By the same authors

From the same journal

The trilemma of EU social benefits law: Seeing the wood and the trees

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Standard

The trilemma of EU social benefits law : Seeing the wood and the trees. / Rennuy, Nicolas.

In: Common Market Law Review, Vol. 56, No. 6, 27.11.2019, p. 1549–1590.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Harvard

Rennuy, N 2019, 'The trilemma of EU social benefits law: Seeing the wood and the trees', Common Market Law Review, vol. 56, no. 6, pp. 1549–1590. <http://www.kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=COLA2019125>

APA

Rennuy, N. (2019). The trilemma of EU social benefits law: Seeing the wood and the trees. Common Market Law Review, 56(6), 1549–1590. http://www.kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=COLA2019125

Vancouver

Rennuy N. The trilemma of EU social benefits law: Seeing the wood and the trees. Common Market Law Review. 2019 Nov 27;56(6):1549–1590.

Author

Rennuy, Nicolas. / The trilemma of EU social benefits law : Seeing the wood and the trees. In: Common Market Law Review. 2019 ; Vol. 56, No. 6. pp. 1549–1590.

Bibtex - Download

@article{9afb59a5d6cf4d4890eed946e11277a7,
title = "The trilemma of EU social benefits law: Seeing the wood and the trees",
abstract = "It is often suggested that migrants{\textquoteright} access to social protection should depend on their integration. The article explores the fraught relationship between that idea and two other values, namely guaranteeing continuous social protection to migrants and avoiding the disharmonies that result from the involvement of several, maladjusted legal orders. Each of these three values tells us something about what EU social benefits law does, why certain choices were made, and how judicious they are. All regulatory tools for coordinating the cross-border access to social benefits can serve two values, but not three. Rule-makers thus face a trilemma, in that they must sacrifice one value to achieve the others.",
keywords = "social protection, Integration, Transnational solidarity, Nationality discrimination, Dano, Waiting periods, social welfare, EU social security law, free movement of persons, EU citizenship, conflict rules",
author = "Nicolas Rennuy",
note = "{\textcopyright} 2019 Kluwer Law International. Printed in the United Kingdom. This is an author-produced version of the published paper. Uploaded in accordance with the publisher{\textquoteright}s self-archiving policy. Further copying may not be permitted; contact the publisher for details.",
year = "2019",
month = nov,
day = "27",
language = "English",
volume = "56",
pages = "1549–1590",
journal = "Common Market Law Review",
issn = "0165-0750",
publisher = "Kluwer Law International",
number = "6",

}

RIS (suitable for import to EndNote) - Download

TY - JOUR

T1 - The trilemma of EU social benefits law

T2 - Seeing the wood and the trees

AU - Rennuy, Nicolas

N1 - © 2019 Kluwer Law International. Printed in the United Kingdom. This is an author-produced version of the published paper. Uploaded in accordance with the publisher’s self-archiving policy. Further copying may not be permitted; contact the publisher for details.

PY - 2019/11/27

Y1 - 2019/11/27

N2 - It is often suggested that migrants’ access to social protection should depend on their integration. The article explores the fraught relationship between that idea and two other values, namely guaranteeing continuous social protection to migrants and avoiding the disharmonies that result from the involvement of several, maladjusted legal orders. Each of these three values tells us something about what EU social benefits law does, why certain choices were made, and how judicious they are. All regulatory tools for coordinating the cross-border access to social benefits can serve two values, but not three. Rule-makers thus face a trilemma, in that they must sacrifice one value to achieve the others.

AB - It is often suggested that migrants’ access to social protection should depend on their integration. The article explores the fraught relationship between that idea and two other values, namely guaranteeing continuous social protection to migrants and avoiding the disharmonies that result from the involvement of several, maladjusted legal orders. Each of these three values tells us something about what EU social benefits law does, why certain choices were made, and how judicious they are. All regulatory tools for coordinating the cross-border access to social benefits can serve two values, but not three. Rule-makers thus face a trilemma, in that they must sacrifice one value to achieve the others.

KW - social protection

KW - Integration

KW - Transnational solidarity

KW - Nationality discrimination

KW - Dano

KW - Waiting periods

KW - social welfare

KW - EU social security law

KW - free movement of persons

KW - EU citizenship

KW - conflict rules

M3 - Article

VL - 56

SP - 1549

EP - 1590

JO - Common Market Law Review

JF - Common Market Law Review

SN - 0165-0750

IS - 6

ER -