International law as a tool for the European Union

European Constitutional Law Review

Volumn 5, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 265-283

  De Witte, Bruno ^a  

^a EUConst Advisory Board ^*

Author keywords

Constitutional change; Conventions; European Court of Justice; European integration; European Union; External relations; International agreements; International law; Member States; Treaty amendment; Treaty of Lisbon

Indexed keywords

EID: 72549091526     PISSN: 15740196     EISSN: 17445515     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S157401960900265X     Document Type: Article

References (68)

1. N. Krisch, 'Weak as Constraint, Strong as Tool: The Place of International Law in U.S. Foreign Policy', in D.M. Malone and Y.F. Khong (eds.), Unilateralism and U.S. Foreign Policy (Boulder, Lynne Rienner 2003) p. 41.
2. See the arguments presented by Krisch, n. 1 supra.
3. See T. Dunne, 'Good Citizen Europe', 84 International Affairs (2008) p. 13;
4. see also several contributions in the European Journal of International Law (2004) No.5, and in the volume Droit international et diversité des cultures juridiques - International law and diversity of legal cultures (Paris, Pédone 2008).
5. See generally N.D. White, 'The Ties that Bind: The EU, the UN and International Law', 37 Netherlands Yearbook of International Law (2006) p. 57
6. and, with specific reference to anti-terrorism, P. Eeckhout, 'Community Terrorism Listings, Fundamental Rights, and UN Security Council Resolutions. In Search of the Right Fit', 3 European Constitutional Law Review (2007) p. 183.
7. ECJ 3 Sept. 2008, Joined Cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P, Kadi and Al Barakaat v. Council.
8. Le Monde, 27 Oct. 2007.
9. Art. IV-437 of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe.
10. See A. Aust, Modern Treaty Law and Practice (Cambridge, CUP 2000) p. 214: 'It is wrong to think that the Vienna Convention is a rigid structure which places obstacles in the way of treaty modifica tion: Rather, it allows states to include in treaties such amendment provisions as they wish'.
11. See, for a short survey of such 'facilitating clauses', Aust, supra n. 8, at p. 212-223
12. and, with specific reference to treaties establishing an international organisation, C.F. Amerasinghe, Principles of the Institutional Law of International Organizations, 2nd edn. (Cambridge, CUP 2005) p. 447-463.
13. See W. Karl, Vertrag und spätere Praxis im Völkerrecht (Berlin, Springer 1983), p. 341 et seq.
14. and B. de Witte, 'Rules of Change in International Law: How Special is the European Community?', 25 Netherlands Yearbook of International Law (1994) 299 p. 312 et seq.
15. ECJ, Case 43/75, Defrenne, para. 57.
16. For a rare expression of the contrary view, see T.C. Hartley, 'The Constitutional Foundations of the European Union', 117 The Law Quarterly Review (2001) 225, p. 236-237: 'Article 48 cannot deprive the Member States, acting unanimously, of the power to amend the Treaties without com plying with its requirements. Those requirements must, therefore, be regarded as not mandatory but merely directory: Failure to comply with them is an infringement of Community law, but does not affect the validity of the amendment'.
17. The Treaty of Lisbon has 13 Protocols and 65 Declarations, some of which clearly served to defuse last-minute tensions during the negotiations.
18. ECJ, Case C-235/94P, Olivier Roujansky v. Council, para. 11.
19. ECJ, Case C-313/89, Commission v. Spain, para. 9.
20. For an examination of the role of these informal instruments of constitutional change, see A. Peters, Elemente einer Theorie der Verfassung Europas (Berlin, Duncker & Humblot 2001), at p. 395-433.
21. For discussion of a recent example, see G. Schusterschitz and S. Kotz, 'The Comitology Reform of 2006. Increasing the Powers of the European Parliament Without Changing the Treaties', 3 European Constitutional Law Review (2007) p. 68.
22. See the so-called simplified revision procedure in Art. 48(7) EU Treaty (as revised by the Treaty of Lisbon).
23. This is the expression used by T.C. Hartley, The Foundations of European Community Law, 5th edn. (Oxford, OUP 2003) p. 98.
24. For a more thorough treatment of this instrument than can be provided here, see B. de Witte, 'Chameleonic Member States: Differentiation by Means of Partial and Parallel International Agree ments', in B. de Witte, D. Hanf, E. Vos (eds.), The Many Faces of Differentiation in EU Law (Antwerp, Intersentia 2001) p. 231;
25. L.S. Rossi, Le convenzioni fra gli Stati membri dell'Unione europea (Milano, Giuffrè 2000)
26. and, more recently, R. Schütze, 'EC Law and International Agreements of the Member States - an Ambivalent Relationship?', 9 Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies (2006-2007) p. 387 at p. 410 et seq.
27. Bull EC Suppl. 2/1969. This treaty has never entered into force.
28. OJ 1972, L 299/32. Now replaced by EC Regulation 44/2001, OJ 2001, L 12/1.
29. OJ 1990, L 225/10.
30. Convention on the establishment of a European Police Office, OJ 1995, C 316/1 (entered into force 1 Oct. 1998).
31. European Commission, Draft Council decision establishing the European Police Office, COM(06)817 of 20 Dec. 2006, at p. 2.
32. The Council reached political agreement on the new Europol Decision at its meeting of 18 April 2008 (Council of Justice and Home Affairs, Press release 18 April 2008, p. 13). Publication of the Decision in the Official Journal of the European Union is pending.
33. An old example of a complementary international treaty between all the (then) member states in an area not mentioned by the founding Treaties is the 1972 Convention setting up the European University Institute in Florence (published in OJ 1976, C 29/1).
34. ECJ, Joined Cases C-181 & C-248/91, Parliament v . Council and Commission (Bangladesh).
35. The states that concluded the Schengen Convention of 19 June 1990 (OJ 2000, L 239/19) duly recognised this rule. In Art. 134, they stated: 'The provisions of this Convention shall apply only in so far as they are compatible with Community law'.
36. ECJ 15 Jan. 1986, Case 44/84, Derrick Guy Edmund Hurd v. Kenneth Jones (Her Majesty's Inspector of Taxes).
37. The denomination 'Acts of representatives of the member state governments' was devel oped early on in the history of the European Community legal order. See K. Lenaerts and P. Van Nuffel, Constitutional Law of the European Union, 2nd edn. (London, Sweet & Maxwell 2005) p. 39-40;
38. de Witte, n. 19 supra, p. 251-255.
39. Art. 214 EC.
40. Art. 223 EC.
41. Art. 289 EC.
42. This formula, with small variations, was included in all Acts of Accession since 1972. The provision quoted in the text is from the Act of Accession of Bulgaria and Romania, OJ 2005, L 157/203, Art. 3(2).
43. ECJ 7 Feb. 2006, Opinion 1/2003 on the Lugano Convention, para. 114 (with reference to earlier opinions of the ECJ in which this principle was established).
44. For a discussion of the role reserved for the EC and EU in the various organisations belong ing to the UN family, see J. Wouters, F. Hoffmeister and T. Ruys (eds.), The United Nations and the European Union: An Ever Stronger Partnership (The Hague, T.M.C. Asser Press 2006).
45. One example among many is Council Decision 2004/246 authorising the member states to sign and ratify, 'in the interest of the European Community', the 2003 Protocol to the International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage, OJ 2004, L 78/22.
46. Generally, on the factors that make states choose formal treaties or non-legal agreements in their relations with other states, see J.L. Goldsmith and E.A. Posner, 'International Agreements: A Rational Choice Approach', 44 Virginia Journal of International Law (2003-2004) p. 113, at p. 122 et seq.
47. The latest version of the GSP Regulation, applicable as of 1 Jan. 2009, is Council Regulation 732/2008 of 22 July 2008, OJ 2008, L 211/1.
48. L. Azoulai, 'The Acquis of the European Union and International Organisations', 11 Euro pean Law Journal (2005) p. 196 at p. 199.
49. An expression used by M. Cremona, 'The Union as a Global Actor: Roles, Models and Iden tity', 41 Common Market Law Review (2004) p. 553 at p. 557.
50. Commission staff working document, The External Dimension of the Single Market Review, SEC(2007)1519, 20-11-2007, at p. 5.
51. There is a rapidly developing literature documenting these processes of policy exportation in the various fields. See among others: M. Cremona, 'EU External Action in the JHA Domain: A Legal Perspective', EUI Working Papers, Law 2008/24;
52. V. Mitsilegas, 'The External Dimension of EU Action in Criminal Matters', 12 European Foreign Affairs Review (2007) p. 457;
53. S. Guigner, 'The EU's Role(s) in European Public Health - The Interdependence of Roles within a Saturated Space of International Organizations', in O. Elgström and M. Smith (eds.), The European Union's Roles in International Politics (London, Routledge 2006) p. 225.
54. For a general discussion of the mechanisms used in this process, see R. Petrov, 'Exporting the Acquis Communautaire into the Legal Systems of Third Countries', 13 European Foreign Affairs Review (2008) p. 33.
55. Commission Legislative and Work Programme 2007, COM(2006) 629 of 24-10-2006, at p. 10.
56. See, for example, a case study of the influence of the EU Data Protection Directive of 1995 on a number of other countries and regional bodies: M.D. Birnhack, 'The EU Data Protection Directive: An Engine of a Global Regime', Tel Aviv University Law Faculty Papers (2008) no.95.
57. For the concept of external governance and a synthetic view of its main mechanisms, see S. Lavenex, 'EU External Governance in Wider Europe', 11 Journal of European Public Policy (2004) p. 680.
58. For a comprehensive view of the formal and informal instruments used in the context of the European Neighbourhood Policy, see M. Cremona, 'The European Neighbourhood Policy: More than a Partnership?', in M. Cremona (ed.), Developments in EU External Relations Law (Oxford, OUP 2008) p. 244 at p. 263 et seq.
59. This 'special incentive arrangement' clause is in Art. 8 of the Regulation, and the 27 interna tional conventions are listed in Annex III (n. 39 supra). The regime is problematic from a WTO law perspective;
60. see discussion in L. Bartels, 'The WTO-Legality of the EU's GSP+ Arrangement', 10 Journal of International Economic Law (2007) p. 869.
61. N. Nugent, The European Commission (Basingstoke, Palgrave 2001) p. 236.
62. Commission proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council estab lishing a multi-annual Community programme on protecting children using the Internet and other communication technologies, COM(2008) 106 of 27-2-2008.
63. Commission Communication of 27 Oct. 1992, Bulletin of the European Communities 10-1992, 116 at 123 (emphasis added).
64. See, respectively, Art. 300(7) EC Treaty and Art. 24(6) EU Treaty.
65. For a discussion of these disconnection clauses and similar devices aiming at preserving the integrity of pre-existing or future EU law against conflicting international obligations, see J. Klabbers, 'Safeguarding the organizational acquis: The EU's external practice', 4 International Organizations Law Review (2007) p. 57;
66. F. Hoffmeister, 'The Contribution of EU Practice to International Law', in M. Cremona (ed.), Developments in EU External Relations Law (Oxford, OUP 2008) p. 37 at p. 66 et seq.;
67. M. Ličková, 'European Exceptionalism in International Law', 19 European Journal of International Law (2008) p. 463 at p. 484 et seq.
68. See, for the use of this concept, A. Łazowski, 'Enhanced Multilateralism and Enhanced Bilateralism: Integration without Membership in the European Union', 45 Common Market Law Review (2008) p. 1433 at p. 1437.