Banana split: WTO law and preferential agreements in the EC legal order

European Foreign Affairs Review

Volumn 4, Issue 2, 1999, Pages 195-214

  Peers, Steve ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ESSEX   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0346460460     PISSN: 13846299     EISSN: 18758223     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.54648/eerr1999016     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. On the history, see K. J. Kuilwijk, The European Court of Justice and the GATT Dilemma: Public Interest v. Individual Rights (Nexed, 1996) at 181-209;
2. P. Eeckhout, The European Internal Market and International Trade: A Legal Analysis (OUP, 1994) at 225-243.
3. Most notably Case C-280/93, Germany v. Council (bananas I), [1994] ECR 1-4973;
4. U. Everling, 'Will Europe slip on bananas?: the Bananas Judgement of the Court of Justice and national courts' 33 CML Rev. (1996) 401;
5. N. Reich, 'Judge-made 'Europe a la carte': some remarks on recent conflicts between European and German constitutional law provoked by the banana litigation' 7 EJIL (1996) 103-111;
6. S. Peers, 'Taking supremacy seriously' 23 EL Rev. (1998) 146-156;
7. S. Peers, 'Constitutional principles and international trade' EL Rev. (1999) (forthcoming).
8. J. McMahon, 'The EC banana regime, the WTO rulings and the ACP: fighting for economic survival?' 32 (4) JWT (1998) 101.
9. P. Eeckhout, 'The domestic legal status of the WTO agreement: interconnecting legal systems' 34 CML Rev. (1997) 11-58 at 56. Some call this an 'indirect effect' exception.
10. See for example: N. Neuwahl, 'Individuals and the GATT: direct effect of the general agreement on tariffs and trade in Community law' in D. O'Keeffe and N. Emiliou (eds.), The European Union and World Trade Law (Wiley, 1996) 313-328;
11. M. Hilf, 'The role of national courts in international trade relations' 18 Mich. L Rev. (1997) 321-356 at 346.
12. P. Lee and B. Kennedy, 'The potential direct effect of GATT 1994 in European Community law', 30 (2) JWT (1996) 67-89;
13. F. Castillo de la Torre, 'The status of GATT in EC law, revisited', 29 (1) JWT (1995) 53-68;
14. M. Montana i Mora, 'Equilibrium: a rediscovered basis for the Court of Justice of the European Communities to refuse direct effect to the Uruguay Round agreements?', 30 (5) JWT (1996) 43-59;
15. I. Govaere, 'The reception of the WTO agreement in the European Union: the legacy of GATT' in P. Demaret, J. F. Bellis and G. Garcia Jimenez (eds.), Regionalism and Multilateralism After the Uruguay Round (EIP, 1997) 703-723
16. P. J. Kuijper, 'The new WTO dispute settlement mechanism - the impact on the European Community', 29 (6) JWT (1995) 49-71 at 64;
17. T. Cottier, 'Dispute settlement in the World Trade Organization: characteristics and structural implications for the European Union', 35 CML Rev. (1998) 325-378 at 367-369;
18. J. Scott, 'The GATT and Community law: rethinking the 'Regulatory Gap' in J. Shaw and G. More (eds.), New Legal Dynamics of European Union (OUP, 1995) 147-164.
19. See T. Cottier, 'The challenge of regionalization and preferential relations in world trade law and policy', (1996) 2 EFA Rev. 149-167 at 149;
20. D. Yeboah, 'Regional economic integration and the GATT', 13 (1) World Comp. (1993-4) 33;
21. T. Cottier and K. N. Schefer, 'The relationship between World Trade Organization law, National and Regional law', 1 JIEL (1998) 83-122.
22. Case 112/80 [1981] ECR 1095; see E. U. Petersmann, 'Constitutional principles governing the EEC's commercial policy' in M. Maresceau (ed.) The European Community's Commercial Policy After 1992: the Legal Dimension (Martinus Nijhoff, 1993) 21-61 at 46.