Dra. Teresa Freixes
Teresa Freixes, Jean Monnet Chair ad personam, President of the international organisation Citizens pro Europe, Vice-President of the civic platform Sociedad Civil Catalana, and Numerary Member and Vice-President of the Board of Governors of the Royal European Academy of Doctors (READ), reflects on current Spanish and international political affairs in the articles “What Is Happening with Competence in Migration Matters?”, “Informal Meetings”, “Law and Decree in Immigration Matters”, “Responsibility to Protect Iran” and “And the Protection of Those Trapped in the Middle East Conflict?”, published between 17 February and 8 March on the specialised portal Artículo 14 and the digital newspaper The Objective. Freixes also participates, together with fellow READ academic Javier Cremades, President of the World Jurist Association and founder of Cremades & Calvo-Sotelo Abogados, in a new edition of the World Young Jurist programme, a series of academic sessions and meetings with leaders committed to the rule of law, aimed at students and young legal professionals.
In “What Is Happening with Competence in Migration Matters?” the expert addresses the negotiations between the Government of Spain and the Catalan authorities to transfer powers over immigration, which the Constitution defines as exclusive to the State. “They still seem to believe that political agreements of any kind are sufficient to transform them into substantive realities. Faithful to the fallacy that politics stands above the law, they are unable to distinguish between what they can legally and legitimately do and what is impossible due to its incompatibility with the existing regulatory framework, both national and European. Beyond the fact that regularising the situation of individuals who have been residing in a Member State for some time is a competence of each State, it must be noted that any such decision must also comply with European regulations, especially since any mass regularisation in one country grants access to the entire Schengen area,” she argues.
In “Informal Meetings,” Freixes criticises the growing trend of political negotiations conducted outside institutional frameworks and official forums, where matters of public interest are often decided beforehand and later merely ratified. “We are increasingly aware of situations in which decisions are taken outside institutions, in informal meetings attended by unknown participants whose competence is unclear, and without clarity regarding the effects of what is discussed or agreed. Sometimes, even fundamental issues concerning the functioning of the autonomous State have been decided abroad, involving individuals who themselves are subject to judicial proceedings. At the European Union level, this also occurs when those who will be bound by such decisions are excluded from deliberation, allowing a few—or many—to predefine what should be debated and decided collectively,” she maintains.
In “Law and Decree in Immigration Matters,” the academic analyses the controversial regularisation of immigrants undertaken by the Government of Pedro Sánchez through decree. “It is not that exceptional regularisations cannot be carried out by Spanish authorities—they can, provided they comply with both European and Spanish law, especially when regulated by decree. We know that the current Government avoids Parliament and resorts to decree to evade democratic oversight by deputies and senators. However, this does not exempt it from respecting the hierarchy of norms and returning to the logic of the constitutional legal system. If it does not do so, it cannot establish shortcuts that may be challenged before the courts, as could occur in this case before the Supreme Court. The legal certainty inherent to democratic systems also requires a degree of predictability, which in this case does not convey a fumus boni iuris or appearance of good law, but rather the opposite,” she argues.
Photograph by Jolanda Flubacher / World Economic Forum (Flickr), under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 licence
The READ Vice-President turns her attention to international politics in “Responsibility to Protect Iran,” where she recalls a personal experience: in 2015 she facilitated the visit to Barcelona of a group of Iranian students recently graduated in Social Sciences and Humanities, who presented their final research projects before an international panel. From this starting point, she examines the limits of International Law. “What has become of them in recent months? Are they supporting the ayatollahs or the opposition? Have they retained their lives or their freedom, or have they lost them at the hands of repressive forces? There is talk of tens of thousands of deaths and an incalculable number of detainees, tortured or abducted… The massacre endured by Iranian civil society, especially its women, has repeatedly led me to ask these questions,” she reflects.
Finally, in “And the Protection of Those Trapped in the Middle East Conflict?” Freixes addresses the ongoing war in the region and questions the role of the European Union regarding its citizens affected as collateral victims. “It is difficult to understand the lack of information about what the EU is actually doing in this context. It may be acting, but we do not know, and this lack of transparency contributes nothing positive. Accustomed as we are to narratives shaped by particular interests, we may be deliberately misinformed at a crucial moment—the most critical since the EU acquired competencies in foreign and defence policy. Or perhaps no one is capable of rising to the occasion. The EU has precise instruments at its disposal, and it is difficult to understand why they are not better utilised, either by European institutions or by Member States such as ours, which have not even requested the activation of emergency mechanisms to protect their own citizens. Nor is it understandable why Spain is unable to coordinate with the consular representations of other Member States to ensure the consular protection to which all Europeans are entitled,” she concludes.
