Cooperation and unregulated fishing: interactions between customary international law, and the European Union IUU fishing regulation

Marine Policy ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 84 ◽  
pp. 306-312 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mercedes Rosello
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Iuu Fishing ◽  
Unregulated Fishing

Title III of the Helms-Burton Act Is Consistent with International Law

1996 ◽  
Vol 90 (3) ◽  
pp. 434-440 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brice M. Clagett
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Legal Argument ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Title Iii ◽  
Moral High Ground ◽  
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction

The Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996, otherwise known as the Helms-Burton Act, became law on March 12, 1996. Title III of the legislation creates a federal cause of action, on behalf of U.S. citizens whose property was confiscated without compensation by Cuba, against those who “traffic” in that property. Several governments—notably Canada, Mexico and those of the European Union, whose corporate citizens are the principal “traffickers”—have denounced the legislation as an exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction that violates customary international law. These governments apparently see nothing wrong with permitting—even encouraging—their nationals to use and profit from property that rightfully belongs to others. The United States not only commands the moral high ground on this issue; it also has the better of the legal argument.

scholarly journals The Application of International Law in the Court of Justice of the European Union: Proportionality Rising

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 557-592
Author(s):  
Rupert Dunbar
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
International Treaty ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
External Relations ◽  
Frequent Absence

AbstractApplication of international treaty and customary international law at the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is increasingly recognized by scholars as problematic regarding legal certainty. This Article seeks to illustrate why this is and to propose reform. Through comparing judicial approaches in the application of international law at the CJEU to its approach in internal case law, it is argued that in the frequent absence of proportionality in external case law the Court has utilized, redeployed, or varied other judicial devices in an effort to retain the discretion which proportionality affords. These are argued to effect legal certainty and established concepts of justice within the EU legal system. Accordingly, it is submitted that proportionality should be transplanted fully and openly to external relations case law and that support for this can be extrapolated from existing literature.

scholarly journals Engaging Asian States on Combating IUU Fishing: The Curious Case of the State of Nationality in EU Regulation and Practice

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-27
Author(s):  
Arron Nicholas Honniball
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
The State ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Identification Procedure ◽  
Eu Regulation ◽  
Iuu Fishing ◽  
Global Action ◽  
The Eu

Abstract Global common concerns – including combating illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing – necessitate effective global action to avoid displacing illegal practices to under-regulated jurisdictions. The response in international law has therefore included the obligation upon all states to exercise jurisdiction, albeit with varying clarity regarding the existence and scope of duties for each jurisdictional basis. This article argues that, through its non-cooperating third country identification procedure, the European Union (EU) has sought unilaterally to crystalize and promote the implementation of an obligation upon states to exercise extraterritorial active personality-based jurisdiction over their own nationals engaged in IUU fishing. This is demonstrated through an analysis of EU practice relating to Asian states and remains true despite the EU's non-cooperating third country identification procedure only formally targeting flag, port, coastal, and market states. The EU and Asian states have improved their laws governing nationals engaged in IUU fishing, but concerns over legal certainty arise.

scholarly journals THE DEVELOPMENT OF CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW BY INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

2017 ◽  
Vol 66 (2) ◽  
pp. 491-511 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jed Odermatt
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Special Rapporteur ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Fourth Report

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 organizations as such may 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.

The Application of International Law by the Court of Justice of the European Union

2019 ◽  
pp. 600-621
Author(s):  
Mario Mendez
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
Case Law ◽  
High Threshold ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Design And Practice

This chapter assesses three key strands in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning a central dimension of foreign relations law, namely, the application of international law. The first section focuses on how the Court has reviewed the compatibility of EU-concluded treaties or envisaged treaties with the European Union’s constitutional text and also the review of treaties concluded by the member states. Judicial review powers in relation to treaties have increasingly been included in constitutional texts, but the European Union is distinctive in that its Court of Justice has regularly been called upon to exercise this form of jurisdiction, thus offering potentially valuable foreign relations law insights for constitutional design and practice in other constitutional systems. The second section focuses on the judicial enforcement of treaties and identifies a spate of recent rulings where more international law friendly outcomes would have been possible. A briefer third section focuses on the application of customary international law and highlights in particular the high threshold set for judicial review vis-à-vis such norms. The recent judicial developments identified in each of the respective three sections of this chapter have increasingly been deployed to challenge the traditionally dominant narrative in EU law scholarship of a Court of Justice that adopts a markedly international law friendly approach.

The Use of International Treaty Law by the Court of Justice of the European Union

2015 ◽  
Vol 17 ◽  
pp. 121-144 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jed ODERMATT
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
International Treaty ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
European Approach ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Treaty Law ◽  
Judicial Reasoning

AbstractThe Court of Justice of the European Union has on numerous occasions employed the provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, to the extent that they represent principles of customary international law, in its judicial reasoning. At first glance, the Court’s use of the Vienna rules demonstrate fidelity towards international law; it can be seen as contributing to the ‘strict observance and the development of international law’. Upon closer examination, however, one finds that the Court applies these rules in a fashion that often deviates from the way in which other courts and bodies have applied the same principles. This article examines how the Court has used international treaty law, arguing that the Court often employs a novel, ‘European’ approach to certain principles. While the Court is free to apply treaty law in a manner it believes to be appropriate, the extent of this divergence risks undermining the integrity and uniform application of the Vienna rules.

Constitutional and Legal Restrictions in the European Union Countries in the Context of the COVID 19 Pandemic

2020 ◽  
pp. 92-97
Author(s):  
A. V. Kuznetsov
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
International Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Eu Countries ◽  
European Union Countries ◽  
Legal Restrictions ◽  
Restrictive Measures ◽  
The Eu

The article examines the norms of international law and the legislation of the EU countries. The list of main provisions of constitutional and legal restrictions in the European Union countries is presented. The application of the norms is described Human rights conventions. The principle of implementing legal acts in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic is considered. A comparative analysis of legal restrictive measures in the States of the European Union is carried out.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document