Suchergebnisse

This is a collection of works which considers the many different facets of the EU's increasingly important engagement with the world beyond its borders. The Treaty of Lisbon marked a change in the powers and competences endowed on the EU - the contributions to this collection consider both the direct and indirect impact of the Treaty on the contemporary state of EU external relations. The authors are drawn from legal, political science and international relations disciplines and consider innovations or changes brought about by the Treaty itself: the European External Action Service, the roles

European Papers posted in e-Journal 24.11.2017 ; This short article draws together some conclusions based on the contributions to the Special Section "The New Frontiers of EU Administrative Law: Is there a Gap in EU External Relations?". It concludes first that external action is a rich field in the application of EU administrative law. External policies are implemented and given effect through legal instruments and legally-prescribed procedures (including financial procedures) developed and controlled by administrative law and the Court of Justice. Second, as a result of mapping the types of administrative action in external policy fields we conclude that while the pattern of administrative action is shared with EU action more generally some distinctive types of external executive action can be identified, and external action demonstrates some distinctive qualities resulting in part from the multiplicity of actors and fora (including external) involved. Third, we conclude that despite very broad discretion in the implementation of policies the EU institutions are subject to administrative and legal constraints, including through the development of procedures in legislation, non-binding instruments and administrative practice. The Court has proved willing both to enforce procedural rules laid down in legislation and to require compliance with procedural principles such as the duty of care.

The 2016 Global Strategy (GS) made resilience central to the European Union's (EU's) external activities. However, many aspects of resilience were ambiguous. Three of these aspects are identified in this article: whether resilience is about risks or resources, whether resilience means stability or change, and what is the role of values. These ambiguities created a space for the policy work of EU bureaucracy. This work is examined in development and neighbourhood fields, and in relations with Russia. Documents' analysis and semi-structured interviews reveal a difference in how three ambiguities were interpreted. Differences were identified among policy fields but not between EU institutions. These differences reflect the efforts of EU officials to preserve consistency in 'their' fields. This policy work undermines one important goal for introducing resilience in the GS, the enhanced coherence of EU external activities. Finally, the study revealed that some interpretations moved closer to the theoretical writings on resilience compared with the GS.

Half Title -- Series Information -- Title Page -- Copyright Page -- Contents -- Acknowledgements -- Abbreviations -- Notes on Contributors -- Table of Case Law -- Introduction: Facultative Mixity, More than Just a Childhood Disease of EU Law? -- Chapter 1 Mixity Past, Present and Future: Some Observations -- 1 The Continued Relevance of Mixity -- 2 The Problems Caused by Mixity -- 3 Different Categories of Mixed Agreements -- 4 Avoiding Mixity? -- Part 1 EU Constitutional Principles Applied to Facultative Mixity -- Chapter 2 'Facultative' and 'Functional' Mixity Consonant with the Principle of Partial and Imperfect Conferral -- 1 Introduction -- 2 Key Features of Partial and Imperfect Conferral -- 3 Facultative and Functional Mixity for Truly Shared Competence: an Analytical Framework -- 4 Cacophony versus Symphony in the Case Law on Facultative Mixity -- 4.1 Solutions Proposed to Facultative and Functional Mixity by Advocates General -- 4.2 The CJEU's Wavering Positions on Facultative Mixity -- 5 Imperfect Conferral Leading to Positive or Negative Functional Legal Mixity Regardless of the Nature of the Competence? -- 5.1 Participation in Other International Organizations -- 5.2 Prior and Previous Member States Agreements -- 6 By Way of Conclusion -- Chapter 3 Facultative Mixity in the Light of the Principle of Subsidiarity -- 1 Introduction -- 2 External Competence and Facultative Mixity -- 2.1 Different Types of Shared Competence -- 2.2 The Choice for Facultative Mixity -- 3 The Principle of Subsidiarity and EU External Relations -- 3.1 The Ambiguity of Subsidiarity as a Legal and Political Principle -- 3.2 The Applicability of the Subsidiarity Principle to EU External Relations -- 3.3 Determining the Scope of the Subsidiarity Principle -- 4 Bilateral Agreements and Facultative Mixity.

In zijn oratie behandelt Pieter Jan Kuijper de vraag of het constitutionele instrumentarium van de Europese Unie op het gebied van de externe betrekkingen op dit moment, met het Verdrag van Lissabon, adequaat is voor een grotere rol van de EU in de wereld. Dat is van groot belang nu het ernaar uit ziet dat de externe betrekkingen van de EU van extra groot gewicht zullen zijn in de toekomst, in het licht van de grote mondiale uitdagingen en de relatieve 'normalisering' van veel interne EU-politiek (bijvoorbeeld met betrekking tot de interne markt), terwijl het grotere aantal lidstaten de beslui

La présidence dans les relations extérieures de l'Union européenne : qui est à la barre ? Le traité de Lisbonne change fondamentalement la présidence dans les relations extérieures de l'Union européenne. Dans le domaine de la politique étrangère et de sécurité commune, un nouveau Haut représentant de l'Union pour les affaires étrangères et la politique de sécurité (HR) remplace la présidence tournante. Mais d'autres domaines des relations extérieures restent sous l'autorité de la présidence tournante. Cet article examine tout d'abord le développement historique de la présidence dans les relations extérieures. Dans le cadre de l'objectif spécifique de ce numéro thématique, cet article met particulièrement l'accent sur la position de la présidence vis-à-vis des autres acteurs institutionnels. Par ailleurs, il examine la situation après Lisbonne. La double casquette du Haut représentant affecte radicalement les relations interinstitutionnelles. Si le poste de Haut représentant paraît apporter une plus grande continuité et renforcer le leadership, il n'en soulève pas moins de nouveaux défis en termes de coordination : non seulement au sein du Conseil et entre les diverses institutions, mais aussi entre les différents domaines des relations extérieures.