The EU as a Regional Security Actor within the International Legal Order

2007 ◽  
pp. 329-350 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nigel D White
Keyword(s):  
Legal Order ◽  
Regional Security ◽  
International Legal Order ◽  
Security Actor ◽  
The Eu

6. International organizations

2019 ◽  
pp. 131-160
Author(s):  
Gleider Hernández
Keyword(s):  
International Cooperation ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
International Organization ◽  
Regional Security ◽  
Legal Personality ◽  
Economic Organizations ◽  
International Legal Order ◽  
Transboundary Resources ◽  
Domestic Law

This chapter looks at international organizations, their differences to States, and their position within the international legal order. Today, international organizations exist in virtually all fields of transnational and global collective concern. In the broadest sense, they facilitate international cooperation in all areas from the harmonization of tariffs to the management of delicate ecosystems, and range in their scope from small bilateral commissions regulating transboundary resources to regional security and economic organizations, all the way to the universalist aspirations of the UN. The chapter then considers the question of establishing the legal personality of international organizations under international law, which must be distinguished from the question of whether an international organization may also hold legal personality under the domestic law of a State.

scholarly journals The CJEU: an overzealous architect of the relationship between the European Union legal order and the international one?

2016 ◽  
pp. 44-64
Author(s):  
SZILARD GASPAR-SZILAGYI
Keyword(s):  
Legal Order ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
Federal Level ◽  
Exclusive Jurisdiction ◽  
International Legal Order ◽  
International Tribunals ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Eu

The current article provides a critical overview of the CJEU’s role as the main “architect” of the relationship between the EU legal order and the international legal order. The activities of the CJEU are assessed in light of four parameters: the protection of fundamental rights, the protection of the internal division of competences within the EU, issues of primacy and review of legality when international agreements are present, and the relationship between the CJEU and other international tribunals. It is argued that the CJEU in the last decade is increasingly acting in a fashion similar to federal constitutional courts that seek to protect the ‘federal’ level legal order from the intrusions of the international legal order and those of the sub-federal level. In its quest to protect the autonomy of the EU legal order and its own exclusive jurisdiction in a multilevel, pluralistic legal system, the CJEU might have caused more harm than good, affecting legal certainty, and the dialogue between it and the international legal order or international tribunals.

Choice of forum, european citizenship, and fundamental rights

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luchtman Michiel
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
International Treaties ◽  
Member States ◽  
International Legal Order ◽  
Free Movement Of Persons ◽  
Border Controls ◽  
The Eu

The Court of Justice has stated that ‘the founding treaties of the EU, unlike ordinary international treaties, established a new legal order, possessing its own institutions, for the benefit of which the Member States thereof have limited their sovereign rights, in ever wider fields, and the subjects of which comprise not only those States but also their nationals’. The wording highlights the differences between the European legal order (the European Union (EU) and its Member States) and the international legal order. Whereas international law is regarded as a matter between states, the Court’s characterisation of the European Union expressly makes room for individuals, EU citizens to be more precise. In line with this, Article 3(2) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) states that the EU shall offer its citizens an area of freedom, security and justice without internal frontiers, in which the free movement of persons is ensured in conjunction with appropriate measures with respect to external border controls, asylum, immigration, and the prevention and combating of crime.

scholarly journals Autonomous and Collective Sanctions in the International Legal Order

2018 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-32 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nigel D. White
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Self Help ◽  
Collective Response ◽  
International Legal Order ◽  
State Actors ◽  
Legal Frameworks ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Eu

The UK government is currently proposing the enactment of a “Sanctions Act” upon the UK’s withdrawal from the EU in 2019, embodying a right to impose “autonomous sanctions” against other states and non-state actors, on the basis that the UK will no longer be able to benefit from the EU’s collective sanctioning competence. The spotlight is again on the nature and purposes of sanctions in international law. The article addresses the legal framework applicable to sanctions by, first of all, showing that the nature of sanctions is different in the international legal order to how it is conceived in domestic legal orders in that sanctions are primarily imposed in response to threats to or breaches of the peace and, in so doing, the analysis will distinguish sanctions from countermeasures and other non-forcible measures. It then proceeds to demonstrate that the values of peace and security that underpin sanctions are essentially normative and should be seen as part of the international legal order and enforceable through sanctions alongside other fundamental norms of international law. Whether viewed as responses to breaches of international law or not, the analysis shows that sanctions are collective measures exclusively within the competence of international organizations. Having established the conceptual and legal frameworks for understanding sanctions, the article considers sanctions imposed against states and non-state actors, and explores whether the move towards targeted sanctions is a form of collective response to violations of international law. The article finishes by considering that, in contrast to countermeasures and other measures of self-help, collective sanctions are inherently lawful, but can only be legally justified as measures adopted out of a necessity to prevent major ruptures to peace and international law.

North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the European Union

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Sperling ◽  
Mark Webber
Keyword(s):  
Regional Security ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Full Spectrum ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
Institutional Complementarity ◽  
Balkan Wars ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Common Policies ◽  
Security Actor ◽  
The Eu

Neither NATO nor the EU are full-spectrum security providers. They are complementary institutions with offsetting strengths and weaknesses. The EU, unlike NATO, has treaty-based legislative prerogatives enabling it to implement common policies on a pan-European basis that touch upon both internal and external components of security. It also commands substantial technical and financial resources devoted to coherent regional security strategies. But if the EU is the more capable actor where security threats have a substantial civilian component, it is NATO that retains an unchallenged primacy on matters of collective defense and deterrence. Together, the two organizations function as agents of collective securitization across a wide range of issues to shape the security agenda and the allocation of national resources. The institutional interlocking of NATO and the EU has evolved over the course of the post–Cold War period. In most cases, the development of the EU as a security actor has not impeded NATO or undermined the cohesion of the alliance. Such complementarity can be demonstrated by reference to defense-related institutions within the EU that reinforce NATO efforts, the emergence of a “fuzzy” division of labor between both bodies, and an operational level of ambition derived from their security strategies. Institutional complementarity is evidenced by two empirical cases: the eastward and southern enlargements of the EU and NATO and out-of-area military and civilian operations beginning with the Balkan wars in the mid-1990s.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document