scholarly journals The autonomy of the EU legal order

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christina Eckes
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
State Sovereignty ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Core Element ◽  
Separation Thesis ◽  
The Status ◽  
Core Elements ◽  
Theory Of Law ◽  
The Eu

The European Union (EU) cannot make a plausible claim to sovereignty under international law. However, what the EU can do and what it also does is, is to act as if it were sovereign and claim certain rights that are considered core elements of state sovereignty. This article argues that the Court of Justice’s (ECJ) conception of the EU legal order as autonomous provides the EU with a core element of state sovereignty: jurisdictional sovereignty. Autonomy construed by the ECJ is best understood in conceptual legal and absolute terms. It is meant to shield the ECJ’s conceptual legal claims from interference. Legal autonomy as construed by the ECJ is not relative as many authors have claimed. It cannot come about in an incremental or relative manner. It cannot be based on arguments relating to the status of a self-contained regime of international law that gradually distances itself from the general rules of international law. It is a conceptual claim giving birth to the assumption of apriority that can only be made in categorical terms. In this way it is similar to sovereignty. The article first sets out how the autonomy of the EU legal order is best understood. It examines the ECJ’s case law in light of legal theoretical considerations and relates it to the separation thesis of Kelsen’s Pure Theory of Law. It then explains that autonomy is of such relevance to the EU legal order because the aprioristic character of EU law remains essentially contested. This relevance indirectly explains why the Court so cautiously protects the autonomy of the EU legal order. Finally, the article examines the Court’s reasoning in Opinion 1/17 in light of the identified absolute conception of autonomy.

The Swordfish Dispute between the EU and Chile at the ITLOS and the WTO

2002 ◽  
Vol 71 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-81 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
World Trade Organisation ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Environmental Regimes ◽  
The World ◽  
Core Elements ◽  
Distant Water Fishing ◽  
Gatt 1994 ◽  
The Eu

AbstractDuring the 1990s and beyond, the European Union (EU) and Chile have been engaged in a controversy over highly migratory swordfish stocks in the South Pacific. Following disputes over Cod, Turbot, and Tuna, the Swordfish Case reveals outstanding problems in the international law of fisheries. The Swordfish Case attracts further attention, as it involves proceedings both at the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and at the World Trade Organisation, with potentially inconsistent decisions. At the WTO, the EU's assertion of a right to access Chilean ports on the grounds of GATT 1994 freedom of transit provisions bears an impact on the use of ports in countries around the world. At the ITLOS Chamber, the long-standing conflict between distant water fishing nations and coastal states is once again to the fore. Although the parties to the dispute arrived at a provisional agreement, setting out to establish a scientific fisheries program and a conservation framework, the issues involved in the swordfish controversy highlight the tensions among the international maritime, economic, and environmental regimes. The article offers an overall account of the core elements of the swordfish dispute.

scholarly journals EU Foreign Relations Law as a Field of Scholarship

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 111 ◽  
pp. 321-325 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joris Larik
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
International Organization ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
External Relations ◽  
Scholarly Attention ◽  
The Eu

EU external relations law is a doubly peculiar field of scholarship that has attracted significant scholarly attention over the last several decades. It is both part of EU law—considered a “new legal order” distinct from international law—and it is concerned with the European Union as a global actor, a “strange animal” in that the EU is neither a state nor a classical international organization.

Disconnecting Humanitarian Law from EU Subsidiary Protection: A Hypothesis of Defragmentation of International Law

2016 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 463-483 ◽  
Author(s):  
SALVATORE FABIO NICOLOSI
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Internal Armed Conflict ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Eu

AbstractThe development of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) has often revealed the tight interrelation between refugee law, humanitarian law and international criminal law. It has been argued that the latter bodies of law have, in fact, played a major role in the development of most key concept of the European Union asylum acquis.Drawing from the judgment issued by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Diakité, this article aims to prove that this assumption is not always true, especially with reference to the interpretation of specific concepts of international humanitarian law (IHL) and, in particular, the controversial notion of ‘internal armed conflict’. In tackling the sensitive issue of clarifying the meaning of ‘internal armed conflict’ in order to investigate the grounds to warrant subsidiary protection under the Qualification Directive, the Court provided an autonomous interpretation that goes beyond IHL, thus offering another occasion to investigate the interrelation between international law and the EU legal order.While contributing to the ongoing debate on the relationship between international law and the EU legal order, the article will consider the impact of the Court's reasoning on the EU asylum acquis, and will consider whether disconnecting the Qualification Directive from IHL, instead of producing further fragmentation of international law, may contribute to its defragmentation, conceived of as a harmonic co-ordination of different branches of law.

The Jurisprudence of Integration

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-21
Author(s):  
Pavlos Eleftheriadis
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Effective Response ◽  
Member States ◽  
Political Problem ◽  
Political Interpretation ◽  
The Eu

This chapter introduces the central legal and political interpretations of the European Union (EU). The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) suggests a federalist legal account when it speaks of EU law as a ‘new legal order’ and as ‘autonomous’ from international law and the law of the member states. This doctrine has met with resistance by the courts of the member states, which have refused to apply EU law without reference to their domestic constitution. The courts’ views can be seen as either a ‘constitutional’ approach, which we find in Neil MacCormick’s ‘pluralism’ under international law, or in the ‘pluralism’ defended by Mattias Kumm, Neil Walker, and others. But the general legal architecture of the EU is not only a theoretical but also a political problem. These legal interpretations correspond to rival political approaches, namely ‘federalism’, ‘statism’, and a new view proposed in this book ‘internationalism’. The most challenging political view of the EU, articulated for example by the historian Noel Malcolm, believes that it is actually a serious risk to self-government and democracy. Any legal and political interpretation of the treaties supporting the legitimacy of the EU requires that we have an effective response to this democratic challenge. Can the EU be democratically legitimate?

scholarly journals On the Way to an Anthroparchic Community of Law. The European Union as the Subject of Global Law

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 73
Author(s):  
Radosław Kołatek
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
Political Representation ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
International Organization ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Intergovernmental Organization ◽  
Law Making ◽  
The Eu

According to I. Pernice, the European Union has to be distinguished from an international organization for four reasons at least.First, there is no international organization where citizens have their own political representation and participate in the decision-making process. Second, direct legal action against individuals by directly applicable legislation does not happen. Third, the question of protection of fundamental rights against such ‘international’ power is not an issue. Last but not least, ‘no international organization provides for legal remedies of individuals against measures of that organization since there is no action having direct effect to the individual’. Therefore the author believes that the EU is an organization of citizens albeit having an appearance of an organization between states.Nevertheless one needs to remember that the European Union was founded as an intergovernmental organization by the European states on the principles of international law. That is why it has to be treated as a legal entity comprising the category of international organizations.Inasmuch as the role of individuals in the EU law-making process has been strengthened, their position was rather poor at the beginning of the European integration process. A direct right for individuals to submit a proposal for a legal act to the Commission is a great novelty not seen until now. Strengthening methods of democratic law-making by involving the European Parliament as well as national assemblies in the ordinary legislative procedure is again a fresh start. It is much the same with the system of judicial remedies differentiating the EU legal order from the horizontality of classical public international law.International law as a source of legitimacy for the European Union has always been and is still valid. Nonetheless the history of EU integration demonstrates the continuous evolution of that legal system. Therefore it is increasingly more difficult for lawyers to describe precisely what type of international organization and juridical entity this phenomenon is. It is all the more intricate while seeking a definition in the world of classical international law.An unravelling comes with Rafael Domingo’s theory as the European Union fulfils Domingo’s conditions to become an anthroparchic community of law. It happens through its legal order and participation of non-state actors in the law-making process. In such a case one can believe this juridical entity is also a subject in global law.European integration in the perspective of international law has been being widely analysed so one can easily find some critical papers in this field. This subject has also been examined by political scientists. ‘A sui generis political entity’ as a term defining the European Union is well established in the theory of international relations. Les hommes politiques go even further in their descriptions naming the European Union an unidentified political object (UPO) or the first non-imperial empire. Regrettably these terms cause more confusion than explanation.Despite the fact how descriptions assigned to the European Union are creative and diverse, agreement on what is the actual shape that the EU is taking is by no means easy. The size and functioning of the EU has been shaped and reshaped over the course of history. However the goal of an emerging ‘ever closer union’ is still in search of the paths of real and not ideal accomplishment. In fact, most institutional innovations bear some relation to past experience and borrow from it.

The Status of International Law in the EU

2021 ◽  
pp. 421-505
Author(s):  
Jan Wouters ◽  
Frank Hoffmeister ◽  
Geert De Baere ◽  
Thomas Ramopoulos
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Agreements ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Eu

This chapter deals with the status of international law in the EU legal order under the Lisbon Treaty. It presents in great detail the most important cases of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on the incorporation of international agreements and their rank in the domestic legal order. The origins and current practice of the doctrine of direct effect for specific provisions in an international agreement are explained. Moreover, the chapter contains an assessment of the famous ECJ Kadi-jurisprudence on the significance of human rights in the implementation of UN Security Council Resolutions on counter-terrorism. Finally, it also shows with concrete examples how the Court of Justice developed the status of customary international law in the EU.

Enforcement Actions

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luca Prete
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Legal Procedures ◽  
The Eu

The enforcement of EU law on non-compliant national authorities has, at its heart, infringement proceedings brought pursuant to Articles 258 to 260 TFEU. That focus is embedded in the scheme of the EU Treaties. In that regard, infringement proceedings are a particular feature of the EU legal order. As the Court of Justice stated in one of its first cases, ‘it is a procedure far exceeding the rules heretofore recognized in classical international law, to ensure that obligations of States are fulfilled’. Indeed, under the rules of public international law, there is no obligation to settle disputes or to establish formal and legal procedures for dispute resolution, which, where they exist, always depend on the consent of the parties concerned. By contrast, the jurisdiction of the Court in cases of EU law infringements by Member States is compulsory and constitutes a corollary to membership in the European Union.

The Eu Asylum Qualification Directive, Its Impact on the Jurisprudence of the United Kingdom And International Law

2006 ◽  
Vol 55 (1) ◽  
pp. 161-192 ◽  
Author(s):  
HéLène Lambert
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
International Law ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Official Journal ◽  
The European Union ◽  
International Protection ◽  
Minimum Standards ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Eu

The new legal order in European asylum is being shaped by a key document: the Directive on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third-country nationals as refugees and persons otherwise in need of international protection and the content of the protection granted (hereinafter the Qualification Directive). The Qualification Directive was adopted by the Council of the European Union on 29 April 2004.2 It entered into force on 20 October 2004, that is 20 days after its publication in the Official Journal.3 The Member States have until 10 October 2006 to implement its provisions into national legislation.4 Meanwhile, they have a duty not to adopt measures contrary to it.5 For those countries that have already implemented the Qualification Directive, such as France,6 the judiciary will need to ensure compliance with it.7

Western Sahara, Morocco, and the EU: Did the CJEU Get it Wrong? A Commentary of Advocate-General Wathelet's Opinion and the CJEU Decision in the Western Sahara Campaign UK Case

2021 ◽  
Vol 62 (1) ◽  
pp. 505-536
Author(s):  
Ilya Berlin
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
External Trade ◽  
Advocate General ◽  
Western Sahara ◽  
Legal Proceedings ◽  
The Status ◽  
Legal Position ◽  
The Eu

Abstract: The legal battle between Morocco's influence in Europe and the Front Polisario has persisted throughout most of the European Union's (EU) existence. At the battle's forefront lies the role of international law inside the EU's complex constitutional and institutional frameworks. In the latest legal proceedings, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) rendered its decision in the contested Western Sahara Campaign United Kingdom case. The decision did not assist in resolving the EU's legal position with respect to the Morocco-Western Sahara dispute. On one side, Advocate-General Wathelet's substantive opinion applied international law to the EU's role in the Western Sahara-Morocco conflict stricto sensu. On the other side, a rather short CJEU decision reaffirmed the status quo; that EU-Morocco treaties do not apply to the territory of Western Sahara. This commentary analyses and contrasts the CJEU decision and Advocate-General Wathelet's opinion against the EU's Völkerrechtsfreundlichkeit policy. Furthermore, this commentary suggests that the CJEU cannot be held responsible for implementing international law within the EU's external trade framework, as that responsibility – and any consequences from its failure – fall generally to EU institutions, which have thus far refused to follow Völkerrechtsfreundlichkeit as expected.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document