The main hypothesis underlying this article is that although arbitrators are not formally part of national justice systems, they have dealt with questions of EU fundamental rights and the European rule of law standards for quite some time, at least formally since the landmark CJEU judgment in Eco Swiss in 1999. In fact, in all forms of arbitration, be it national or international, taking place in or across (Member) States daily and not necessarily concerning the application by arbitrators of EU law stricto sensu, arbitrators can be seen as guardians of many crucial procedural guarantees that increase parties’ access to justice and advance the European rule of law, or so we wish to argue. This article is an exploratory piece. That is, it combines the format of the state-of-the-art review with the format of conference proceedings through which we present the main activities of the DG Justice TRIIAL project concerning arbitration. Our main goal is three-fold: (1) to advance the discussion on the relationship between the European rule of law and arbitration, (2) to present the main findings stemming from research and training activities within the TRIIAL training workshops on arbitration, and (3) to formulate future research and practical questions on the topic at hand.
MULTIFILE
The climate crisis is an urgent and complex global challenge, requiring transformative action from diverse stakeholders, including governments, civil society, and grassroots movements. Conventional top-down approaches to climate governance have proven insufficient (e.g. UNFCCC, COP events), necessitating a shift towards more inclusive and polycentric models that incorporate the perspectives and needs of diverse communities (Bliznetskaya, 2023; Dorsch & Flachsland, 2017). The independent, multidisciplinary approach of citizen-led activist groups can provide new insights and redefine challenges and opportunities for climate governance and regulation. Despite their important role in developing effective climate action, these citizen-led groups often face significant barriers to decision-making participation, including structural, practical, and legal challenges (Berry et al., 2019; Colli, 2021; Marquardt et al., 2022; Tayler & Schulte, 2019).
DOCUMENT
Climate change is now considered more than just an environmental issue, with far-reaching effects for society at large. While the exact implications of climate change for policing practice are still unknown, over the past two decades criminologists have anticipated that climate change will have a number of effects that will result in compromised safety and security. This article is informed by the outcome of a co-creation workshop with 16 practitioners and scholars of diverse backgrounds based in The Netherlands, who sought to conceptualize and systematize the existing knowledge on how climate change will most likely impact the professional practice of the Dutch (or any other) police. These challenges, with varying degrees of intensity, are observable at three main levels: the societal, organizational, and individual level. These levels cannot be separated neatly in practice but we use them as a structuring device, and to illustrate how dynamics on one level impact the others. This article aims to establish the precepts necessary to consider when exploring the intersection between climate change and policing. We conclude that much still needs to be done to ensure that the implications of climate change and the subject of policing are better aligned, and that climate change is recognized as an immediate challenge experienced on the ground and not treated as a distant, intangible phenomenon with possible future impacts. This starts with creating awareness about the possible ways in which it is already impacting the functioning of policing organizations, as well as their longer-term repercussions.
MULTIFILE
