Union Citizenship - metaphor or source of rights Essay

Union Citizenship - metaphor or source of rights - Essay Example Union Citizenship - metaphor or source of rights? The present EU law does not define whether the citizenship of EU will cover those non-citizen individuals who are residing in a Member States for long years. In Rudy case, the concept of citizenship to offer rights for free movement, the Court of Justice has been reluctant to confer â€Å"quasi-citizenship† rights to nationals of third countries who are residing in the Union for many years. Thus, the law relating to EU citizenship seems to be in the infancy stage where a lot of reform has to be undertaken to plug the existing loophole that is found in the present EU citizenship rules and to make the EU as a whole as a borderless territory. Reich is of the opinion that the phrase â€Å"EU citizenship â€Å" has not been defined exactly and due to this , there are flooding of case laws as regards to free movement and social rights for non-citizens living in EU for many years. Reich is of the view that citizenship can be defined as â€Å"full membership of the community â€Å"which offers a package of rights, which consists of social, civic and political rights. Reich is more concerned about the rights of third nationals who are residing in the EU Member States for long years. He is of the view that EU citizenship should not be decided merely on the citizenship of Member States but also should include those who are residing in a Member States for many years. Reich insi sts that there should not be any non-discrimination for granting citizenship to those who residing in a Member State for many years as compared to those who are having natural citizenship. Reich is of the view that citizenship should be awarded both on the status path and on the rights path. Reich prefers that union citizenship as a simile with some valued added to it. Reich cites the verdict in Micheletti case, where EU citizenship is derived from the condition of nationality. The EU has no authority to grant citizenship as an outcome of nationality. The citizenship in the EU Member State has to be recognised Union-wide even where an individual who had a dual citizenship as held in Micheletti case As per Reich, for contrasting between the duties and rights of Member States’ nationals in the European Union, nationality should not be considered as a criterion unless there exists some particular variety of cross-border disputes that inflicts different norms. In concluding part, Reich is of the opinion that the question – Union Citizenship – Whether Metaphor or source of Rights – can be found to be positive only to a restricted degree. Reich is of the opinion that citizenship seems to be like a baby in a cradle who is in deep sleep who has to be awakened by a gentle kiss by the direct impact of community law. 2.How has the law relating to Union Citizenship developed since the publication of the article in 2001? ( 900 words) As per Siofra O’ Leary, there is a failure to make an obvious connection between ambit and operation of the community citizenship with that of fundamental rights of EU citizen. EU citizenship offers the following rights; right of unrestricted movement , right to stand for election both for municipal and EU parliament , the right to petition , the right of consular and diplomatic protection , the right of petition and safeguard by the Ombudsman of the European Parliament. However, EU citizenship is not essenti al for enjoying certain rights for those who reside in EU Member States like directives on consumer, worker, environmental protection and data. The same will hold true in the case of both European and International conventions either on the aspect of conflict of laws or on jurisdictions. Thus,

Choose the tittle depending on the option you pick Essay

Choose the tittle depending on the option you pick - Essay Example Locke has insisted greatly on human beings having equaled rights towards land available based on type and amount of labor that they can invest in such property. Provided this notion, retail developers of today’s economy have better probability of having property rights to land development in South Florida (Section 28). However, before reaching to the conclusion, it is important to analyze the repercussions of excessive land development in this region. Also, it is significant to identify if Locke is a supporter of capitalism or not. Furthermore, whether private ownership principles defined by Locke give rise to morally just or contentious behavior in private owners over private ownership of land is another question that needs to be answered in the light of Locke’s principles. Real estate industry in South Florida has shown robust development in the times of economic booms in late 1920s and in 2000s. Thousands of acres were acquired by real estate developers to build cond os, apartments and artificial office parks etc which were greatly overpriced due to high demand. Due to such transformation in real estate market, other peripheral industries i.e. rented property, railway services etc, suffered. The same land had different utilities for different segments of consumers i.e. necessity for a working force and leisure for occasional hotel visitors. After the economic collapse in 2008, there were thousands of acres available with no buyer for over-priced property (Lunsford n.p). Furthermore, similar development also caused damage to local fauna and flora by causing harm to local wetlands, water reservoirs and natural life diversity (McPherson and Halley 41). This outlook of South Florida’s local industry in the light of Locke’s principles cannot justify if the development always provide rational results. It can be seen that excessive demand of property has increased the price of real estate property whereas its utility cannot be justified a ccordingly. Since land is given to the mankind freely having equal rights of property, money in any form cannot equate with the value of such property since money i.e. currency, gold and silver have relatively less utility than the land. Therefore, users of money in free economy do not really add much value to the land gifted by nature. Furthermore, after the economic boom in 2000s, much of the land is owned by builders and realtors whereas this land is sitting idle due to low buying power of consumer and not providing any benefit to the common man. Such state also contradicts with Locke’s rule of no wastage. Locke proposes ‘no spoil or destroy’ policy which supports the idea of better property appropriation. Hence, those who can make better use of the property should have access to it which gives full property rights to today’s realtors. However, Locke also insisted that one must not take part in an activity that causes harm to other’s interest. Ex cessive land development deprives local residents of their right to own land due to superficially high prices and damage to local environment hence, also affecting natural ecological environment. Furthermore, Locke’s condition of equal opportunity to appropriate land also negates excessive land development. Since present real estate development encourages development of expensive property which gives preference to more affluent segment, it serves rich more than a middle class or lower segment. Locke