Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

European Yearbook of International Economic Law 2018 pp 203–228Cite as

Towards a European Natural Resources Law?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: European Yearbook of International Economic Law ((EUROYEAR,volume 9))

Abstract

This article unfolds the concept of a genuine European natural resources law. Against the background of the global commodity markets and the commodity dependence of the EU, it argues that the academic debate should focus on safety, sustainability and efficiency in the supply as key principles of European natural resources law. This new field of law, thus, has to be located between environmental and economic law. Although the Lisbon Treaty brought significant changes that help to shape a new academic discipline ‘European natural resources law’ this article pleads for new legal rules or a coherent framework that can be built on recent initiatives and policy approaches of the European commission.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See critically Terhechte J P, In der Falle? Es droht eine Abschottung des Rechts – Europäische Rechtsgebiete wie das Rohstoffrecht verlangen eine Neupositionierung der Wissenschaft. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 27 December 2012, p. 6.

  2. 2.

    See Kebschull (1974); see more recently, Stockmann et al. (2010), p. 219 ff. Garret N and Piccinni A, Natural Resources and Conflict: A New Security Challenge for the European Union, SIRPRI Policy Brief, June 2012, https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/files/misc/SIPRIPB1206.pdf (last accessed 30 April 2018).

  3. 3.

    The term raw materials governance is further explained in Terhechte (2012a), p. 89 ff.; for the definition of Energy Governance see Goldthau and Witte (2010).

  4. 4.

    Pelikan (1990); Weberpals (1989); Habermayer (1985); Schraven (1982); Seitz (1975), p. 461 ff.; Wenzel (1961); Adebahr (1975), p. 467 ff.; Friderichs et al. (1976), p. 226 ff.; Mason (1946).

  5. 5.

    See European Commission, “Critical Raw Materials for the EU”—Report of the Ad-hoc Working Group on Defining Critical Raw Materials, 2010; Risk & Policy Analysts Limited, Stockpiling of Non-Energy Raw Materials—Final Report for DG Enterprise and Industry, 2012; Commission Communication on the raw materials initiative—meeting our critical needs for growth and jobs in Europe, COM (2008) 699 final; Commission Communication tackling the challenges in commodity markets and on raw materials, COM (2011) 25 final; an overview of the different raw material strategies employed by the G20 states may be found in Hilpert H G and Mildner S A, Fragmentation or Cooperation in Global Resource Governance?, Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik Research Paper No. 1, March 2013, https://www.swp-berlin.org/fileadmin/contents/products/research_papers/2013_RP01_hlp_mdn.pdf (last accessed 14 March 2018); see further Ruta M and Venables A, International Trade in Natural Resources: Practice and Policy, CESifo Working Paper No. 3778, 2012, https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Anthony_Venables/publication/234146815_International_Trade_in_Natural_Resources_Practice_and_Policy/links/0046352cc64f7962b3000000/International-Trade-in-Natural-Resources-Practice-and-Policy.pdf (last accessed 14 March 2018).

  6. 6.

    See Kahl (2009), p. 601 ff.; Hobe (2009), p. 219 ff.; Ehricke and Hackländer (2008), p. 579 ff.; Nettesheim (2010), p. 19 ff.

  7. 7.

    Bungenberg and Herrmann (2011).

  8. 8.

    See Epiney (2013), p. 98 ff.

  9. 9.

    With regard to public international law see Dederer (2012), p. 37 ff.; Weiß (2009), para. 2.

  10. 10.

    See e.g. Sanden et al. (2012), p. 15 ff.

  11. 11.

    Proelß (2012), p. 161 ff.

  12. 12.

    Käller (2012), para. 12.

  13. 13.

    Schorkopf (2008), p. 235; see also Weiß (2009), para. 2.

  14. 14.

    Ibid.

  15. 15.

    Compare with the analysis provided for by the European Commission, “Critical Raw Materials for the EU”—Report of the Ad-hoc Working Group on Defining Critical Raw Materials, 2010, p. 24; see also Terhechte (2012a), p. 83 ff.

  16. 16.

    World Trade Organization, World Trade Report: Trade in Natural Resources, 2010.

  17. 17.

    Cf. p. 46 of the World Trade Report 2010, which defines natural resources as “stocks of materials that exist in the natural environment that are both scarce and economically useful in production or consumption, either in their raw state or after a minimal amount of processing.” The requirement economically useful underlines the parallelism to the term commodity used above.

  18. 18.

    UNCTAD, Key Statistics and Trends in International Trade, 2016, p. 22.

  19. 19.

    An in-depth overview is provided in Schneider and Terhechte (2014), para. 39 ff.

  20. 20.

    See in detail Terhechte (2012a), p. 83 ff.

  21. 21.

    Dederer (2012), p. 37 ff.

  22. 22.

    The most prominent example constitutes the decision of the WTO’s Appellate Body in the dispute with China regarding rare soil, see WTO, Panel Report, China-Measures Related to the Exportation of Various Raw Materials (China—Raw Materials), WT/DS394R (USA), WT/DS395R (European Communities) and WT/DS398R (Mexico); see also Paschke (2013), p. 97 ff.; more recently the Appellate Body affirmed its conclusion, since China failed to remove some of the restrictions already criticized in the previous proceedings before the WTO with respect to certain forms of rare soil or earths, see WTO, Appellate Body Report, China—measures related to the exportation of rare earths, tungsten, and molybdenum (China—Rare Earths), WT/DS431/AB/R (USA), WT/DS432/AB/R (European Union), WT/DS433/AB/R (Japan); more general on WTO law and raw materials see Cossy (2012), p. 281 ff.; Terhechte (2010), p. 61 ff.

  23. 23.

    Weiß (2009); Schorkopf (2008), p. 233 ff.

  24. 24.

    See Treaty Establishing the European Coal and Steel Community, 18 April 1951, 261 UNTS 140, Art. 2.

  25. 25.

    Schorkopf (2011), para. 1.

  26. 26.

    See Fischman (2007), p. 721 ff.; MacDonnell and Bates (2010); Blanco and Razzaque (2011); regarding the developments in US law see Terhechte (2012a), p. 91 f.

  27. 27.

    See further Lowe (2009); Alramahi (2013).

  28. 28.

    With regard to the role model function of German mining law in the context of legal research in the field of raw materials see e.g. Kühne (2001), p. 370 f.

  29. 29.

    On the Lisbon Treaty see Nowak (2011); Terhechte (2008a), p. 143 ff.; Hatje and Kindt (2008), p. 1761 ff.; Streinz et al. (2010).

  30. 30.

    See e.g. Kahl (2009), p. 601 ff.; Nettesheim (2010), p. 19 ff.

  31. 31.

    Eeckhout (2012), p. 57; Koutrakos (2013), p. 22 ff.; Thym (2008), p. 173 ff.; Fischer (2008), p. 56 ff.

  32. 32.

    Bungenberg and Herrmann (2011); Tietje (2009), p. 1 ff.

  33. 33.

    Epiney (2013), p. 42.

  34. 34.

    See in more detail Prontera (2017); Talus (2013); Delvaux (2013); Braun J. F, EU Energy Policy under the Treaty of Lisbon Rules—Between a New Policy and Business as Usual, EPIN Working Paper No. 31, February 2011, https://www.ceps.eu/system/files/book/2011/02/EPIN%20WP31%20Braun%20on%20EU%20Energy%20Policy%20under%20Lisbon.pdf (last accessed 15 March 2018), p. 1 ff.; Baumann and Turek (2008), p. 157 ff.; Ehricke and Hackländer (2008), p. 579 ff.; Fischer (2009), p. 50 ff.; Hobe (2009), p. 219 ff.; on the European Constitution see Maichel (2005), p. 55 ff.

  35. 35.

    Nettesheim (2011a), para. 7.

  36. 36.

    Luzarraga (2008), p. 231 ff.; Herrmann (2008), p. 114 ff.

  37. 37.

    See Terhechte (2012b), para. 3 ff.

  38. 38.

    Martenczuk (2008), p. 941 ff.

  39. 39.

    See Schmahl (2012), p. 213 ff.

  40. 40.

    On this see Engbrink (2014).

  41. 41.

    Schorkopf (2011), para. 6 ff.

  42. 42.

    Bungenberg (2009), p. 206.

  43. 43.

    Cf. Agreement between the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany and the Government of Mongolia on cooperation in the fields of raw materials, industry and technology, 13 October 2011; see further Dahlmann and Mildner (2012); Dahlmann A and Mildner SA, Deutschlands Rohstoffpartnerschaften: Modell mit Zukunftscharakter?. Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung Analysen und Argumente No. 137, November 2013, http://www.kas.de/wf/doc/kas_36104-544-1-30.pdf?131120143826 (last accessed 15.03.2018); Nowrot (2013); Wallenoeffer (2011), p. 132 ff.

  44. 44.

    Vedder (2012), p. 11 ff.

  45. 45.

    See Commission Communication on a thematic strategy on the sustainable use of natural resources, COM (2005) 670 final; Calliess (1998), p. 559 ff.; Žvelc (2012), p. 174 ff.; More generally on the term sustainability see Kahl (2008).

  46. 46.

    Nettesheim (2011b), para. 74 ff.

  47. 47.

    Schorkopf (2011), para. 8.

  48. 48.

    Ibid.

  49. 49.

    See in detail with the example of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) Terhechte (2008c).

  50. 50.

    Proedrou (2012); Frey (2013); see also the contributions in Peimani (2011); as well as Bahgat (2006), p. 961 ff.

  51. 51.

    See Commission Communication on a thematic strategy on the sustainable use of natural resources, COM (2005) 670 final; Reimer and Tölle (2013), p. 591; see also Rehbinder (2012).

  52. 52.

    Hirsbrunner (2012), para. 16.

  53. 53.

    Commission Communication, on a roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe, COM (2011) 571 final.

  54. 54.

    See United Nations, General Assembly Resolution Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, A/RES/70/1; on the commitment of the EU to these goals see Commission Communication on next steps for a sustainable European future European action for sustainability, COM (2016) 739 final; Council Conclusions on a sustainable European future: The EU response to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, No. 10370/17, 20 June 2017.

  55. 55.

    For details see Nowrot (2013).

  56. 56.

    Similar to the suggestions made by the former Germany minister for economic affairs Rainer Brüderle; see critically Kamann (2012), p. 101 ff.

  57. 57.

    For an example in European administrative law see Terhechte (2011), para. 53 ff.

  58. 58.

    See Weiß (2009); Herdegen (2014), p. 1 ff.; Schorkopf (2008), p. 233 ff.

  59. 59.

    United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1803 (XVII) of 14 December 1962, “Permanent sovereignty over natural resources,” UN GA/Res. 1803 XVII (1962).

  60. 60.

    Dederer (2012), S. 38 ff.

  61. 61.

    Commission Communication on the raw materials initiative—meeting our critical needs for growth and jobs in Europe, COM (2008) 699 final.

  62. 62.

    Ibid, p. 6.

  63. 63.

    Ibid, p. 9.

  64. 64.

    Ibid, p. 10; see also Orbie (2007), p. 297 ff.

  65. 65.

    See Commission Communication, Closing the loop—An EU action plan for the Circular Economy, COM (2015) 614 final.

  66. 66.

    Commission Communication Europe 2020—A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, COM (2010) 2020.

  67. 67.

    Commission Communication on the raw materials initiative—meeting our critical needs for growth and jobs in Europe, COM (2008) 699 final, p. 6; With respect to the need of such approaches see Goldthau (2010), p. 25 ff.; see more recently on this Commission Staff Working Document, Report on Critical Raw Materials and the Circular Economy, SWD (2018) 36 final.

  68. 68.

    The Commission regularly publishes a list of critical raw materials in order to reflect production needs as well as market and technological developments based upon its own methodology. See third list of CRMs Commission Communication on the 2017 list of Critical Raw Materials for the EU, COM (2017) 490 final; European Commission, Methodology for establishing the EU list of EU critical raw materials—Guidelines, 2017.

  69. 69.

    The EIP is a platform for stakeholders (Member States, NGOs, industry, academia etc.) to receive high-level guidance on innovative approaches to tackle the challenges related to raw materials. See European Commission, The European Innovation Partnership (EIP) on Raw Materials, https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/eip-raw-materials/ (last updated 30 April 2018); European Commission, Strategic Implementation Plan (SIP) of the EIP, https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/eip-raw-materials/en/content/strategic-implementation-plan-sip-0#Read%20EIP%20docs (last updated 30 April 2018).

  70. 70.

    Commission Communication on an action plan for a competitive and sustainable steel industry in Europe, COM (2013) 407 final.

  71. 71.

    Commission Staff Working Document, A blueprint for the EU forest-based industries, SWD (2013) 343 final; Commission Communication, A New EU Forest Strategy: For Forests And The Forest-Based Sector, COM (2013) 659 final.

  72. 72.

    Terhechte (2012a); Küblböck K, The EU Raw Materials Initiative—Scope and Critical Assessment, Austrian Research Foundation for International Development, Briefing Paper No. 8, September 2013, https://www.oefse.at/fileadmin/content/Downloads/Publikationen/Briefingpaper/BP8_eu_raw_materials.pdf (last accessed 30 April 2018).

  73. 73.

    Ibid.

  74. 74.

    The EU’s attempts in the context of conflict minerals might serve as an example see further on good governance with respect to conflict minerals Nowrot (2017).

  75. 75.

    See also Terhechte (2011), para. 11.

  76. 76.

    Ibid.

  77. 77.

    With regard to the impact of US law on European competition law see Terhechte (2004), S. 192 ff.; Terhechte (2008b).

  78. 78.

    Schorkopf (2008), p. 235.

References

  • Adebahr H (1975) Rohstoffabkommen und Welthandelsordnung Wirtschaftsdienst 55(9):467–472

    Google Scholar 

  • Alramahi (2013) Oil and gas law in the UK. Bloomsbury Professional, West Sussex

    Google Scholar 

  • Bahgat G (2006) Europe’s energy security: challenges and opportunities. Int Aff 82(5):961–975

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumann F, Turek J (2008) Die europäische Energiepolitik im Vertrag von Lissabon. In: Weidenfeld W (ed) Lissabon in der Analyse – Der Reformvertrag der Europäischen Union. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 157–170

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanco E, Razzaque J (2011) Globalisation and natural resources law – challenges, key issues and perspectives. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Bungenberg M (2009) Außenbeziehungen und Außenpolitik Europarecht-Beiheft 1:195–215

    Google Scholar 

  • Bungenberg M, Herrmann C (2011) Die gemeinsame Handelspolitik der Europäischen Union nach Lissabon. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Calliess C (1998) Die neue Querschnittsklausel des Art. 6 ex 3 c EGV als Instrument zur Umsetzung des Grundsatzes der nachhaltigen Entwicklung. Deutsche Verwaltungsblatt 559–568

    Google Scholar 

  • Cossy M (2012) Energy trade and WTO rules: reflexions on sovereignty over natural resources, export restrictions and freedom of transit. In: Herrmann C, Terhechte JP (eds) European yearbook of international economic law, vol 3. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 281–306

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahlmann A, Mildner SA (2012) Rohstoffpartnerschaften: Kein Garant für Versorgungssicherheit und Entwicklung SWP-Aktuell 16:1–4

    Google Scholar 

  • Dederer HG (2012) Rohstoffausbeutung -bewirtschaftung und -verteilung aus der Sicht des allgemeinen Völkerrechts. In: Ehlers D et al (eds) Rechtsfragen des internationalen Rohstoffhandels. Fachmedien Recht und Wirtschaft, Frankfurt am Main, pp 37–56

    Google Scholar 

  • Delvaux B (2013) EU law and the development of a sustainable, competitive and secure energy policy. Intersentia, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Eeckhout P (2012) EU external relations law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehricke U, Hackländer D (2008) Europäische Energiepolitik auf der Grundlage der neuen Bestimmungen des Vertrags von Lissabon. Zeitschrift für Europarechtliche Studien 4:579–602

    Google Scholar 

  • Engbrink SD (2014) Die Kohärenz des auswärtigen Handelns der Europäischen Union. Mohr Siebeck, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Epiney A (2013) Umweltrecht der Europäischen Union. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer KH (2008) Europäische Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik nach Lissabon. Zeitschrift für Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik 1:56–67

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer S (2009) Energie- und Klimapolitik im Vertrag von Lissabon: Legitimationserweiterung für wachsende Herausforderungen. Integration (1):50–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischman RL (2007) What is natural resources law? Univ Colorado Law Rev 78:717–825

    Google Scholar 

  • Frey K (2013) Globale Energieversorgungssicherheit Analyse des völkerrechtlichen Rahmens. Mohr Siebeck, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Friderichs H, Kebschull D, Schröder G (1976) Rohstoffabkommen, ein gangbarer Weg? Wirtschaftsdienst 56(5):226–235

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldthau A (2010) Energy diplomacy in trade and investment of oil and gas. In: Goldthau A, Witte JM (eds) Global energy governance – the new rules of the game. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, pp 25–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldthau A, Witte JM (2010) Global energy governance – the new rules of the game. Brookings Institution Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermayer W (1985) Internationale Rohstoffabkommen als Beispiel des Nord-Süd-Dialoges. Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatje A, Kindt A (2008) Der Vertrag von Lissabon – Europa endlich in guter Verfassung? Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 25:1761–1768

    Google Scholar 

  • Herdegen M (2014) Internationales Wirtschaftsrecht. C.H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Herrmann C (2008) § 17 Die Gemeinsame Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik (GASP). In: Streinz R, Ohler C, Herrmann C (eds) Der Vertrag von Lissabon zur Reform der EU. C. H. Beck, München, pp 114–125

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirsbrunner S (2012) Artikel 194 AEUV. In: Schwarze J (ed) EU-Kommentar. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobe S (2009) Energiepolitik Europarecht-Beiheft 1:219–231

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahl W (2008) Nachhaltigkeit als Verbundbegriff. Mohr Siebeck, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahl W (2009) Die Kompetenzen der EU in der Energiepolitik nach Lissabon. Europarecht (5):601–621

    Google Scholar 

  • Käller A (2012) Artikel 191 AEUV. In: Schwarze J (ed) EU-Kommentar. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamann HG (2012) Die Einkaufsgemeinschaft als Strategie der Rohstoffsicherung? Eine kartellrechtliche Standortbestimmung. In: Ehlers D et al (eds) Rechtsfragen des internationalen Rohstoffhandels. Fachmedien Recht und Wirtschaft, Frankfurt am Main, pp 101–125

    Google Scholar 

  • Kebschull D (1974) Rohstoff- und Entwicklungspolitik: Bericht des Rohstoffausschusses beim Wissenschaftlichen Beirat des Bundesministeriums für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit. Klett, Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  • Koutrakos P (2013) The EU common security and defence policy. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Kühne G (2001) Die rechtsvergleichende und internationale Dimension des Bergrechts. In: Basedow J et al (eds) Aufbruch nach Europa – 75 Jahre Max-Planck-Institut für Privatrecht. Mohr Siebeck, Heidelberg, pp 363–377

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowe JS (2009) Oil and gas law in a nutshell. West Publishing, Eagan

    Google Scholar 

  • Luzarraga A (2008) La Politica Exterior Comun en el Tratado de Lisboa. In: Fernández Liesa CR (ed) El Tratado de Lisboa. Analisis y Perspectivas. Dykinson, Madrid, pp 231–254

    Google Scholar 

  • MacDonnell LJ, Bates SF (2010) The evolution of natural resources law and policy. American Bar Association, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Maichel G (2005) Das Energiekapitel in der Europäischen Verfassung – mehr Integration oder mehr Zentralismus für die leitungsgebundene Energiewirtschaft Europas?. In: Hendler R, Ibler M, Martínez Soria J (eds) “Für Sicherheit, für Europa.” Festschrift für Volkmar Götz zum 70. Geburtstag. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen, pp 55–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Martenczuk B (2008) The external representation of the EU: from fragmentation to a Single European Voice. In: Fischer-Lescano A et al (eds) Frieden in Freiheit – Peace in liberty – Paix en liberté. Festschrift für Michael Bothe zum 70, Geburtstag. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 941–956

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason ES (1946) Controlling world trade: cartels and commodity agreements. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Nettesheim M (2010) Das Energiekapitel im Vertrag von Lissabon. Juristen Zeitung 65(1):19–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Nettesheim M (2011a) Artikel 194 AEUV. In: Grabitz E, Hilf M, Nettesheim M (eds) Das Recht der Europäischen Union. C.H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Nettesheim M (2011b) Artikel 191 AEUV. In: Grabitz E, Hilf M, Nettesheim M (eds) Das Recht der Europäischen Union. C.H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowak C (2011) Europarecht nach Lissabon. Carl Heymanns Verlag, Köln

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowrot K (2013) Bilaterale Rohstoffpartnerschaften: Betrachtungen zu einem neuen Steuerungsinstrument aus der Perspektive des Europa- und Völkerrechts. Beiträge zum Transnationalen Wirtschaftsrecht 128:1–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowrot K (2017) Good raw materials governance: towards a European approach contributing to a constitutionalised international economic law. In: Bungenberg M et al (eds) European yearbook of international economic law, vol 8. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 381–407

    Google Scholar 

  • Orbie J (2007) The European Union & the commodity debate: from trade to aid. Rev Afr Polit Econ 34(112):297–311

    Google Scholar 

  • Paschke M (2013) Export restrictions in Chinese-EU raw materials trade to end? – Conclusions from the WTO-panel appellate body report in the China: raw materials case. China-EU Law J 1(3–4):97–113

    Google Scholar 

  • Peimani H (2011) The challenge of energy security in the 21st century – trends of significance. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore

    Google Scholar 

  • Pelikan HM (1990) Internationale Rohstoffabkommen. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Proedrou F (2012) EU energy security in the gas sector – evolving dynamics, policy dilemmas and prospects. Routledge, Abingdon

    Google Scholar 

  • Proelß A (2012) Die Kompetenzen der Europäischen Union für die Rohstoffversorgung. In: Ehlers D et al (eds) Rechtsfragen des internationalen Rohstoffhandels. Fachmedien Recht und Wirtschaft, Frankfurt am Main, pp 161–184

    Google Scholar 

  • Prontera A (2017) The new politics of energy security in the European Union and beyond: states, markets, institutions. Routledge, Abingdon

    Google Scholar 

  • Rehbinder E (2012) Sustainable resource management – new legal approaches needed? J Eur Environ Plann Law 9(1):34–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Reimer F, Tölle S (2013) Ressourceneffizienz als Problembegriff Zeitschrift für Umweltrecht 11:589–598

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanden J, Schomerus T, Schulze F (2012) Entwicklung eines Regelungskonzepts für ein Ressourcenschutzrecht des Bundes. Erich Schmidt Verlag, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmahl S (2012) Rohstoffsicherung als Grund für Einsätze der Bundeswehr? Völkerrechtliche und verfassungsrechtliche Fragen. In: Ehlers D et al (eds) Rechtsfragen des internationalen Rohstoffhandels. Fachmedien Recht und Wirtschaft, Frankfurt am Main, pp 213–237

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider H, Terhechte JP (2014) Artikel 215 AEUV. In: Grabitz E, Hilf M, Nettesheim M (eds) Das Recht der Europäischen Union. C.H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Schorkopf F (2008) Internationale Rohstoffverwaltung zwischen Lenkung und Markt. Archiv des Völkerrechts 46(2):233–258

    Google Scholar 

  • Schorkopf F (2011) § 22 Europäische Rohstoffverwaltung. In: Terhechte JP (ed) Verwaltungsrecht der Europäischen Union. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 811–836

    Google Scholar 

  • Schraven J (1982) Internationale und supranationale Rohstoffverwaltung. Duncker und Humblot, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Seitz K (1975) Rohstoffversorgung und Rohstoffabkommen: Überlegungen zu einer deutschen Rohstoffpolitik gegenüber der Dritten Welt. Europa Archiv 30(14):461–470

    Google Scholar 

  • Stockmann R, Menzel U, Nuschler F (2010) Entwicklungspolitik. Oldenbourg, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Streinz R, Ohler C, Herrmann C (2010) Der Vertrag von Lissabon zur Reform der EU. C. H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Talus K (2013) EU energy law and policy: a critical account. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Terhechte JP (2004) Die ungeschriebenen Tatbestandsmerkmale des europäischen Wettbewerbsrechts. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Terhechte JP (2008a) Der Vertrag von Lissabon: Grundlegende Verfassungsurkunde der europäischen Rechtsgemeinschaft oder technischer Änderungsvertrag? Europarecht 2:143–190

    Google Scholar 

  • Terhechte JP (2008b) International Cartel and Merger Enforcement Law. Gieseking, Bielefeld

    Google Scholar 

  • Terhechte JP (2008c) OPEC und europäisches Wettbewerbsrecht. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Terhechte JP (2010) Energiekartelle im Lichte des WTO-Rechts – zugleich ein Beitrag zur Auslegung des Art. XX GATT. In: Ehlers D, Wolffgang HM, Schröder UJ (eds) Energie und Klimawandel. Verlag Recht und Wissenschaft, Frankfurt am Main, pp 61–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Terhechte JP (2011) § 1 Das Verwaltungsrecht der Europäischen Union als Gegenstand rechtswissenschaftlicher Forschung – Entwicklungslinien, Prinzipien und Perspektiven. In: Terhechte JP (ed) Verwaltungsrecht der Europäischen Union. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 43–88

    Google Scholar 

  • Terhechte JP (2012a) Rohstoffexportkartelle und -beschränkungen im Lichte einer europäischen Rohstoff-Governance. In: Ehlers D et al (eds) Rechtsfragen des internationalen Rohstoffhandels. Fachmedien Recht und Wirtschaft, Frankfurt am Main, pp 83–100

    Google Scholar 

  • Terhechte (2012b) Artikel 47 EUV. In: Schwarze J (ed) EU-Kommentar. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Thym D (2008) Außenverfassungsrecht nach dem Lissabonner Vertrag. In: Pernice I (ed) Der Vertrag von Lissabon: Reform der EU ohne Verfassung? Nomos, Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Tietje C (2009) Die Außenwirtschaftsverfassung der EU nach dem Vertrag von Lissabon. Beiträge zum Transnationalen Wirtschaftsrecht 83:1–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Vedder H (2012) The formalities and substance of EU external environmental competence: stuck between climate change and competitiveness. In: Morgera E (ed) The external environmental policy of the EU – EU and international law perspectives. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 11–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallenoeffer S (2011) Shared interest or competing actions: what drives energy security cooperation between Asia and Europe? In: Peimani H (ed) The challenge of energy security in the 21st century – trends of significance. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore, pp 132–160

    Google Scholar 

  • Weberpals T (1989) Internationale Rohstoffabkommen im Völker- und Kartellrecht. Herbert Utz Verlag, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiß F (2009) § 6 Internationale Rohstoffmärkte. In: Tietje C (ed) Internationales Wirtschaftsrecht. De Gruyter, Berlin, pp 267–286

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenzel U (1961) Das Recht der internationalen Rohstoffabkommen. Wiesenburg Verlag, Oerlenbach

    Google Scholar 

  • Žvelc R (2012) Environmental integration in EU trade policy: the generalised system of preferences, trade sustainability impact assessments and free trade agreements. In: Morgera E (ed) The external environmental policy of the EU – EU and international law perspectives. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 174–203

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Competition and Regulation Institute, Leuphana University Lüneburg, Lüneburg, Germany

    Jörg Philipp Terhechte

Authors
  1. Jörg Philipp Terhechte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jörg Philipp Terhechte .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany

    Marc Bungenberg

  2. Faculty of Law, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany

    Markus Krajewski

  3. School of Law, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK

    Christian J. Tams

  4. Competition and Regulation Institute, Leuphana University of Lüneburg, Lüneburg, Germany

    Jörg Philipp Terhechte

  5. Faculty of Law and Criminal Sciences, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland

    Andreas R. Ziegler

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Terhechte, J.P. (2018). Towards a European Natural Resources Law?. In: Bungenberg, M., Krajewski, M., Tams, C.J., Terhechte, J.P., Ziegler, A.R. (eds) European Yearbook of International Economic Law 2018. European Yearbook of International Economic Law, vol 9. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/8165_2018_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/8165_2018_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-97751-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-97752-2

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation