Assessing mutual trust among EU members: evidence from the European Arrest Warrant

References

• Advocaten voor de Wereld v. Leden van de Ministerraad, Case C-303/05, judgment of the European Court of Justice, May 3, 2007. Available at http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&num=C-303/05
   Google Scholar
• Alegre, S. and Leaf, M. (2004) ‘Mutual recognition in judicial cooperation: a step too far too soon? Case study – the European Arrest Warrant’, European Law Journal 10(2): 200–17.
   Google Scholar
• Andreas, P. and Nadelmann, E. (2006) Policing the Globe: Criminalization and Crime Control in International Relations, New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Aranyosi and Caldararu, Joined Cases C-404/15 & C-659/15 PPU, judgment of the European Court of Justice, April 5, 2016. Available at http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=175547&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=398222
   Google Scholar
• Carrera, S., Guild, E. and Hernanz, N. (2013) ‘Europe’s most wanted? Recalibrating trust in the European Arrest Warrant System’, CEPS paper no. 55. March.
   Google Scholar
• Cingranelli, D.L., Richards, D.L. and Clay, K.C. (2014) The CIRI Human Rights Dataset. Available at http://www.humanrightsdata.com/Version 2014.04.14.
   Google Scholar
• C. K. v. Slovenia, Case C-578/16 PPU, judgment of the European Court of Justice, February 16, 2017. Available at http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=187916&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1022022
   Google Scholar
• Coles, A. (2009) ‘Extradition without Justice’, The Guardian, 16 July.
   Google Scholar
• Dugard, J. and Van den Wyngaert, C. (1998) ‘Reconciling extradition with human rights’, American Journal of International Law 92(2): 187–212.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dyer, J.H. and Chu, W. (2003). ‘The role of trustworthiness in reducing transaction costs and improving performance: empirical evidence from the United States, Japan, and Korea’, Organization Science 14(1): 57–68.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dzankic, J. (2015) ‘The unbearable lightness of Europeanization: extradition policies and the erosion of sovereignty in the post-Yugoslav states’, European Politics and Society 16(3): 347–62.
   Google Scholar
• Eddy, M. and Minder, R. (2018) ‘Puigdemont cannot be extradited on rebellion charge, German court rules’, New York Times, 5 April.
   Google Scholar
• Efrat, A. (2015) ‘Do human rights violations hinder counterterrorism cooperation? Evidence from the FBI’s deployment abroad’, Review of International Organizations 10(3): 329–49.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Efrat, A. and Newman, A.L. (2016) ‘Deciding to defer: the importance of fairness in resolving transnational jurisdictional conflicts’, International Organization 70(2): 409–41.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Efrat, A. and Newman, A.L. (2017) ‘Divulging data: domestic determinants of international information sharing’, Review of International Organizations, June, 1–25. doi:10.1007/s11558-017-9284-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Commission (2011) Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council On the implementation since 2007 of the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States. 11 April.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission (2013a) Assises de la Justice. Discussion Paper 2: EU Criminal Law.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission (2013b) Building Trust in Justice Systems in Europe: ‘Assises de la Justice’ forum to shape the future of EU Justice Policy. 21 November. Press release.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission (2013c) Justice in the EU. Flash Eurobarometer 385. November.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission (2014a) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council: A New EU Framework to Strengthen the Rule of Law. 19 March.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission (2014b) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. The EU Justice Agenda for 2020 - Strengthening Trust, Mobility and Growth within the Union. 11 March.
   Google Scholar
• European Parliament (2014a) European Arrest Warrant (EAW). Infographic, 23 June. Available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/EPRS/140803REV1-European-Arrest-Warrant-FINAL.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• European Parliament (2014b) Revising the European Arrest Warrant. European Added Value Assessment EAVA 6/2013.
   Google Scholar
• Fichera, M. (2009a) ‘The European Arrest Warrant and the Sovereign State: a marriage of convenience?’, European Law Journal 15(1): 70–97.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fichera, M. (2009b) ‘The implementation of the European Arrest Warrant in the European Union: policy and practice’, PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh.
   Google Scholar
• Gartzke, E. and Weisiger, A. (2013) ‘Fading friendships: Alliances, affinities and the activation of international identities’, British Journal of Political Science 43(1): 25–52.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gelter, M. and Siems, M.M. (2014) ‘Citations to foreign courts—illegitimate and superfluous, or unavoidable? Evidence from Europe’, American Journal of Comparative Law 62(1): 35–85.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibney, M., Cornett, L., Wood, R., Haschke, P., and Arnon, D. (2016) The political terror scale, 1976–2015. Data Retrieved from the Political Terror Scale website: http://www.politicalterrorscale.org.
   Google Scholar
• House of Lords. Committee on Extradition Law (2015) Oral and written evidence. Available at https://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-committees/extradition-law/SELECT%20COMMITTEE%20ON%20EXTRADITION%20LAW.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• House of Lords and House of Commons. Joint Committee on Human Rights (2011a) The Human Rights Implications of UK Extradition Policy, London: The Stationary Office.
   Google Scholar
• House of Lords and House of Commons. Joint Committee on Human Rights (2011b) The Human Rights Implications of UK Extradition Policy: Written Evidence. Available at http://www.parliament.uk/documents/joint-committees/human-rights/JCHR_EXT_Written_Evidence_11.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Kelley, J.G. and Simmons, B.A. (2015) ‘Politics by number: indicators as social pressure in international relations’, American Journal of Political Science 59(1): 55–70.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klimek, L. (2015) European Arrest Warrant, Cham: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Law, D.S. (2015) ‘Judicial comparativism and judicial diplomacy’, University of Pennsylvania Law Review 163: 927–1036.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leeds, B.A. (1999) ‘Domestic political institutions, credible commitments, and international cooperation’, American Journal of Political Science 43(4): 979–1002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lenaerts, K. (2017) ‘La Vie Après L’avis: exploring the principle of mutual (yet no blind) trust’, Common Market Law Review 54(3): 805–40.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayoral, J.A. (2017) ‘In the CJEU judges trust: a new approach in the judicial construction of Europe’, JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 55(3): 551–68.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitchell, S.M. and Powell, E.J. (2011). Domestic Law Goes Global: Legal Traditions and International Courts, New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Opinion 2/13 of the European Court of Justice, December 18, 2014, available at http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-2/13
   Google Scholar
• Ostropolski, T. (2015) ‘CJEU as a defender of mutual trust’, New Journal of European Criminal Law 6(2): 166–78.
   Google Scholar
• Plachta, M. (1999) ‘(Non-)extradition of criminals: a never ending story?’ Emory International Law Review 13: 77–159.
   Google Scholar
• Robst, J., Polachek, S. and Chang, Y-C. (2007) ‘Geographic proximity, trade, and international conflict/cooperation’, Conflict Management and Peace Science 24(1): 1–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sadoff, D.A. (2016) Bringing International Fugitives to Justice: Extradition and Its Alternatives, New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sievers, J. (2007) ‘Managing diversity: the European Arrest Warrant and the potential of mutual recognition as a mode of governance in EU justice and home affairs’, available at http://aei.pitt.edu/8036/1/sievers-j-08i.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Sievers, J. and Schmidt, S.K. (2015) ‘Squaring the circle with mutual recognition? Demoi-cratic governance in practice’, Journal of European Public Policy 22(1): 112–28.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slaughter, A-M. (2000) ‘Judicial globalization’, Virginia Journal of International Law 40: 1103–24.
   Google Scholar
• Slaughter, A-M. (2003) ‘A global community of courts’, Harvard International Law Journal 40(1): 191–219.
   Google Scholar
• Vernimmen-Van Tiggelen, G. and Surano, L. (2008). ‘Analysis of the future of mutual recognition in criminal matters in the European Union’, Institute for European Studies, Université Libre de Bruxelles.
   Google Scholar
• Willems, A. (2016) ‘Mutual trust as a term of art in EU criminal law: revealing its hybrid character’, European Journal of Legal Studies 9(1): 211–49.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zaheer, A., McEvily B. and Perrone, V. (1998) ‘Does trust matter? Exploring the effects of interorganizational and interpersonal trust on performance’, Organization Science 9(2): 141–59.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar