Suchergebnisse

"The European Communities were first established and built using public international law instruments. Since its establishment, there has been debate about whether, and to which extent, the Community (now Union) transformed into something else - from an organization established under public international law into a new legal order that has since escaped these international law origins. Early debates about the EU and international law dealt with this question of whether the Union can still be understood as a 'creature of international law'. Later debates focused on the question of how international law applies and is given effect within the EU legal order. These debates were less concerned with the international law origins of the EU, but with whether the EU legal order was 'open' or friendly towards international law. This was influenced by the case law of the European Court of Justice, in which the Union gave internal effect to obligations arising from international law. Klabbers' study on The European Union in International Law, for example, looks inwards to 'investigate how the European Union treats international law'"--

The European Union plays a significant role in international affairs. International Law and the European Union examines the impact this has had on public international law by integrating perspectives from both EU law and international law. Its analysis focuses on fields of public international law where the EU has had an influence, including customary international law, the law of treaties, international organizations, international dispute settlement, and international responsibility. International Law and the European Union shows how the EU has had a subtle but significant impact on the development of international law and how the international legal order has developed and adjusted to accommodate the EU as a distinct legal actor. In doing so, it contributes to our understanding of how international law addresses legal subjects other than States.

AbstractOne of the significant changes in the landscape of international law in recent decades has been the increase in the number of international courts and other forms of international dispute settlement. The EU has pushed for the inclusion of dispute settlement chapters in its trade and investment agreements, it has joined multilateral treaties that include dispute settlement mechanisms, and it has proposed the establishment of multilateral investment court. The Court of Justice of the European Union has shown a more guarded approach in recent years towards international dispute settlement. This article explores the potential ways to address these sources of conflict and allow the CJEU to coexist with other international courts.

What is the European Union? This seemingly simple question gives rise to a multitude of different answers from EU lawyers, international lawyers, political scientists, and the media. The debate is as old as European integration, and a satisfying answer still alludes us. Does the legal characterization of the EU and EU law matter from a legal standpoint? This article argues that such characterizations do matter. It first discusses four main ways in which the EU is perceived in the EU law and international law literature: (i) the EU as a 'new legal order'; (ii) the EU as a 'self-contained regime' in international law; (iii) the EU as a 'Regional Economic Integration Organization' (REIO); and (iv) the EU as a 'Classic intergovernmental organization' (Classic IO). Using examples from recent legal practice, this article shows how such characterizations are the 'starting points' in debates which can shape legal outcomes. It is difficult to overcome such divergent views, however, since they represent much deeper disagreements and power relations. Developing a theory of EU legal character gives rise to new challenges.

On December 21, 2016, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) dismissed an action brought by the Front Polisario challenging a decision of the Council of the European Union (EU) approving the conclusion of an agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom Morocco on the reciprocal liberalization of certain agricultural products. The CJEU held, based on the relevant rules of international law applicable between the EU and Morocco, that the agreement did not apply to the territory of Western Sahara. Apart from its obvious political overtones, the judgment is significant in further developing the CJEU's approach to the law of treaties and the principle of self-determination in international law.

AbstractIn his Fourth Report on the Identification of Customary International Law (2016), Special Rapporteur Sir Michael Wood confirmed that '[i]n certain cases, the practice of international organizations also contributes to the expression, or creation, of rules of customary international law'. That the practice of international organizations can be relevant when identifying customary international law is relatively uncontroversial. The issue that is more debated is the extent to which the practice of international organizationsas suchmay contribute to the development of customary international law. Using examples from the European Union's treaty practice and from the Court of Justice of the European Union, this article argues that international organizations may contribute to such practice, not only by representing the collective will of States, but as autonomous actors in their own right.

In Opinion 2/13 the Court of Justice of the European Union found that the draft agreement on the EU's accession to the European Convention on Human Rights was "liable adversely to affect the specific characteristics of EU law and its autonomy." The Court in recent years has applied the principle of autonomy – a concept first developed regarding the relationship between the EU and its Member States – to the EU's relationship with third states and international organizations. The EU's increased interaction with external actors raises questions regarding the effects this might have on the integrity and unity of EU law and the EU legal order. What exactly does the principle of autonomy entail in EU external relations law? This Working Paper examines the case-law in which the Court has applied the principle of autonomy and argues that the principle is a more broad and all-compassing structural principle than is often presented. The Court's focus is almost entirely on what might be called the negative dimension of autonomy; it is about ensuring that the EU legal order is protected from external threats. It is less concerned, however, with the positive dimension of autonomy, which entails providing the EU with the ability to act effectively as a distinct actor on the international stage.