Sovereignty

Chapter

Abstract

The main point made in this article concerns arguments about applying international law method in the EFTA pillar of the EEA. General international law does not support any reading down of treaty obligations and EU secondary legislation in the EFTA States of the EEA or the institutions of the EEA. Preserving national sovereignty in the fields covered by the EEA Agreement is not the object and purpose of the EEA Agreement. There is no institutional balance of the kind developed in the EU institutions and between them and the member states. Under international law, EEA obligations may go further for the EFTA States of the EEA, to the extent EEA principles of homogeneity and reciprocity or principles of EU law do not ameliorate this. Under the EEA judicial constitution, the EFTA Court bears the burden of maintaining the EEA principles of homogeneity and reciprocity in treaty interpretation.

References

  1. Andenas M (1994) Article 177 references to the European court: policy and practice. ButterworthsGoogle Scholar
  2. Andenas M, Bjorge E (2012) L'application de la convention européenne de droits de l'homme: quel role pour le judge interne. Revue international de droit compare, pp 383–415Google Scholar
  3. Andenas M, Bjorge E (2013a) National implementation of ECHR rights. In: Follesdal A et al. (eds) Constituting Europe: the European court of human rights in a national, European and global context. Cambridge University Press, chapter 6, pp 181–262Google Scholar
  4. Andenas M, Bjorge E (2013b) The Norwegian court applies the ECHR by building upon its underlying principles. Eur Public Law 19:214–246Google Scholar
  5. Arnull A (2006) The European Union and its court of justice, 2nd edn. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  6. Berman F (1996) Community law and international law: how far does either belong to the other? In: Markesinis BS (ed) The clifford chance lectures volume I: bridging the channel. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  7. Bjorge E (2014) The evolutionary interpretation of treaties. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  8. Bjorge E (2015a) Domestic application of the ECHR courts as faithful trustees. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  9. Bjorge E (2015b) Been there, done that: the margin of appreciation and international law. Camb J Int Comp Law 4:181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blum L (1910) Conclusions. In: Conseil d’Etat 11 March 1910 Compagnie générale française des tramways Case No 16178; reported in 17 Revue du droit public, pp 274–284Google Scholar
  11. Crawford J (2008) Treaty and contract in investment arbitration. Int Arbitr 24(351):354Google Scholar
  12. Crawford J (2012a) Sovereignty as a legal value. In: Crawford J et al (eds) The Cambridge companion to international law. Cambridge University Press, p 117Google Scholar
  13. Crawford J (ed) (2012b) Brownlie’s principles of public international law. OUP, p 214Google Scholar
  14. Guggenheim P (1953) Traité de Droit international public tome I, Librairie de l’Université, p 2Google Scholar
  15. Giuliano M (1956) I diritti e gli obblighi degli stati. CEDAM, p 79Google Scholar
  16. Guillaume G (2006) Methods and practice of treaty interpretation by the international court of justice. In: Sacerdoti G et al (eds) (2006) The WTO at ten: the contribution of the dispute settlement system. Cambridge University Press, p 468–469Google Scholar
  17. Kolb R (2017) Good faith in international law. Hart, p 4Google Scholar
  18. Lauterpacht H (1927) Private law sources and analogies in international law. LongmanGoogle Scholar
  19. Lauterpacht H (1949) Restrictive interpretation and the principle of effectiveness in the interpretation of treaties. Br Yearb Int Law 26:48Google Scholar
  20. Lowe V (2008) Sovereignty and international economic law. In: Shan W et al (eds) Redefining sovereignty in international economic law. Hart, p 77Google Scholar
  21. Lenaerts K et al (2014) EU procedural law, Oxford EU law library. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  22. Linderfalk U (2007) On the interpretation of treaties. Springer, pp 281–282Google Scholar
  23. Schabas WA (2015) The European convention on human rights: a commentary. OUP, p 78Google Scholar
  24. Sedley S (2015) Lions under the throne: essays on the history of English public law. Cambridge University Press, pp 23–69Google Scholar
  25. Sejersted F (2008) Norges rettslige integrasjon i EU. In: Norge og EU – rett og politikk. Nytt Norsk Tidsskrift 4/2008Google Scholar
  26. Sejersted F (2009) Rett og politikk i europeiseringens tid. In: Norge og EU – rett og politikk. Nytt Norsk Tidsskrift 3-4/2009Google Scholar
  27. Sejersted F, Arnesen F, Rognstad O-A, Foyn S, Kolstad O (2011) EØS-rett. UniversitetsforlagetGoogle Scholar
  28. Slynn L (1994) They call it teleological. Denning Law J p 225Google Scholar
  29. Tridimas T (2007) The general principles of EU law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  30. Visscher F (1929) L’arbitrage de l’Île de Palmas (Miangas). Revue du droit international et de législation comparée 10:735Google Scholar
  31. Weatherill S (2017) The internal market as a legal concept, OUP, p 102Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of LawUniversity of OsloOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations