5 ff.; 6: 12 ff. |
|---|---|
| [The establishment of the modern nation-state consolidated power in centralized,] impersonal bureaucracies and led to certain core policies — such as tax, law and order and foreign policy — being exclusive competencies of these bureaucracies.46 This hegemony of the nation-state over political life led to Europe acquiring new associations in the eighteen [sic] and nineteen [sic] centuries.
Authors such as Rousseau and Kant saw Europe as an expression of certain ideals: be it social contract between nations, in the case of Rousseau, or as a form of perpetual peace, according to Kant. The unification of different regions within the nation-state led to its being perceived increasingly as a unitary political community. No such development occurred with regard to the idea of Europe. When independent proposals for a 'United Europe' emerged at the end of seventeen [sic] century,47 they were still firmly confederal in nature. A more far-reaching proposal was put forward by John Bellers in 1710. Bellers proposed a cantonal system based upon Swiss model. The first proposal suggesting a Europe in which the state system, within which there was a sovereign central body, came from a Frenchman, Saint-Simon, in a pamphlet published in 1814, entitled Plan for Reorganization of European Society. The role of the USA in two World Wars, the Cold War, and in the regeneration of Europe after the Second World War have heavily influenced European Identity.48 46 C. Tilli [sic], The Formation of Nation-State [sic] in Europe [sic], Princeton, NJ 1975; G. Poggi, The Development of the Modern State: A Sociological Introduction, Stanford, CA 1978; M. Mann, The Autonomous Power of the State: Its Origins, Merchants [sic] and Results, 1984 European Journal of Sociology 185; H. Spryet [sic], The Sovereign State and its Competitors: an Analysis of System [sic] Change, Princeton, NJ 1994. 47 Penn, William, An Essay towards the Present and Future of Peace of Europe, London 1693. 48 G. Delanty, Inventing Europe: Idea, Identity, Reality, Basingstoke 1995, pp. 115-155. |
The establishment of the modern nation-state consolidated power in centralised, impersonal bureaucracies and led to certain core policies, such as tax, law and order and foreign policy, being the exclusive competence of these bureaucracies.4 This hegemony of the nation-state over political life led to Europe acquiring new associations in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. [...] Authors such as Rousseau and Kant saw Europe as an expression of certain ideals: be it a social contract between nations, in the case of Rousseau, or as a form of perpetual peace, according to Kant.
[page 5] The role of the USA in two World Wars, the Cold War, and in the regeneration of Europe after the Second World War, heavily influenced European identity.6 [page 6] The unification of different regions within the nation-state led to its being perceived increasingly as a unitary political community. No such development occurred with regard to the idea of Europe. When independent proposals for a ‘united Europe' emerged at the end of the seventeenth century, they were still firmly confederal in nature. [...] A more far-reaching proposal was put forward by John Bellers in 1710. Bellers proposed a cantonal system based upon the Swiss model whereby Europe would be divided into 100 cantons, each of which would be required to contribute to a European army and send representatives to a European Senate. The first proposal suggesting a Europe in which the state system was to be replaced by a system within which there was a sovereign central body, came from the Frenchman, Saint-Simon. In a pamphlet published in 1814, entitled Plan for the Reorganisation of the European Society, Saint-Simon took a romanticised view of the Middle Ages, which he considered to have been disrupted by the religious wars. 4 C. Tilly (ed.), The Formation of Nation-States [sic] in Europe [sic] (Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 1975); G. Poggi, The Development of the Modern State: A Sociological Introduction (Stanford, CA, Stanford University Press, 1978); M. Mann, ‘The Autonomous Power of the State: its Origins, Mechanisms and Results’ (1984) 25 European Journal of Sociology 185; H. Spruyt, The Sovereign State and its Competitors: an Analysis of Systems Change (Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 1994). 6 G. Delanty, Inventing Europe: Idea, Identity, Reality (Basingstoke, Macmillan, 1995) 115-55. |
The source is not mentioned. Ama copies mistakes from the source: the correct title of the volume edited by Charles Tilly is "Formation of national States in Western Europe". Ama adds additional mistakes. |
|
| [4.] Ama/Fragment 018 25 - Diskussion Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2017-11-08 16:32:11 Schumann | Ama, BauernOpfer, Chalmers et al 2006, Fragment, Gesichtet, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop |
|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 18, Zeilen: 25-32 |
Quelle: Chalmers et al 2006 Seite(n): 25, 26, Zeilen: 25: 24 ff.; 26: 21 ff. |
|---|---|
| [...]72 These three pillars were, in principle, to constitute a single institutional framework, at the centre of which stood the first pillar, the European Community.73 The institutional balance was, however, very different. The European Parliament and the Court of Justice were only minimally associated with either the second or third pillars.74 If the EC pillar was characterized by some parliamentary and judicial controls, these were largely absent at either a national or Union level for the other pillars; instead, these were to be dominated by executive government.
72 Dominian [sic] Chalmas [sic], Christos Hadjiemmanui [sic], Giorgio Monti, Adam Tomkins, European Union Law, Cambridge 2006, p. 27. 73 See Article 3 of the TEU: "The Union shall be served by a single institutional framework; .... the Union shall in particular ensure the consistency of its external activities as a whole in the context of external relation, security, economic and development policies ...". 74 For a recent reassertion of this see Case C-160/03 Spain v Eurojust, Judgment of 15 March 2005, ECR 1-2077. |
These three pillars were, in principle, to constitute a single institutional framework, at the centre of which stands the first pillar, the European Community:
Article 3 TEU [...] [page 26] [...] The institutional balance within each pillar was, however, very different. The Parliament and the Court of Justice were only minimally associated with either the second or third pillars.71 If the EC pillar was characterised by some parliamentary and judicial controls, these were largely absent at either a national or Union level from the other pillars, and instead, these were to be dominated by executive government. 71 For a recent reassertion of this see Case C-160/03 Spain v Eurojust, judgment of 15 March 2005. |
The source is given before the copied text, but the extent of the copied text does not become clear to the reader. Note that the first author of the source is named Damian Chalmers, and the second Christos Hadjiemmanuil. |
|
| [5.] Ama/Fragment 021 11 - Diskussion Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2017-06-04 22:27:19 WiseWoman | Ama, BauernOpfer, Chalmers et al 2006, Fragment, Gesichtet, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop |
|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 21, Zeilen: 11-30 |
Quelle: Chalmers et al 2006 Seite(n): 32, Zeilen: 2 ff. |
|---|---|
| 2. Space of Freedom, Security and Justice
If the central monuments of the Single European Act and Treaty of European Union were the Internal Market and the European Monetary Union respectively, the Treaty of Amsterdam provided a similar role for the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ).95 The ASFJ was a commitment to realize, within five years of the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, an area without internal borders controls and with common external borders. This Area was to include common measures in the fields of immigration, asylum and the rights of non-EU nationals. It was also to involve judicial cooperation in civil and criminal matters and police cooperation.96 To realize the AFSJ, the Treaty of Amsterdam first integrated the Schengen Agreements into the legal framework of the TEU. These agreements, signed in 1985 and the 1990, committed all Member States — other than Ireland and United Kingdom — to realizing an area without internal border controls and with common external frontiers. A Protocol integrating the Schengen Acquis into the framework of the European Union was adopted, which made the Schengen Agreements, and the implementing decisions taken under these agreements, part of the Union law.97 The AFSJ reoriented the mission of the Union more strongly around the pursuit of certain political ideals. 95 See the Treaty of Amsterdam, available on: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/topics/treaty/pdf/amst-en.pdf last visited on 27 December 2008. 96 Dominian [sic] Chalmes [sic], Cristos Hadijemmanui [sic], Giogion [sic] Monti, Adam Tomkins, European Union Law, Cambridge 2006, p. 32. 97 Ibid, p. 32. |
(a) Area of Freedom, Security and Justice
If the central monuments of the SEA and the TEU were the internal market and EMU, respectively, then the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice occupied a similar place for the Treaty of Amsterdam.86 The Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) was a commitment to realise, within five years of the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, an area without internal border controls and with common external borders. This area was to include common measures in the fields of immigration, asylum and the rights of non-EU nationals. It was also to involve judicial cooperation in civil and criminal matters and police cooperation. To realise the AFSJ, the Treaty of Amsterdam, first, integrated the Schengen Agreements into the legal framework of the TEU. As mentioned earlier, these agreements, signed in 1985 and 1990, committed all Member States, other than Ireland and the United Kingdom, to realising an area without internal border controls and with common external frontiers. A Protocol integrating the Schengen Acquis into the framework of the European Union was adopted, which made the Schengen Agreements and the implementing decisions taken under these agreements, part of Union law. [...] Finally, the AFSJ reoriented the mission of the Union more strongly around the maintenance of certain political ideals. 86 The Area of Freedom, Security and Justice has been much modified since the Treaty of Amsterdam. Its central elements are analysed further in chapter 14. |
The source is given in footnotes 96 and 97, but the extent of the copied text does not become clear to the reader and neither does the literal character of the copying. Note that the authors of the source are named Damian Chalmers, Christos Hadjiemmanuil, Giorgio Monti, and Adam Tomkins. |
|
| [6.] Ama/Fragment 022 01 - Diskussion Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2017-11-11 13:10:53 PlagProf:-) | Ama, BauernOpfer, Chalmers et al 2006, Fragment, Gesichtet, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop |
|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 22, Zeilen: 1-3 |
Quelle: Chalmers et al 2006 Seite(n): 32, Zeilen: 30 ff. |
|---|---|
| [This was marked most strongly in] the new Article 6 of the TEU, which stated that the Union was to be founded on the 'principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law'.98
98 See the consolidated version of the Treaty on European Union, available on: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:C:2008:115:SOM:EN:HTML, last visited on 27 December 2008. |
This was marked most strongly in the new Article 6 TEU, which stated that the Union was to be founded on the ‘principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law’. |
The source is not mentioned here. It is mentioned in footnote 97 on the previous page, however. |
|
| [7.] Ama/Fragment 026 17 - Diskussion Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2017-06-04 22:32:29 WiseWoman | Ama, Chalmers et al 2006, Fragment, Gesichtet, KomplettPlagiat, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop |
|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 26, Zeilen: 17-23 |
Quelle: Chalmers et al 2006 Seite(n): 43, Zeilen: 1 ff. |
|---|---|
| The Declaration suggested two themes: First, the ideals and justification underpinning the European Union had to be, if not reconsidered, then at least brought out more clearly. There should be clear answers to the question "What is the European Union for?”. Alongside this, there would need to be considerations of wide-ranging institutional reforms, which could provide an institutional settlement that addressed these ideals and tasks more clearly. | The Declaration suggested two themes. First, the ideals and justifications underpinning the European Union had to be, if not reconsidered, then at least brought out more clearly. There should be clear answers to the question 'What is the European Union for?' Alongside this, there would need to be consideration of wide-ranging institutional reform, which could provide an institutional settlement that addressed these ideals and tasks more clearly. |
The source is not mentioned here. |
|
| [8.] Ama/Fragment 049 21 - Diskussion Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2017-11-08 21:17:09 Schumann | Ama, Chalmers et al 2006, Fragment, Gesichtet, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, Verschleierung |
|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 49, Zeilen: 21-37 |
Quelle: Chalmers et al 2006 Seite(n): 25, Zeilen: 5 ff. |
|---|---|
| Article 3 of the Treaty on European Union provides that the European Union "..is to be served by a single institutional framework which shall ensure the consistency and the continuity of the activities carried out in order to attain its objectives while respecting and building upon the "acquis communautaire". The Union shall, in particular, ensure the consistency of its external activities as a whole in the context of its external relations, security, economic and development policies. The Council and the Commission shall be responsible for ensuring such consistency and they shall ensure the implementation of these policies, each in accordance with its respective powers". The Commission and the European Parliament pressed for the European Union to be governed by a single institutional supranational structure. In two fields, a practice of intergovernmental cooperation had emerged that was to prove difficult to displace. The first was foreign policy. This intergovernmental cooperation had been institutionalised by the SEA under the title of "European Political Cooperation". All Member States, other than Belgium and the Netherlands, wanted to keep it this way and were opposed to bringing foreign and defence policy within the EC supranational framework. | The Commission and the Parliament pressed for the European Union to be governed by a single institutional, supranational structure. In two fields, a practice of intergovernmental cooperation had emerged that was to prove difficult to displace. The first was foreign policy. This intergovernmental cooperation had been institutionalised by the SEA under the title of ‘European Political Cooperation’. All Member States, other than the Belgians and the Dutch, wanted to keep it this way and were opposed to bringing foreign and defence policy within the EC supranational framework. [...]
[...] Article 3 TEU
|
The source is not mentioned. Chalmers et al mistakenly present as the wording of Art. 3 TEU what in fact is the wording of Art. C of the Treaty of Maastricht (1992). Ama copies this without noticing the different wording of Art. 3 TEU, as first contained in the Treaty of Amsterdam: |
|
| [9.] Ama/Fragment 050 01 - Diskussion Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2017-08-17 10:20:11 PlagProf:-) | Ama, Chalmers et al 2006, Fragment, Gesichtet, KomplettPlagiat, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop |
|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 50, Zeilen: 1-10 |
Quelle: Chalmers et al 2006 Seite(n): 25, Zeilen: 14 ff. |
|---|---|
| [In 1985 and 1990, two agreements were signed at Schengen, in Luxembourg, between all the Member States, excluding Ireland and the United] Kingdom.204 These conventions provided for the abolition of frontier checks between the parties and a common external frontier. To realize this, the 1990 Convention provided for intergovernmental cooperation in the fields of migration of non-EU nationals, crime and policing. Whilst many Member States wanted to see this brought within the EC framework, the British, Irish, Greeks and Danes were adamant that this was an area where the national veto should be maintained.
The Union was, therefore, to be composed of three pillars. The first is that of the European Community, the second, that of Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), and the third, Justice and Home Affairs (JHA). 204 Agreement between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders, OJ L 239, 22.9.2000, 13-18; Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders, OJ L 239, 22.9.2000, 19-62. |
In 1985 and 1990, two agreements were signed at Schengen, in Luxembourg, between all the Member States, excluding Ireland and the United Kingdom.68 These Conventions provided for the abolition of frontier checks between parties and a common external frontier. To realise this, the 1990 Convention provided for intergovernmental cooperation in the fields of migration of non-EU nationals, crime and policing. Whilst many Member States wanted to see this brought within the EC framework, the British, Irish, Greeks and Danes were adamant that this was an area where the national veto should be maintained.
The Union was, therefore, to be composed of three pillars. The first is that of the European Community, the second, that of Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and the third, Justice and Home Affairs (JHA).69 68 This is now to be found at OJ 2000, L239/19. Iceland and Norway are also associated members. 69 Allegedly, the idea was first suggested by a French negotiator, Pierre de Boissieu, and was constructed around the metaphor of a temple based on three pillars, Middlemas, above n. 39, 188. |
The source is not mentioned. |
|
| [10.] Ama/Fragment 050 17 - Diskussion Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2017-11-09 16:28:29 PlagProf:-) | Ama, Chalmers et al 2006, Fragment, Gesichtet, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, Verschleierung |
|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 50, Zeilen: 17-20, 22-25 |
Quelle: Chalmers et al 2006 Seite(n): 26, Zeilen: 5 ff. |
|---|---|
| The European Council was given a pre-eminent, coordinating role for all three pillars. Its position, as the body with ultimate political authority and the body which was responsible for visioning and coordinating all the EU activities was, for the first time formalized in Article 4 of the TEU: "The European Council shall provide the Union with the necessary impetus for its development and shall define the general political guidelines thereof." In addition, the unique position of the Member States and the commitment to respect fundamental rights was recognized as a constituent of each pillar as Article 6 (1 and 2) of the TEU which says:
["1. The Union is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law, principles which are common to the Member States. 2. The Union shall respect fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 and as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, as general principles of Community law".] |
The European Council was given a pre-eminent, coordinating role for all three pillars. Its position as the body with ultimate political authority and the body which was responsible for visioning and coordinating all EU activities was, for the first time, formalised:
Article 4 TEU The European Council shall provide the Union with the necessary impetus for its development and shall define the general political guidelines thereof. In addition, the unique position of the Member States and the commitment to respect fundamental rights was recognised as a constituent element of each pillar: Article 6(1) TEU 1. The Union shall respect the national identities of its Member States, whose systems of government are founded on the principles of democracy. 2. The Union shall respect fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 and as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, as general principles of Community law. |
The source is not mentioned. Where Chalmers et al appear to cite the wording of Art. 6 TEU as established by the Treaty of Maastricht, they mistakenly reproduce the predecessor rule in Art. E Treaty of Maastricht. Unlike in in Fragment 049 21, where Chalmers et al make a similar mistake about Art C Treaty of Maastricht / Art. 3 TEU, Ama notices and quotes the updated version. Ama fails to notice, though, that "the unique position of the Member States" (i.e. the respect for their national identities) has shifted to Art. 6 para. (3) TEU, and likewise that Art. D of the Maastricht Treaty, rather than Art. 4 TEU/Amsterdam Treaty marked when the position of the Council "was, for the first time, formalized". |
|
| [11.] Ama/Fragment 051 01 - Diskussion Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2017-08-17 10:21:13 PlagProf:-) | Ama, Chalmers et al 2006, Fragment, Gesichtet, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, Verschleierung |
|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 51, Zeilen: 1-3 |
Quelle: Chalmers et al 2006 Seite(n): 26, Zeilen: 21 ff. |
|---|---|
| The institutional balance within each pillar was, however very different. The European Parliament and the Court of Justice were only nominally associated with either the second or the third pillar. | The institutional balance within each pillar was, however, very different. The Parliament and the Court of Justice were only minimally associated with either the second or third pillars. 71
71 For a recent reassertion of this see Case C-160/03 Spain v Eurojust, judgment of 15 March 2005. |
The source is not mentioned. |
|