Suchergebnisse

In the context of inter-institutional litigation concerning the legal basis of the European Union acts which have a constitutional significance, cases which call into question the dividing line between the external action of the European Union in areas covered by the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the Common Foreign and Security Policy enshrined in the Treaty on European Union have become increasingly important following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. The two cases under review constitute a new stage in the dispute between the European Commission and the Council of the European Union concerning the appropriate legal bases for the conclusion and implementation of the "new generation" partnership agreements. In both cases, the Court of Justice of the European Union was called upon for the first time to rule on the demarcation between the competences falling within the Common Foreign and Security Policy and the competences falling within the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in the context of the implementation of one of these agreements, specifically with regard to the adoption of a decision under Article 218(9) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, by which the Council establishes the European Union's position within the body set up pursuant to that agreement. The Court of Justice of the European Union therefore had to rule whether the position taken by the European Union with regard to decisions taken in an international body is to be determined by the Council unanimously or by qualified majority in accordance with Article 218(9) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. This issue is of utmost importance as the decision-making system of the Council of the European Union depends on its determination.

W 2018 roku Komisja Europejska przeprowadziła ocenę skutków obejmującą działania zewnętrzne w ramach działu "Globalny wymiar Europy", zawartego w wieloletnich ramach finansowych na lata 2014–2020, koncentrując się na głównych zmianach proponowanych w zakresie działań zewnętrznych, w tym na połączeniu kilku instrumentów w jeden, ale o szerszych ramach. Na podstawie analizy stwierdzono bowiem, że większość z dotychczas funkcjonujących instrumentów finansowania zewnętrznego Unii Europejskiej można by połączyć w jeden instrument o zasięgu ogólnoświatowym. Zgodnie z tym, co odnotowała Komisja, obecna struktura instrumentów finansowania zewnętrznego była zbyt złożona. Połączenie wielu instrumentów w jeden szeroki zapewniłoby możliwość racjonalizacji ich systemów zarządzania i nadzoru, a tym samym zmniejszenie obciążenia administracyjnego nałożonego na zainteresowane strony. Wdrożenie uproszczonego systemu nadzoru umożliwiłoby również właściwym instytucjom lepsze, bardziej kompleksowe spojrzenie na wydatki zewnętrzne UE. Szeroki instrument zapewniłby bardziej kompleksowe pod względem geograficznym i tematycznym podejście, ułatwiając tym samym wdrożenie różnych polityk na poziomie transregionalnym, wielosektorowym i globalnym. Ponadto dzięki połączeniu kilku instrumentów UE mogłaby ułatwić synergię oraz podejmowanie spójnych działań, przełamując schematyczne podejścia tematyczne i geograficzne. Z tych powodów 9 września 2021 roku ustanowiony został Instrument Sąsiedztwa oraz Współpracy Międzynarodowej i Rozwojowej.
Głównym zadaniem artykułu jest przedstawienie celów, zasad i mechanizmów współpracy finansowej między Unią Europejską a państwami sąsiedzkimi w ramach Europejskiej Polityki Sąsiedztwa od 2007 roku do chwili obecnej. Pozwoli to na udzielenie odpowiedzi na pytanie dotyczące podobieństw oraz różnic występujących w jej ramach w ostatnich piętnastu latach.

As a general rule on the territorial scope of treaties, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969 assumes that a treaty binds each party in respect of its entire territory. However, this is only a presumption, as any party may decide otherwise. In the second half of the 1990s, the European Union concluded the Euro-Mediterranean Association Agreements with Israel and Morocco, which contain in their content, a very generally worded territorial clause, according to which they apply to the territory of the European Union, and Israel or Morocco. However, this seemingly clear and precise rule has in practice caused numerous problems in bilateral relations between the European Union and Israel and between the European Union and Morocco. The purpose of this paper is firstly, to characterise the territorial scope of the Treaties in the light of the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, both in theory and in practice, using the example of the trade agreements concluded by the European Union with Israel and Morocco. Secondly, to point out that in practice this scope is much broader, as it includes "third" territories such as those of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Thirdly, to answer the question whether this practice is compatible with the obligations to respect the principles of the United Nations Charter and international law imposed on the European Union by Articles 3(5) and 21(1) of the Treaty on European Union.

In Art. 3, para. 5, the Treaty on European Union (TEU) lays down the objectives of the Union in relations with the wider world, which are further explained in detail in Art. 21. In the first place, para. 5 refers to the promotion of the Union's values. The list of values can be found in Art. 2 TEU ("The Union is founded on…"), which lists the principle of democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights, human dignity, freedom and equality. They are to be upheld and promoted by the Union in the wider world. Thus, they are directly linked to external policy. Next, the list of values in Art. 2 is repeated in Art. 3, para. 5 as objectives of the Union's external policy and in Art. 21, para. 1 as principles. For this reason, international agreements concluded between the EU and third countries all contain a "human rights clause" as an essential element of the agreement, the violation of which might result in the suspension of the agreement. This article focuses on the human rights clause in relations between the EU and selected non-democratic Sub-Saharan African countries. The main legal basis governing bilateral relations between the EU and those countries is the Cotonou Agreement. The "human rights clause" is to be found in Art. 9 thereof. This clause is especially interesting since it is the only one that has been implemented in practice. Moreover, it is often presented as the most elaborate one, and as a consequence is very often shown as a "model" that should be followed in other international agreements, especially in association agreements. So, the "human rights clause" contained in the Cotonou Agreement has its own characteristic features. Firstly, as it was mentioned above, it is the only one that has been activated in practice. Secondly, the "non-execution clause" is much more detailed, and finally, much more emphasis is laid on political dialogue and on the consultation procedure. This paper provides a propaedeutic analysis of legal cooperation between the EU and selected non-democratic Sub-Saharan countries in the area of human rights protection. Its main objective is to answer the following questions: to what extent the EU cooperates with such countries? What are the issues the clause covers? Is it effective? To what extent could it be enhanced? For analysis, the following countries have been chosen: Chad, Ethiopia, Rwanda, Uganda, and Zimbabwe. According to the Freedom House's annual Freedom in the World report, the Global Freedom Scores for all these countries do not exceed 35 points, which equates to lack of democracy. Moreover, another feature which all of them have in common is a very low score on the Human Development Index (HDI), which means that all of them belong to the poorest and least developed countries in the world.

Na podstawie art. 3 ust. 5 Traktatu o Unii Europejskiej (TUE) na Unię Europejską (UE) nałożony został obowiązek umacniania i propagowania swoich wartości na arenie międzynarodowej.Wartości te wymienione są w postanowieniach art. 2 TUE; zgodnie z nimi "Unia opiera się na wartościach poszanowania godności osoby ludzkiej, wolności, demokracji, równości, państwaprawnego, jak również poszanowania praw człowieka". Następnie zostały one powtórzone w postanowieniach art. 21 ust. 1 TUE jako zasady działań zewnętrznych UE. W postanowieniachniniejszego ustępu możemy przeczytać, że działania UE na arenie międzynarodowej oparte są na zasadach, które leżą u podstaw jej utworzenia i rozwoju, oraz które zamierza wspierać na świecie:demokracji, państwa prawnego, powszechności i niepodzielności praw człowieka i podstawowych wolności, poszanowania godności ludzkiej, zasad równości i solidarności oraz poszanowania zasadKarty Narodów Zjednoczonych oraz prawa międzynarodowego. Niniejszy artykuł zawiera propedeutyczną analizę działań UE na arenie międzynarodowej mających na celu promowaniewartości w relacjach z podmiotami trzecimi. Jego zasadniczym celem jest udzielenie odpowiedzi na następujące pytania: czym są wartości i jaką rolę pełnią w unijnym porządku prawnym, orazw jaki sposób UE wywiązuje się z nałożonego na nią obowiązku polegającego na promowaniu wartości na arenie międzynarodowej.

Illegal logging is a significant problem of major international community concern because it has a devastating impact on some of the world's most valuable remaining forests and contributes to tropical deforestation and forest degradation. Furthermore, it threatens biodiversity and undermines sustainable forest management, having a negative impact on poverty reduction, sustainable and inclusive economic growth and development. The article presents instruments adopted by the EU in order to combat illegal timber logging. The author describes their material scope and legal character, dividing them into two groups: internal and international legally binding instruments and soft law instruments, in order to answer the question about their legal character and position in the EU legal order and in national orders of the Member States.

Illegal logging is a significant problem of major international community concern because it has a devastating impact on some of the world's most valuable remaining forests and contributes to tropical deforestation and forest degradation. Furthermore, it threatens biodiversity and undermines sustainable forest management, having a negative impact on poverty reduction, sustainable and inclusive economic growth and development. The article presents instruments adopted by the EU in order to combat illegal timber logging. The author describes their material scope and legal character, dividing them into two groups: internal and international legally binding instruments and soft law instruments, in order to answer the question about their legal character and position in the EU legal order and in national orders of the Member States. ; Nielegalne pozyskiwanie drewna oznacza, iż jego pozyskanie nastąpiło z naruszeniem przepisów kraju pozyskania. Jest to problem o charakterze globalnym, wywołujący poważne i negatywne skutki nie tylko o charakterze środowiskowym, ale również gospodarczym i społecznym. Niniejszy artykuł prezentuje instrumenty Unii Europejskiej mające na celu przeciwdziałanie handlowi nielegalnie pozyskanym drewnem na rynku Unii Europejskiej. Instrumenty te podzielone zostały na dwie grupy: wewnętrze i międzynarodowe. Następnie została dokonana analiza ich zakresu materialnego, ale również podjęto próbę odpowiedzi na pytanie, jaki jest ich charakter prawny, zarówno w prawie Unii Europejskiej, jak i w systemach krajowych państw członkowskich. Innymi słowy, czy mogą one efektywnie przyczynić się do przeciwdziałania handlowi nielegalnie pozyskanym drewnem na unijnym rynku wewnętrznym.

The good neighbourliness principle is one of the most important principles in interna-tional law which designates a model of peaceful cooperation and mutual tolerance among neighbouring states. Its violation in the past, however, very often led to military conflicts and many international disputes and may lead to serious disputes among neighbouring states in the future. Thus, the good neighbourliness principle has a clear legal value54. This article analyses the good neighbourliness principle as a key principle that obligates neighbouring states to develop and to maintain peaceful interstate relations. The focus is twofold: firstly, on the scope, content and nature of the good neighbourliness principle in international law and secondly, on the impact of the good neighbourliness princi-ple on the relations between the European Union and its Eastern Neighbours within the framework of the neighbourhood policy and the enlargement policy.

An estimated 5% of the world's forests are located in the EU and these forests have continuously expanded for over 60 years, although recently at a lower rate. Forests and other wooded land now cover 155 million hectares and 21 million hectares, respectively, together more than 42% of the EU land area. Although the treaties in the European Union contain no provisions for a common forest policy, there is a long history of EU measures supporting forest and forest-related activities coordinatedwith member states, mainly through the Standing Forestry Committee. For several decades now, environmental forest functions have attracted increasing attention mostly in relation to the protection of biodiversity and, more recently, in the context of climate change. The main objective of this paper was twofold: first, to identify the EU legislation directly and indirectly connected to forest protection, and second, to determine its legal character and effectiveness. In conclusion, in recent years the EU has adopted numerous regulations that are directly and indirectly connected to forests and they can be divided into two groups: internal and international acts. Moreover, we can distinguish legally binding acts such as regulations, directives as well as international agreements and soft law acts including strategies, green books, communications, action plans or declarations.

The good neighbourliness principle is one of the most important principles in interna-tional law which designates a model of peaceful cooperation and mutual tolerance among neighbouring states. Its violation in the past, however, very often led to military conflicts and many international disputes and may lead to serious disputes among neighbouring states in the future. Thus, the good neighbourliness principle has a clear legal value54. This article analyses the good neighbourliness principle as a key principle that obligates neighbouring states to develop and to maintain peaceful interstate relations. The focus is twofold: firstly, on the scope, content and nature of the good neighbourliness principle in international law and secondly, on the impact of the good neighbourliness princi-ple on the relations between the European Union and its Eastern Neighbours within the framework of the neighbourhood policy and the enlargement policy.