To date, Article 2 TEU has mainly been construed as a negative obligation to refrain from violating the values enshrined therein. In light of the Repubblika case law, which established a duty to prevent any regression in the protection of Article 2 TEU values, this paper considers whether Article 2 TEU can be construed in such a way as to bring about a positive obligation on the part of the Member States to take preventive action to safeguard the EU’s foundational values and thus prevent (or at least mitigate the risk of) violations of those values. We first consider the doctrinal and normative bases for such an obligation. We then argue that such an obligation arises whenever Article 2 TEU values are presently under threat (or when a threat is imminent), and when such a threat is sufficiently grave or systemic. We believe that an interpretation of Article 2 TEU that requires Member States to act, at source, to prevent national actors from committing violations of EU values, contributes to enhancing constitutional resilience in the EU. Consequently, we propose a novel legal approach that could, under certain circumstances, better equip the EU to address future threats to Article 2 TEU.

The scope of protection of the environment in relation to armed conflict has continued to expand since the issue was first introduced on the international agenda in the 1970s. Today, it is recognized that the environment is a prima facie civilian object and as such it is entitled to the same layers of protection during an armed conflict as any civilian person or object. Thus, there is a legal obligation to prevent environmental harm in armed conflict, before the event. Given the magnitude of environmental damage that can be anticipated in relation to armed conflict, the obligation to prevent such damage in the first place is critical. In this regard, it is important to note that the legal obligation to prevent environmental harm originates from international environmental law. Furthermore, the obligation to prevent harm is an ongoing obligation. This article illustrates that the general preventive obligations found in international environmental law can shed much-needed light on the general preventive obligations already established under the law of armed conflict, in furtherance of environmental protection.