Advertisement

The Sui Generis Nature of External Competences

  • Annegret Engel
Chapter

Abstract

External relations and the respective competences have in the past been divided and distributed over three pillars, which informally continues to be the case in the post-Lisbon era: Despite the integration of the former third pillar into the realm of supranational EU law, the field of external relations is still governed by supranational and intergovernmental provisions at once. On the one hand, the Union is equipped with supranational powers to regulate in the external relations sphere. On the other hand, the area of common foreign and security policy has been established which grants Member States competences in external relations. Despite the codification of different types of competence by the Lisbon Treaty, institutional practices continue to blur the lines in the quest for the correct choice of legal basis. As a result, legal basis litigation in this area may easily receive a cross-pillar dimension, particularly since international agreements rarely fall within one policy area only.

References

  1. Arena A (2016) Exercise of EU competences and pre-emption of Member States’ powers in the internal and the external sphere: towards ‘grand unification’? Yearb Eur Law 35(1):28–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bieber R (2002) Democratic control of international relations of the European Union. In: Cannizzaro E (ed) The European Union as an actor in international relations. Kluwer Law International, The Hague, pp 105–116Google Scholar
  3. Bitterlich J (2010) In: Lenz CO, Borchardt K-D (eds) EU-Verträge: Kommentar nach dem Vertrag von Lissabon. Bundesanzeiger Verlag, KölnGoogle Scholar
  4. Bono RG (2006) Some reflections on the CFSP legal order. Common Mark Law Rev 43(2):337–394Google Scholar
  5. Booß D (2010) In: Lenz CO, Borchardt K-D (eds) EU-Verträge: Kommentar nach dem Vertrag von Lissabon. Bundesanzeiger Verlag, KölnGoogle Scholar
  6. Breier S (1995) Der Streit um die richtige Rechtsgrundlage in der Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofes. Europarecht 30(1/2):46–53Google Scholar
  7. Cardwell PJ, Hervey T (2015) The roles of law in a new intergovernmentalist European Union. In: Bickerton CJ, Hodson D et al (eds) The new intergovernmentalism. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 73–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Craig P (2010) The Lisbon treaty: law, politics, and treaty reform. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cremona M (2003) The draft constitutional treaty: external relations and external action. Common Mark Law Rev 40(6):1347–1366Google Scholar
  10. Cremona M (2006) External Relations of the EU and the Member States: Competence, Mixed Agreements, International Responsibility, and Effects of International Law. EUI Working Paper LAW No. 2006/22Google Scholar
  11. Cremona M (2008a) Defining competence in EU external relations: lessons from the treaty reform process. In: Dashwood A, Maresceau M (eds) Law and practice of EU external relations: salient features of a changing landscape. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 34–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cremona M (2008b) Coherence through law: what difference will the treaty of Lisbon make? Hamburg Rev Soc Sci 3(1):11–36Google Scholar
  13. Cremona M (2010) Balancing Union and Member State interests: Opinion 1/2008, choice of legal base and the common commercial policy under the treaty of Lisbon. Eur Law Rev 35(5):678–694Google Scholar
  14. Cremona M (2014) EU external relations: Unity and Conferral of powers. In: Azoulai L (ed) The question of competence in the European Union. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 65–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cremona M (2015) Guest editorial: negotiating the transatlantic trade and investment partnership (TTIP). Common Mark Law Rev 52(2):351–362Google Scholar
  16. Cremona M (2018) Shaping EU Trade Policy post-Lisbon: opinion 2/15 of 16 May 2017. EuConst 14(1):231–259Google Scholar
  17. Da Conceição-Heldt E (2014) When speaking with a single voice isn’t enough: bargaining power (a)symmetry and EU external effectiveness in global trade governance. J Eur Public Policy 21(7):980–995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dashwood A (2008) Article 47 TEU and the relationship between first and second pillar competences. In: Dashwood A, Maresceau M (eds) Law and practice of EU external relations: salient features of a changing landscape. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 70–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. De Baere G (2008) Constitutional principles of EU external relations. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. De Baere G (2013) From ‘Don’t mention the Titanium Dioxide Judgment’ to ‘I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it all right’: reflections on the choice of legal basis in Eu external relations after the legal basis for restrictive measures judgment. Camb Yearb Eur Legal Stud 15:537–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. De Baere G, Koutrakos P (2012) The interactions between the legislature and the judiciary in EU external relations. In: Syrpis P (ed) The judiciary, the legislature and the EU internal market. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 243–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. De Baere G, Van den Sanden T (2016) Interinstitutional gravity and pirates of the parliament on stranger tides: the continued constitutional significance of the choice of legal basis in post-Lisbon external action. EuConst 12(1):85–113Google Scholar
  23. De Witte B (1998) The pillar structure and the nature of the European Union: Greek temple or French gothic cathedral? In: Heukels T, Blokker N et al (eds) The European Union after Amsterdam: a legal analysis. Kluwer Law International, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  24. De Witte B (2008) Legal instruments and law-making in the Lisbon treaty. In: Griller S, Ziller J (eds) The Lisbon treaty: EU constitutionalism without a constitutional treaty? Springer, Wien, pp 79–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Denza E (2002) The intergovernmental pillars of the European Union. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dimopoulos A (2010) The effects of the Lisbon treaty on the principles and objectives of the common commercial policy. Eur Foreign Aff Rev 15(1):159–161Google Scholar
  27. Eckes C (2016) Common foreign and security policy: the consequences of the Court’s extended jurisdiction. Eur Law J 22(4):492–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Eeckhout P (2004) External relations of the European Union: legal and constitutional foundations. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  29. Eeckhout P (2011) EU external relations law. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Eisenhut D (2009) Delimitation of EU-competences under the first and second pillar: a view between ECOWAS and the treaty of Lisbon. Germ Law J 10(5):585–604Google Scholar
  31. EurActiv (2016) EU leaders on collision course with Commission over CETA. https://www.euractiv.com/section/trade-society/news/eu-leaders-on-collision-course-with-commission-over-ceta/. Accessed 13 Mar 2018
  32. EurActiv (2017) Belgium seeks EU court opinion on EU-Canada free trade deal. https://www.euractiv.com/section/ceta/news/belgium-seeks-eu-court-opinion-on-eu-canada-free-trade-deal/. Accessed 16 Apr 2018
  33. Garbagnati Ketvel M-G (2006) The jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in respect of the common foreign and security policy. Int Comp Law Q 55(1):77–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gatti M, Manzini P (2012) External representation of the European Union in the conclusion of international agreements. Common Mark Law Rev 49(5):1703–1734Google Scholar
  35. Gazzini T, Herlin-Karnell E (2011) Restrictive measures adopted by the EU from the standpoint of international and EU law. Eur Law Rev 36(6):798–817Google Scholar
  36. Govaere I (2015) ‘Setting the international scene’: EU external competence and procedures post-Lisbon revisited in the lights of ECJ opinion 1/13. Common Mark Law Rev 52(5):1277–1308Google Scholar
  37. Hatzopoulos V (2008) With or without you ... judging politically in the field of area of freedom, security and justice. Eur Law Rev 33(1):44–65Google Scholar
  38. Heliskoski J (2008) Small arms and light weapons within the Union’s pillar structure: an analysis of Article 47 of the EU treaty. Eur Law Rev 33(6):898–912Google Scholar
  39. Helwig N (2013) EU foreign policy and the high representative’s capability-expectations gap: a question of political will. Eur Foreign Aff Rev 18(2):235–253Google Scholar
  40. Herlin-Karnell E (2007) Commission v council: some reflections on criminal law in the first pillar. Eur Public Law 13(1):69–84Google Scholar
  41. Herlin-Karnell E (2008) ‘Light Weapons’ and the dynamics of Art 47 EU - the EC’s Armoury of ever expanding competences. Mod Law Rev 71(6):998–1008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hilf M (1995) The ECJ’s opinion 1/94 on the WTO – no surprise, but wise? Eur J Int Law 6:245–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hillion C (2005) The evolving system of European Union external relations as evidenced in the EU partnerships with Russia and Ukraine. Ph.D. Dissertation on file at Leiden UniversityGoogle Scholar
  44. Hillion C, Wessel RA (2009) Competence distribution in EU external relations after ECOWAS: clarification or continued fuzziness? Common Mark Law Rev 46(2):551–586Google Scholar
  45. Kaddous C (2008) Role and position of the high representative of the Union for foreign affairs and security policy under the Lisbon treaty. In: Griller S, Ziller J (eds) The Lisbon treaty: EU constitutionalism without a constitutional treaty? Springer, Wien, pp 205–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Klamert M (2010) Conflicts of legal basis: no legality and no basis but a bright future under the Lisbon treaty? Eur Law Rev 35(4):497–515Google Scholar
  47. Kleimann D, Kübeck G (2016) The Future of EU External Trade Policy – Opinion 2/15: Report from the Hearing. European Area of Freedom Security & Justice, Free Group. https://free-group.eu/2016/10/11/the-future-of-eu-external-trade-policy-opinion-215-report-from-the-hearing/. Accessed 13 Mar 2018
  48. Koutrakos P (2001) Trade, foreign policy and defence in EU constitutional law: the legal regulations of sanctions, exports of dual-use goods and armaments. Hart, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  49. Koutrakos P (2008a) Legal basis and delimitation of competence in EU external relations. In: Cremona M, De Witte B (eds) EU foreign relations law: constitutional fundamentals. Hart, Oxford, pp 171–198Google Scholar
  50. Koutrakos P (2008b) Primary law and policy in EU external relations: moving away from the big picture. Eur Law Rev 33(5):666–686Google Scholar
  51. Koutrakos P (2009) Common foreign and security policy: looking back, thinking forward. In: Dougan M, Currie S (eds) 50 years of the European treaties: looking back and thinking forward. Hart, Oxford, pp 159–179Google Scholar
  52. Koutrakos P (2015) EU international relations law, 2nd edn. Modern Studies in European Law, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  53. Koutrakos P (2016) Negotiating international trade treaties after Brexit. Eur Law Rev 41(4):475–478Google Scholar
  54. Kübeck G (2018) Redefining the boundaries of the common commercial policy and the ERTA doctrine: opinion 3/15, Marrakesh treaty. Common Mark Law Rev 55(3):883–899Google Scholar
  55. Larik J (2015) No mixed feelings: the post-Lisbon common commercial policy in Daiichi Sankyo and Commission v council (conditional access convention). Common Mark Law Rev 52(3):779–799Google Scholar
  56. Lavranos N (2008) In dubio pro first pillar: recent developments in the delimitation of the competences of the EU and the EC. Eur Law Rep 2008(9):311–319Google Scholar
  57. Martin EA, Law J (eds) (2006) A dictionary of law. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  58. Matera C, Wessel R (2014) Context or content? A CFSP or AFSJ legal basis for EU international agreements. Revista de Derecho Comunitario Europeo 18(49):1047–1064Google Scholar
  59. Maunu A (1995) The implied external competence of the European community after the ECJ opinion 1/94: towards Coherence or diversity? Leg Issues Eur Integr 2:115–128Google Scholar
  60. Missiroli A (2010) The new EU ‘Foreign Policy’ system after Lisbon: a work in progress. Eur Foreign Aff Rev 15(4):427–452Google Scholar
  61. Neframi E (2010) The duty of loyalty: rethinking its scope through its application in the field of EU external relations. Common Mark Law Rev 47(2):323–359Google Scholar
  62. Organ J (2017) EU citizen participation, openness and the European citizens initiative: the TTIP legacy. Common Mark Law Rev 54(6):1713–1748Google Scholar
  63. Ott A (2015) The legal basis for international agreements post-Lisbon: of pirates and the Philippines. Maastricht J Eur Comp Law 21(4):739–752Google Scholar
  64. Ott A (2016) The European Parliament’s role in EU treaty-making. Maastricht J Eur Comp Law 23(6):1009–1039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Pechstein M, Koenig C (2000) Die Europäische Union, 3rd edn. J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), TübingenGoogle Scholar
  66. Piris J-C (2010) The Lisbon treaty: a legal and political analysis. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Randazzo V (2009) EU security policies and the pillar structure: a legal analysis. Perspect Eur Polit Soc 10(4):506–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Rosas A (2011) The status of EU law of international agreements concluded by EU Member States. Fordham Int Law J 34(5):1304–1345Google Scholar
  69. Rosas A (2015) EU external relations: exclusive competence revisited. Fordham Int Law J 38(4):1071–1096Google Scholar
  70. Sánchez-Tabernero SR (2017) The choice of legal basis and the principle of consistency in the procedure for conclusion of international agreements in CFSP contexts: Parliament v. Council (pirate-transfer agreement with Tanzania). Common Mark Law Rev 54(3):899–920Google Scholar
  71. Schütze R (2007) On ‘Middle Ground’. The European Community and Public International Law. EUI Working Paper LAW No. 2007/13Google Scholar
  72. Schütze R (2008) Lisbon and the federal order of competences: a prospective analysis. Eur Law Rev 33(5):709–722Google Scholar
  73. Schütze R (2012) European constitutional law, 1st edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Semertzi A (2014) The preclusion of direct effect in the recently concluded EU free trade agreements. Common Mark Law Rev 51(4):1125–1158Google Scholar
  75. Streinz R, Ohler C et al (2010) Der Vertrag von Lissabon zur Reform der EU: Einführung mit Synopse, 3rd edn. Verlag C.H. Beck, MünchenGoogle Scholar
  76. Van der Loo G, Wessel RA (2017) The non-ratification of mixed agreements: legal consequences and solutions. Common Mark Law Rev 54(3):735–770Google Scholar
  77. Van der Mei AP (2016) EU external relations and internal inter-institutional conflicts: the battlefield of article 218 TFEU. Maastricht J Eur Comp Law 23(6):1051–1076CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Van Elsuwege P (2009) On the boundaries between the European Union’s first pillar and second pillar: a comment on the ECOWAS judgment of the European Court of Justice. Columbia J Eur Law 15(3):531–548Google Scholar
  79. Van Elsuwege P (2010) EU external action after the collapse of the pillar structure: in search of a new balance between delimitation and consistency. Common Mark Law Rev 47(4):987–1019Google Scholar
  80. Van Elsuwege P (2015) Securing the institutional balance in the procedure for concluding international agreements: European Parliament v. Council (pirate transfer agreement with Mauritius). Common Mark Law Rev 52(5):1379–1398Google Scholar
  81. Van Ooik R (2008) Cross-pillar litigation before the ECJ: demarcation of community and Union competences. EuConst 4(3):399–419Google Scholar
  82. Van Vooren B (2009a) EU-EC external competences after the small arms judgment. Eur Foreign Aff Rev 14:7–24Google Scholar
  83. Van Vooren B (2009b) The small arms judgment in an age of constitutional turmoil. Eur Foreign Aff Rev 14:231–248Google Scholar
  84. Von Bogdandy A (1999) The legal case for Unity: the European Union as a single organization with a single legal system. Common Mark Law Rev 36(5):887–910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Von Bogdandy A, Nettesheim M (1996) Ex Pluribus Unum: fusion of the European Communities into the European Union. Eur Law J 2(3):267–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Weiler JHH (1993) Neither Unity nor three pillars - the trinity structure of the treaty on European Union. In: Monar J, Ungerer W et al (eds) The Maastricht treaty on European Union - legal complexity and political dynamic. European Interuniversity Press, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  87. Wessel RA (1999) The European Union’s foreign and security policy: a legal institutional perspective. Kluwer Law International, The Hague, pp 213–223Google Scholar
  88. Wessel RA (2000) Revisiting the international legal status of the EU. Eur Foreign Aff Rev 5(4):507–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Wessel RA (2010) Cross-pillar mixity: combining competences in the conclusion of EU international agreements. In: Hillion C, Koutrakos P (eds) Mixed agreements revisited: the EU and its Member States in the world. Hart, Oxford, pp 30–54Google Scholar
  90. Wouters J, Coppens D et al (2008) The European Union’s external relations after the Lisbon treaty. In: Griller S, Ziller J (eds) The Lisbon treaty: EU constitutionalism without a constitutional treaty? Springer, Wien, pp 143–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Annegret Engel
    • 1
  1. 1.Cardiff UniversityCardiffUK

Personalised recommendations