Suchergebnisse

The European Union has extensive competences to engage with the world beyond its borders. Therefore, the UK's own relationships with non-EU countries are deeply embedded in the EU institutional framework, and the process of Brexit will require substantial legal reform in the UK. The term 'external relations' in fact covers an extremely wide set of policies which rely on a diverse set of legal competences. For this reason, we tend not to use the term 'foreign policy' unless this refers to the 'political' as opposed to 'economic' aspects, though even these are not always easily separated. 'External relations' is taken to cover the Common Commercial Policy, the powers of the EU to make agreements with 'third' – i.e. non-EU – countries, neighbourhood policy, development policy, relations with international institutions and what is known as the 'external dimension of internal policies'. The latter refers to a long-standing legal principle set out by the Court of Justice in Case 22-70 AETR, under which the EU has implied external competence where it enjoys internal competence. In addition to the wide variety of external competences which are scattered throughout the treaties, the legal instruments and institutional arrangements which apply across these areas are not the same throughout. This makes external relations a particularly complex area which the UK will need to extract itself from. We will address two of the main focal points of EU external relations: the CCP and the CFS.

Cover -- Half title -- Title -- Copyright -- Contents -- Table of cases -- Table of instruments and legislation -- Preface -- Three guiding perspectives to EU external relations law -- First perspective: coherence of the EU as an international actor -- Second perspective: politics, policy and European integration -- Third perspective: the role of law vis-à-vis the first two perspectives -- Acknowledgements -- Abbreviations -- 1 The EU as a global legal actor -- 1 Central issues -- 2 The nature of the EU as an international actor -- (i) An international organization or something else? -- (ii) The EU and its Member States in the international legal order -- 3 The architecture of EU external relations in the Treaties -- (i) The Treaty on European Union: a bird's-eye view -- (a) Conferral, loyalty and institutional balance -- (b) Values, objectives and coherence -- (c) The special nature of the CFSP and the TEU-TFEU relationship -- (ii) Treaty on the Functioning of the Union and external relations: a bird's-eye view -- (a) Provisions pertaining to EU external competence -- (b) Protocols and Declarations -- 4 Introducing the key players -- (i) The European External Action Service and the High Representative -- (ii) The European Council -- (iii) The Council -- (iv) The Commission -- (v) The European Parliament -- (vi) The Court of Justice -- (vii) The Member States -- 5 The Broader picture of EU external relations law -- Sources and further reading -- 2 Instruments of EU external action -- 1 Central issues -- 2 A typology of instruments of EU external action -- 3 EU internal instruments -- (i) Hard law in EU external relations -- (ii) Soft law in EU external relations -- 4 International agreements -- (i) The legal nature of international agreements -- (ii) Express and implied competences -- (iii) Concluding international agreements.

Within the context of Community law, the negotiation, conclusion and implementation of international agreements is often fraught with legal problems about competence. There are various reasons for this: the EC Treaty set out asui generislegal order based on the principle of limited powers pursuant to Article 5 EC. On the other hand, international trade relations deal with a wide range of distinct, albeit interdependent, areas not necessarily falling within the Community's competence. This substantive discrepancy entails the simultaneous involvement of both Member States and Community institutions, whose often differing agenda may give rise to disputes of a procedural and practical nature. This process has been seen as a threat to the uniformity of the Community's external relations. The Commission, for instance, has often argued that, in order for the Community to maintain a unified position on the international trade scene, to preserve the coherence of its policies and protect the credibility of its negotiating stance, the exclusive nature of its competence should be interpreted broadly.

External relations is among the most dynamic areas of EU law its constitutional foundations profoundly affected by the Reform Treaty. This volume gathers leading analysts to assess core developments in the field, including the coherence of the EU's activity, its development policy and its contribution to international law

Abstract. On 20 May 2008, the Court of Justice handed down its long–awaited judgment in the Small Arms case (C–91/05). Two issues are addressed in this initial essay. First, three different approaches to the relationship between the Community and the Union as captured in Article 47 TEU are proposed, and it is argued that an overly strict interpretation of the 'non–affectation clause' could render the CFSP nugatory, whereas an exceedingly unrestricted interpretation could open up an escape route from the legal principles applicable to the Member States in their relationship with the Community. Second, the court's judgment is assessed in the light of the various options and their underlying rationales. In the final paragraphs, the article concludes that the ECJ's approach to the two CFSP instruments before it is incongruent, and therefore does not settle the dust that had been stirred up by this cross–pillar conflict. Noting the importance of this case, this contribution is the opening part of a diptych. Whereas this article discusses the case in the context of the post–Nice Treaty framework, a follow–up contribution will assess the case's importance should the Lisbon Treaty be ratified.

On 20 May 2008, the Court of Justice handed down its long-awaited judgment in the Small Arms case (C-91/05). Two issues are addressed in this initial essay. First, three different approaches to the relationship between the Community and the Union as captured in Article 47 TEU are proposed, and it is argued that an overly strict interpretation of the 'non-affectation clause' could render the CFSP nugatory, whereas an exceedingly unrestricted interpretation could open up an escape route from the legal principles applicable to the Member States in their relationship with the Community. Second, the court's judgment is assessed in the light of the various options and their underlying rationales. In the final paragraphs, the article concludes that the ECJ's approach to the two CFSP instruments before it is incongruent, and therefore does not settle the dust that had been stirred up by this cross-pillar conflict. Noting the importance of this case, this contribution is the opening part of a diptych. Whereas this article discusses the case in the context of the post-Nice Treaty framework, a follow-up contribution will assess the case's importance should the Lisbon Treaty be ratified. Adapted from the source document.