The Law of EU External Relations: Cases, Materials, and Commentary on the EU as an International Legal Actor
Abstract
This unique compilation of materials, cases, and commentary on EU external relations law is both a valuable teaching tool for (post-)graduate courses and seminars on the foreign relations of the European Union, as well as an indispensable first initiation in the legal foundations of the external action of the Union for diplomats, civil servants, attorneys, and other practitioners. Apart from making accessible key primary materials such as EU Treaty provisions; judgments and opinions of the Court of Justice; legislation; agreements; and more obscure documents revealing the law in practice, the book includes concise, expert legal analysis of these materials. The third edition of the book incorporates more than ten years of fascinating dynamics since the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. Apart from analysing the general basis of the Union’s external action and its relationship to international law, the book explores the law and practice of the EU in more specialized fields of external action, such as common commercial policy, neighbourhood policy, development cooperation, cooperation with third countries, humanitarian aid, external environmental policy, and common foreign and security policy, as well as EU sanctions. The chapters contain numerous cross-references with a view to facilitating the establishment of connections between different issues and fields of law. Annotations and materials are kept to what is strictly necessary to place them in their context and to clarify links to documents presented elsewhere in the book.
... However, the Court did not go further in elaborating whether the term replacement should be interpreted as a termination in the meaning of Article 59 paragraph 1 of the Vienna Convention, a suspension of operation based on Article 59 paragraph 2, or the rule of parallel application based on Article 30 paragraph 3. Some authors interpret the replaced term as meaning the abrogation of earlier bilateral agreements. 75 Altogether, the judgement Rönfeldt provides arguments in favour of the Article 30 paragraph 3 scenario. Despite confirming the replacement of bilateral agreements by the Regulations 1408/71 76 and 883/2004, 77 the Court admitted the application of bilateral agreements on social security coordination under specific circumstances. ...
The purpose of this article is to assess whether the withdrawal of the United Kingdom (UK) from the European Union (EU) may entail the revival of the early bilateral agreements between the UK and EU member states. The main claim is that the earlier bilateral agreements may be reinstated pursuant to international law, but the revival is substantially narrowed due to the limitations arising from EU law and the new EU – UK legal framework. This is based on the argument that the earlier bilateral agreements were not terminated or suspended in operation, and remain in force with limited application. After providing the outline of the new legal relations between the EU and the UK, the article analyses the framework provided for subsequent agreements in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and the case-law of international tribunals. The current analysis draws implications for a revival from EU Treaties and the case-law of the Court of Justice of the EU. Finally, general considerations are provided as applied to agreements in the two specific fields reviewed, namely aviation and coordination of social security.
... These include the founding of the specialised Centre for the Law of EU External Relations (CLEER) at the TMC Asser Institute in The Hague in 2010, the establishment of a journal dedicated to EU external relations law, 62 and the fact that student-oriented textbooks on 'texts, cases and materials' on this subject have been published since 2014. 63 However, consolidation should not be equated with decreasing interest or a reduced need for academic analysis. In particular, the CFSP's 'specific rules and procedures', 64 while being part of the overall framework of EU law, continue to be a source of scholarly attention. ...
‘When I was your age, Pluto was a planet’ was a popular joke after the celestial body’s reclassification as a ‘dwarf planet’. In many ways, the story of Pluto is an appropriate metaphor for the United Kingdom after Brexit. Just as textbooks on astronomy had to be updated to reflect Pluto’s changed status, legal scholarship needs to adapt to the fact that the UK is relegating itself into the outer orbits of the European system of integration and cooperation, yet remains unable to break free from the centre’s gravitational pull. Crucially, the UK has become an object of EU external action, rather than a subject that can manipulate the levers from the inside. This change is also of particular significance for the scholarship of EU external relations. Highlighting, organising, and explaining the changes that Brexit causes for the field and with a view to charting its way forward, this article argues that the UK’s withdrawal will contribute to the further normalisation of EU external relations law as a field of scholarship. Following a brief explanation of why EU external relations law is a doubly peculiar area of scholarship and an overview of the origins and development of EU external relations law as a field, the article elaborates on three main consequences of Brexit for EU external relations law research and explains how each contributes to normalisation: disposing of the most ‘awkward member’, boosting reforms for greater effectiveness, and infusing a sense of geopolitical realism.
This Chapter examines the relationship between European Union (EU) external relations law, sustainability, and the role of China in advancing global sustainable development goals. The Chapter analyzes the EU’s approach to engaging China in its external relations and explores the potential for collaboration on sustainability issues. Additionally, it identifies key challenges and opportunities in the EU-China relationship concerning sustainability, offering insights into the legal and policy dimensions. By focusing on the specific dynamics between the EU and China, this chapter contributes to the academic discourse on EU external relations law. The main findings highlight the potential of EU-China collaboration on sustainability while emphasizing the need to strengthen the legal framework, address geopolitical tensions, enhance climate change cooperation, promote regulatory convergence, and balance economic and environmental interests for a more sustainable relationship.
Hoffmeister and Bruckert review how the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy used his constitutional powers under Article 18 TEU in recent practice. They show his increasing role in conducting the CFSP by shaping decisions and representing the Union internationally. He has by now also intervened in external relations cases before the European Court of Justice and has contributed to the coordination of Member State interventions before the International Court of Justice. As Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Council, he has invited foreign ministers from third States more often and plays an important role as chairman of Association Councils. Finally, some examples of his coordination function on external action within the Commission are discussed. The authors conclude that the High Representative has become an ever more powerful institutional actor in the foreign policy domain of the European Union.
A Brexit az uniós jog esetén számos területen okoz változást és jár kihívásokkal. Nem sok szó esik azonban a hatáskör-kiterjesztéshez kapcsolódó esetleges kérdésekről. A tanulmány célja, hogy egy nemzetközi politikaelméleti-jogi elméleti háttérből kiindulva pillantást vessen a Brexit folyamatára. Ez három fő pont szemügyre vételét jelenti: a kilépési megállapodást, a megállapodás nélküli kilépésre vonatkozó intézkedéscsomagot és a jövőbeli kapcsolatrendszerre vonatkozó dokumentumokat, úgymint a kilépési megállapodáshoz csatolt politikai nyilatkozatot, valamint a tárgyalási mandátumot. Cél a problémakör felvázolása és némiképpen kontextusba helyezése.
Despite being one of the “heavyweights” in international trade, finance and development, the European Union’s (EU) presence in the economic governance fora of the United Nations (UN) continues to be fraught with difficulties. Faced with the legal and political hurdles of multilateral diplomacy in a state-centric environment, the EU has had to deal with a lack of status and participation rights, the complexities of an internal coordination process involving 28 Member States, and the challenges of ensuring a cohesive external representation. This contribution provides a brief overview of the legal basis for EU engagement in the UN, the Union’s internal coordination process, as well as the framework governing its external representation. To highlight the patchwork of legal statuses and modes of engagement, we subsequently take a closer look at the EU’s relations with a select number of UN bodies in the area of economic governance. This allows us to illustrate the respective challenges in three scenarios: UN fora where the EU and the EU Member States hold membership rights, where we look at FAO; UN fora where the EU holds an observer or full participant status while its Member States have membership rights, where we look at ECOSOC, its subsidiary bodies, and UNCTAD; and UN fora where the EU Member States are members but where the EU has no formal status: here we look at the World Bank.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.