scholarly journals The Court of Justice of the European Union and the autonomous restrictive measures against natural and legal persons and non-state entities within the EU common foreign and security policy

2021 ◽  
Vol 60 (91) ◽  
pp. 117-139
Author(s):  
Boris Tučić
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Security Policy ◽  
General Relation ◽  
Supporting Evidence ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Foreign And Security Policy ◽  
The One ◽  
Restrictive Measures ◽  
The Eu

As a part of its specific policies, the EU creates and implements numerous restrictive measures against different subjects. In recent years, the most interesting ones, especially from the perspective of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), have been the autonomous restrictive measures against natural and legal persons and other non-state entities within the Union`s Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). After years of legal wandering in this regard, the Lisbon Treaty finally offered an explicit legal basis for this kind of measures, envisaging, as well, for the first time, the CJEU`s jurisdiction in the field of CFSP in some cases, including the one related to reviewing the legality of decisions providing for restrictive measures against natural or legal persons adopted by the Council of the EU on the basis of Chapter 2 of Title V of the Treaty of the European Union. In this regard, the subject matter of this paper are the activities of the EU courts related to the autonomous restrictive measures against individual subjects, analyzed at several relevant although inseparable levels. The first one considers the intention of the CJEU to "use" the situation regarding the autonomous restrictive measures in order to strengthen its position and competences within the CFSP. The second one is oriented to the efforts of the courts to secure the balance between the effectiveness of the CFSP instruments, on the one hand, and the protection of some of the major principles and values of the EU legal order, on the other hand, such as the rule of law, legal certainty, effective judicial protection or the protection of human rights as guaranteed by the EU Law in general. Thirdly, a very important step in this context has been the jurisprudential identification of the key procedural requirements that the Council`s decisions providing for restrictive measures must fulfill as well (aka the designation criteria, statements of reasons criteria and supporting evidence criteria). By constantly insisting on the fulfillment of these criteria, the EU courts exerted a pressure on the Council to improve its decisions providing restrictive measures in a qualitative manner. Recent jurisprudence, such as the Rosneft or Bank Refah Kargaran cases, shows that there is still enough space for the Court`s interventions in this field, and that some interesting Court`s decisions, related to its position within the CFSP or the general relation between the CFSP and other forms of Union`s external activities, could be expected in the years to come.

scholarly journals Migration issues in the EU’s common foreign and security policy – selected aspects

2021 ◽  
pp. 43-59
Author(s):  
Tomasz Dubowski
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Security Policy ◽  
Migration Policy ◽  
External Action ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Eu Foreign Policy ◽  
Foreign And Security Policy ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Eu

In the discussion on the EU migration policy, it is impossible to evade the issue of the relation between this policy and the EU foreign policy, including EU common foreign and security policy. The subject of this study are selected links between migration issues and the CFSP of the European Union. The presented considerations aim to determine at what levels and in what ways the EU’s migration policy is taken into account in the space of the CFSP as a diplomatic and political (and subject to specific rules and procedures) substrate of the EU’s external action.

Article 275 TFEU

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernhard Schima
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Security Policy ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Foreign And Security Policy ◽  
The Common

The Court of Justice of the European Union shall not have jurisdiction with respect to the provisions relating to the common foreign and security policy nor with respect to acts adopted on the basis of those provisions.

1. International Relations and the European Union

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Hill ◽  
Michael Smith ◽  
Sophie Vanhoonacker
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Political Economy ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Security Policy ◽  
Balance Of Power ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Defence Policy ◽  
Foreign And Security Policy ◽  
Eu Policies ◽  
The Eu

This edition examines the contexts in which the European Union has reflected and affected major forces and changes in international relations (IR) by drawing on concepts such as balance of power, multipolarity, multilateralism, interdependence, and globalization. It explores the nature of policymaking in the EU's international relations and the ways in which EU policies are pursued within the international arena. Topics include the EU's role in the global political economy, how the EU has developed an environmental policy, and how it has attempted to graft a common defence policy onto its generalized foreign and security policy. This chapter discusses the volume's methodological assumptions and considers three perspectives on IR and the EU: the EU as a subsystem of IR, the EU and the processes of IR, and the EU as a power in IR. It also provides an overview of the chapters that follow.

‘But the Last Word Is Ours’: The Monopoly of Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Light of the Investment Court System

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 1187-1220
Author(s):  
Francisco de Abreu Duarte
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
General Framework ◽  
External Action ◽  
The Other ◽  
Court System ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The One ◽  
The Eu

Abstract This article develops the concept of the monopoly of jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) through the analysis of the case study of the Investment Court System (ICS). By providing a general framework over the criteria that have been developed by the Court, the work sheds light on the controversial principle of autonomy of the European Union (EU) and its implications to the EU’s external action. The work intends to be both pragmatic and analytical. On the one hand, the criteria are extracted as operative tools from the jurisprudence of the CJEU and then used in the context of the validity of the ICS. This provides the reader with some definitive standards that can then be applied to future cases whenever a question concerning autonomy arises. On the other hand, the article questions the reasons behind the idea of the monopoly of jurisdiction of the CJEU, advancing a concept of autonomy of the EU as a claim for power and critiquing the legitimacy and coherence of its foundations. Both dimensions will hopefully help to provide some clarity over the meaning of autonomy and the monopoly of jurisdiction, while, at the same time, promoting a larger discussion on its impact on the external action of the EU.

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 Crisis management system in European Union: How it works?

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-54
Author(s):  
Katarina Štrbac ◽  
Branislav Milosavljević
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Crisis Management ◽  
Management System ◽  
Security Policy ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Continent ◽  
Foreign And Security Policy ◽  
Important Player ◽  
The Times ◽  
The Eu

The European Union's development path as a supranational organisation in which a single political, economic, and security space on the European continent prevails was not simple and easy. For many years, the European community's ideological creators have been looking for a supranational model that would simultaneously meet the times' challenges and ensure economic prosperity, internal stability, peace, and security in Europe. Such an organisation should have had a role in the international order. In European politics and science, there have been differences of opinion on whether the EU should develop a crisis management system or not. The need for the EU to develop its capabilities in foreign and security policy has influenced the establishment of the crisis management system as we know it today. Thanks to that, the European Union is an important player in world security, especially through military and civilian operations.

scholarly journals The Weimar Triangle: France, Germany, Poland in the Middle East. United Arab Emirates Perspective

2021 ◽  
pp. 107-126
Author(s):  
Adam Krzymowski
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Middle East ◽  
United Arab Emirates ◽  
Security Policy ◽  
Research Question ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Scientific Goal ◽  
Foreign And Security Policy ◽  
Trade Potential ◽  
The Eu

The article’s scientific goal is to investigate the Weimar Triangle countries’ relations with the United Arab Emirates. Therefore, the author asks the research question. Are the Weimar Triangle states’ role and significance increasing in the external dimension of the European Union? Based on the example of the United Arab Emirates, the research adopted a hypothesis. It is the statement that after Brexit, the Weimar Triangle countries have a chance to improve their importance in the EU external activities. Apart from case studies, to revise the hypothesis, the author performed a meticulous comparative analysis. Moreover, the research implemented International Practice Theory as an appropriate tool to investigate the presented issue. This empirical research and its findings resulted from over ten years of the author’s direct observation, analysis, and participation in many initiatives, both in the European Union and in the United Arab Emirates. The Middle East for the Weimar Triangle countries is more significant than just from a trade potential perspective. The situation in this region is also affecting Europe, as well as global security architecture. For this reason, one should develop a coherent and comprehensive EU foreign and security policy towards the region, and the Weimar Triangle formula should be one of its pillars.

France and the European Union

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Lequesne ◽  
Avtansh Behal
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Public Opinion ◽  
Member State ◽  
Security Policy ◽  
Domestic Politics ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Founding Member ◽  
Foreign And Security Policy ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Eu

The European Union (EU) is a multilevel governance whose dynamics of change cannot be understood outside the perspective of each member state. France has contributed to the politics and policies of the EU, but the EU has also had an impact on French domestic politics and policies. As a founding member state of the European Communities (EC), France has played since the 1950s a major role in the development of European institutions, policies, and reforms leading to the EU. France has also, however, always had a paradoxical position regarding the institutional design of the EU. On one side, France has supported the principle of supranationality in the economic areas of EU integration (market and monetary policy). On the other side, it has preferred the intergovernmental method for foreign policy and defense. France’s influence in the EU was for a long time exercised in co-leadership with Germany. The return of Germany to full sovereignty after its reunification, the enlargements of the EU toward the East, and a growing asymmetry between French and German economies made the Franco-German partnership less central in the 1990s. France’s influence on Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) has diminished to the benefit of Germany, while it has remained central for the definition of a EU foreign and security policy. Like most of the EU member states, France has also to cope domestically with a growing politicization of the EU issue in the domestic context since the middle of the 1990s. Opposition to the EU has arisen among French public opinion and has restrained the autonomy of the French executive (president of the republic and government) in the EU negotiations. The dominant narrative in France about EU membership has four main components: being a founding member state, being a big member state, co-leading the EU with Germany, and making sure that the EU maximizes the French national interest. The relationships of the main French institutional actors with the EU focus on the president of the Republic, the prime minister, and the National Parliament, as well as major national courts and interest groups. The political debates on the EU in the French public sphere involve the mainstream political parties, the rise of Euroskepticism, the referendum campaigns on EU issues, and general trends in the public opinion. France’s contributions to the main EU policies include membership in the EMU, the commitment to the Common Foreign and Security Policy, the attitudes toward the enlargement processes, and the future of the EU institutional reforms.

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.

INTRODUCTORY NOTE

2020 ◽  
pp. 499-514
Author(s):  
Antonio Tizzano
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Security Policy ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Legal Questions ◽  
Introductory Note ◽  
Foreign And Security Policy ◽  
Migration Crisis

The introductory note describes the main developments of 2018 with regard to the functioning and the organization of the Court of Justice of the European Union, as well as to its case law. The Court of Justice and the General Court were confronted with many delicate legal questions pertaining to all aspects of EU law. Amongst others, the EU courts were confronted with the unresolved issues raised by the so-called “migration crisis,” by the exit of the United Kingdom from the European Union, and by the threats to the values inherent in the rule of law, which are worryingly emerging in various member states. The introductory note provides an overview of the most important judgments that were delivered in 2018, in an array of legal domains, including rights and obligations of third-country migrants, fundamental rights, rules of competition and internal market, common commercial policy, and common foreign and security policy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document