scholarly journals Of Presidents, High Representatives and European Commissioners – the external representation of the European Union seven years after Lisbon *

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hoffmeister Frank
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Security Policy ◽  
Case Law ◽  
External Representation ◽  
Layered System ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Environmental Negotiations ◽  
European Court ◽  
Foreign And Security Policy

The article reviews the external representation of the European Union. Hoffmeister first analyses the rules established by the Lisbon Treaty (2007). He emphasizes the division between the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and non-CFSP and the importance of the diplomatic level. Moreover, he interprets recent case law in which the European Court of Justice has given guidance to the Council and the Commission about their respective roles in policy-making and representation. The author then provides extensive case studies on Iran, Ukraine, trade negotiations and environmental negotiations to track down relevant practice of the last seven years. He concludes that Europe continues to operate a multi-layered system of external representation, where supra-national elements with a strong role of the Commission in important areas are combined with inter-governmental traits of a principal–agent relationship between the Council and its President or the High Representative.

scholarly journals eu External Representation Post-Lisbon: The Performance of eu Diplomacy in Belarus, Moldova and Ukraine

2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 75-96 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dorina Baltag
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Security Policy ◽  
Performance Criteria ◽  
External Representation ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Treaty Of Lisbon ◽  
European Cooperation ◽  
Foreign And Security Policy

Summary The European Union (eu) today has quasi-embassies at its disposal in third countries — the eu delegations — which represent the Union’s eyes, ears and face. Following the Treaty of Lisbon, these delegations assumed the role of the rotating Presidencies and oversee the conduct of eu diplomatic affairs. In practice, this implies representing the eu and cooperating with eu member states’ embassies on matters not only relevant for aid and trade, but also for foreign and security policy. By employing performance criteria such as effectiveness, relevance and capability, this article uncovers the particularities of the practices of European diplomatic cooperation among eu delegations and national embassies in Belarus, Moldova and Ukraine. Drawing on fieldwork conducted in Minsk, Chisinau and Kiev from 2013-2016, the article explores practices of European cooperation abroad, shows how eu diplomatic actors identify a common approach and emphasizes certain capability issues faced by the eu in these countries.

Sliding Towards Supranationalism? The Constitutional Status of EU Framework Decisions afterPupino

2007 ◽  
Vol 8 (5) ◽  
pp. 501-531 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carl Lebeck
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Security Policy ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Community Institutions ◽  
European Court ◽  
Foreign And Security Policy ◽  
The Common ◽  
Criminal Matters

The constitutional structure of the EU comprises two different components, one supranational (the European Community - EC) and one intergovernmental (the European Union). The EC is referred to as the first pillar, while the European Union in turn consists of two parts referred to as the second and third pillars respectively: the Common Foreign and Security Policy is the second, and the Police & Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters (the so called “area of Freedom, Security and Justice” - PJCC). The role of the common European institutions was from the outset more limited not just when it - which is logical - comes to legislation, but also when it comes to consultation and preparation of legislation. However, the ECJ retained jurisdiction to interpret the meaning of so called framework decisions in order to create a basis for uniform implementation in national law of such decisions. This was particularly true in relation to the Police and Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters. Whereas the European Court of Justice (ECJ) was granted jurisdiction in PJCC, the other community institutions, notably the European Commission, were given roles to supervise the implementation of framework decisions - but their role in enforcing uniformity was limited compared to the role of the community institutions in EC-law.

scholarly journals Made in Luxembourg: The fabrication of the law on jurisdiction of the court of justice of the European Union in the field of the Common Foreign and Security Policy

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joni Heliskoski
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Security Policy ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Foreign And Security Policy ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Common

The article provides an analysis of the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the interpretation of Articles 24 TEU, first paragraph, second subparagraph, and 275 TFEU governing the question of the Court’s jurisdiction in the field of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). The article first describes the background of those provisions as they resulted from the Convention on the Future of Europe and the 2003-4 and 2007 Intergovernmental Conferences and then compares the Court’s understanding of its jurisdiction to the drafting history of the provisions concerned. The main conclusion of the study of the case law suggests that the Court views its jurisdiction over the CFSP more broadly than the jurisdiction envisaged by the drafters of the Treaties. In particular, the Court both interprets the exclusion from its jurisdiction of acts based on the Treaty’s CFSP provisions in a narrow fashion and is prepared to review the legality of CFSP acts not only through direct actions but also through references for a preliminary ruling. However, the article argues that the provision of adequate legal protection in the field of the CFSP necessarily requires both the Court of Justice and domestic courts of the Member States to play their respective roles.

scholarly journals The Role of Great Britain in Forming of EU’s Foreign and Security Policy in the Context of Leading Theories of Eurointegration

2015 ◽  
pp. 18-28
Author(s):  
A. V. Groubinko
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Great Britain ◽  
Security Policy ◽  
Security Policies ◽  
Conceptual System ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Realistic Approach ◽  
Foreign And Security Policy ◽  
Flexible Integration

In the article on the basis of the original chart of the theoretical conceptual system of Eurointegration's development offered by an author base principles of Great Britain's participation in common foreign and security policy (CFSP) of the European Union are examined. The country’s role in the processes of forming EU's CFSP is determined in the context of leading theories of Eurointegration. The evolution of British government's policy participation in the system of political co-operation in the European Union, character of its influence on the processes of Eurointegration in the sphere of foreign and security policies are analysed. CFSP as a specific sphere of co-operation of the EU's states fully represents conceptual dichotomy of European Union essence at level «intergovernmental - supranational». CFSP is the segment of the EU's legal reality which is historically based on intergovernmental co-operation, and in modern terms characterized by the expressed elements of funcional supranational institucialisation and insignificant strengthening of federalism. Great Britain conceptual approaches to forming EU's CFSP lie traditions of pragmatical and functional realistic approach with the elements of federalist co-operation, externalism and minimum of institucialism. For activity of British governments is inherent pistorical heredity of participating in political integration within the framework of Common Europe. It's mean a successive policy of inhibition federalist supranational tendencies, propagandas of the evolutional going to development of integration processes and it distribution on new spheres. Such approaches are correspond to the model of selective-sectoral integration or «Europe a la carte» ofThatcherist standards, which in the process of realization under influence of objective (mainly external) factors evolved to practical embodiment of such more soft models of flexible integration, as «multi-speed integration» and «Europe of variable geometries». The noted approaches to CFSP allow government on the different historical stages to have retentive or stimulant influence on the integrational processes.

The European Union security policy

2020 ◽  
pp. 80-86
Author(s):  
Ivanna Maryniv
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Security Policy ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
The World ◽  
Foreign And Security Policy ◽  
Institutional Mechanism ◽  
The Eu

Problem setting. In spite of the presence of numerous conventions, treaties and organizations in the world today, the issue of security is still a very acute issue for the world community. There are many reasons for this: the presence of nuclear powers, serious disputes between countries that are justly considered world leaders, the existence of numerous local conflicts and wars of a more global nature across the globe. These and other factors are pushing states around the world to allocate budget funds to ensure effective security policies. Given today’s realities, one can trace the tendency of several countries to pool their own efforts and resources to pursue a common security policy. The European Union is one of the clearest examples of this behavior. This intergovernmental organization is committed to maintaining peace, diplomacy, trade and development around the world. The EU also promotes cooperation with neighboring countries through the European Neighborhood Policy. Target research. The aim of the research is to study the role of the European Union’s institutional mechanism in the exercise of its powers to ensure the defense and foreign policy cooperation of the Member States. Analysis of recent research and publication. Many domestic and foreign scholars, including B. Tonro, T. Christiansen, S. Morsch, G. Mackenstein, and others. The institutional basis of foreign and security policy is analyzed in detail by J. Peterson, questions related to the European Union’s security policy. M. Shackleton. K. Gill, M. Smith and others study the general features of the development of a common EU security policy. Some contribution to the study of various problems related to European and Euro-Atlantic integration has been made by such national scientists as V. Govorukh, I. Gritsyak, G. Nemyrya, L. Prokopenko, O. Rudik, V. Streltsov, O. Tragniuk, I. Shumlyaeva, I. Yakovyuk and others. Article’s main body. The article examines the emergence and development of the European Union’s security policy from the date of the Brussels Covenant to the present. Particular attention is paid to the role of the European Union’s institutional mechanism in the exercise of its powers to ensure the defense and foreign policy cooperation of the Member States. A study of the officially adopted five-year global foreign and security policy of the EU is being done to improve stability in Europe and beyond, analyzing EU conflict resolution and crisis management activities. Conclusions and prospect of development. In view of the above, it can be concluded that the EU’s foreign and security policy institutional framework is an extensive system in which all the constituencies are endowed with a certain range of general and specific powers and are called upon to cooperate with one another to achieve a common goal. It cannot be said that such close cooperation puts pressure on Member States. Yes, a Member State has the right to refrain from voting for any decision that requires unanimity and such abstention will not prevent the above decision being taken. In this case, the mechanism of so-called “constructive retention” is triggered: the abstaining country is not obliged to comply with the decision, however, accepts the fact that it is binding on other Member States and takes this into account when concluding treaties, which should not contradict the said decision.

Delimitation of EU-Competences under the First and Second Pillar: A View BetweenECOWASand the Treaty of Lisbon

2009 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. 585-604 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dominik Eisenhut
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Security Policy ◽  
Criminal Policy ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Legal Obligations ◽  
European Court ◽  
Political Cooperation ◽  
Foreign And Security Policy ◽  
Voting Procedures ◽  
The Eu

Since the European Union (EU) agreed upon the extension of its activities to the fields of foreign, security, and criminal policy in the Maastricht Treaty, the question of the delimitation of those new areas of EU competence towards the “classical” policies under the Treaty of the European Community (TEC) has been present. The broad and rather vague scope of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) in the so-called second pillar of the EU and the area of political cooperation covered by the third pillar presents several uncertainties. One such uncertainty is the relationship between the supranational legal order under the TEC and the more intergovernmental and diplomacy-based cooperation under the Treaty on the European Union (TEU). Although the EU was organized within a single institutional structure, the substantial differences with regard to voting procedures, competences of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and the role of the European Commission rendered a clear separation of competences under the different pillars compulsory: CFSP remains beyond the jurisdiction of the ECJ; the Commission and the European Parliament have only marginal rights of participation; and the legal obligations under the second pillar cannot claim supremacy over national law or direct effect.

“A Very Eden of the Innate Rights of Man”? A Marxist Look at the European Union Treaties and Case Law

1997 ◽  
Vol 22 (03) ◽  
pp. 581-618 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gustav Peebles
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Integration Process ◽  
Commodity Fetishism ◽  
Exchange Value ◽  
Eu Integration ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Eu

In this paper I approach the European Union Treaties (Rome and Maastricht) and the European Court of Justice's jurisprudence from a Marxist standpoint. I argue that the treaties and case law of the European Union (EU) revolve around the rights of things (commodities), rather than of people. People primarily gain rights within the EU by demonstrating that they embody exchange value and are therefore personified commodities; people are not accorded rights merely for being human. In essence, the treaties and case law have enshrined Marx's notion of commodity fetishism, which Marx asserted to be a social mystification, into transparent law. Focusing on the grand scheme of the treaties' jurisdiction in this manner also illuminates the role of the court as it struggles to balance the demands of capital's self-valorization with fundamental human rights. I then consider the consequences of this balancing act for the EU integration process. I argue that this phenomenon as a whole also carries implications for EU civil society and for notions of legal equality among persons.

scholarly journals JUDICIAL REVIEW IN THE EU'S COMMON FOREIGN AND SECURITY POLICY

2017 ◽  
Vol 67 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-35 ◽  
Author(s):  
Panos Koutrakos
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Security Policy ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Recent Case ◽  
The European Union ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Foreign And Security Policy

AbstractThe EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) was conceived of as an area ill-suited for full judicial review by the Court of Justice of the European Union. The Lisbon Treaty confers on the Court limited jurisdiction which the recent case law has interpreted in broad terms. This article will place this case law in the broader constitutional setting of the EU legal order and will provide a critical analysis of its implications for both the EU's and domestic courts. The analysis is structured on the basis of three main themes. The first is about the position of CFSP in the EU's constitutional architecture: the article will analyse the constitutional ambivalence that characterizes this position and how it is conveyed by the provisions of the Treaty on the European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union governing the Court's jurisdiction. The second theme is about the recent case law, and the integrationist approach that the Court of Justice has adopted to the scope of its jurisdiction. The third theme is about national courts: the article will argue that recent case law has been too quick to dismiss them, and that primary law renders them an essential part of the judicial review system governing CFSP.

4. The European Union as a Power

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Filippo Andreatta ◽  
Lorenzo Zambernardi
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Coercive Force ◽  
Security Policy ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Major Power ◽  
Factors Affecting ◽  
The World ◽  
Foreign And Security Policy ◽  
Elusive Concept

This chapter focuses on the European Union as a ‘power’ on the world stage. The persistent inability to develop a truly common foreign and security policy may raise serious doubts about the idea of the EU as a major ‘power’. However, the concept and reality of power should not be confused with the threat or the use of coercive force alone. The chapter first considers the elusive concept of power before discussing the distinction between ‘destructive’, ‘productive’, and ‘integrative’ power and connecting them to realism, liberalism, and constructivism, respectively. It then considers the role of Europe in the world and concludes with an overview of factors affecting the prospects for a European foreign policy.

Peacebuilding and Statebuilding in Libya: An Analysis on the Role of the European Union

2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 163-179
Author(s):  
Francesco Battaglia
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Security Policy ◽  
State Building ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Foreign And Security Policy ◽  
The Eu

Abstract The Libyan crisis is the largest and closest crisis on the southern borders of the EU. It is therefore reasonable that the stabilization of this country and the engagement of international relations and partnership with an independent and effective government of Libya is a central point of the EU’s foreign policy since the outbreak of the crisis in 2011. The consolidation of peace in Libya is of primary importance not only because of political and economic reasons. The engagement with Libya is essential for the EU even to strengthen its role as global actor in the field of foreign and security policy. Finally, the Libyan crisis is closely connected with the migration emergency that is weakening European political cohesion. The purpose of this article is thus to carry out a legal analysis on the role of the EU in promoting peace/state-building in Libya, to make some considerations on the main lesson learned.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document