Abstract
In the field of international law, both as a result of the signing of international treaties and of the membership of international organisations, obligations arise non-compliance with which genera la responsabilidad del Estado. However, in federal or decentralised states in general, non-compliance with these obligations may not correspond to the federation or central bodies, as a consequence of this being a matter of “regional” or local competence.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Carrillo Salcedo (1994), p. 179.
- 2.
Draft articles on the State’s responsibility for internationally illicit acts, adopted by the CDI in its 53rd session (A/56/10) and annexed by the AG in its Resolution 56/83, of December 12, 2001.
- 3.
The TCE has clarified that it is not acceptable that any connection, however vague, with issues wherein other countries or foreign citizens are involved, necessarily implies that competence should be attributed to the rule “international relations”, STC 153/1989, point 8.
- 4.
Point 8 of aforementioned STC 153/1989.
- 5.
Ruiz Robledo (2008), p. 491.
- 6.
Trone (2001), p. 20.
- 7.
STC 252/1988, December 20, point 4.
- 8.
“The responsibility of a member state in the event of non-compliance (Art. 169 TCE) is compromised irrespective of which is the state organ whose action or omission originates the infraction, even in the event of this being a constitutionally independent institution” TJCE, ruling 77/69, of May 5, 1970, Commission c. Belgium (ECR 237).
- 9.
- 10.
“The existence of generic or indeterminate controls which imply hierarchic independence of Autonomous Communities from central State Administration is not in line with the principle of autonomy”, STC 6/1982, point 7.
- 11.
Jauregui (1985), pp. 462–463.
- 12.
STC 165/1994, point 5.
- 13.
“…one may analyse the possibility of article 93 in connection with 149.1.3ª coming into to play when it is not a case of implementation of or compliance with Community law (or of international treaties or conventions), but of ‘guarantee of compliance’, when non-compliance has been verified, in the framework of international relations—ex declaration of responsibility—and taking into acount the factors which the CC itself has defined as ‘fundamental nucleus’ of international relations”, Council of State report, December 15, 2010, p. 90.
- 14.
STC 102/1995, fundamento 14.
- 15.
“…not disruptive, but reasonable and useful, is the maintenance of practice and uses by means of which the State plays a leading role in the task of transposition…”, aforementioned Council of State report, p. 120.
- 16.
Azpitarte Sánchez (2009), p. 143.
- 17.
Academic writing is divided with regard to the breadth of recourse to this type of regulation, between those who argue that “once autonomous competence is exercised, the State should continue to issue rulings on the same question, though with merely suppletory value” (De Otto 1988, p. 283) and those who do not (Machado 1982, pp. 409–413).
- 18.
Herrarte (1991), pp. 80 and 81.
- 19.
Point 6 of the aforementioned ruling.
- 20.
Bielsa (2000), pp. 200–202.
- 21.
STC 79/1992, point 3.
- 22.
Concerning the draft Organic Law of Harmonisation of the Autonomous Process.
- 23.
STC 6/1982, point 7.
- 24.
STC 27/1987, point 9.
- 25.
Specifically, the non-cooperation of its government bodies in the dissolution of a parliamentary group with links to an illegal organisation, on the one hand; and the adoption of certain proposals related to the political status of the Basque Country, not easily assimilated by the constitution.
- 26.
The only occasion where the Government has seriously threatened an Autonomous Community with the application of Article 155 of the Constitution concerned the fulfillment of a Community obligation and dates from February 1989, when the government implemented in the Council of Ministers a request to the Canary Islands for the immediate application in this Autonomous Community of the tariff dismantling established by the Treaty of Accession to the European Community.
- 27.
“The Government will also be able to cite a negative conflict of competences when, having required of the supreme executive body of an Autonomous Community the exercise of the powers corresponding to the competence conferred upon the Community by its own statutes or an organic law of delegation or transfer, this petition is ignored…” (Art. 71 LOTC).
- 28.
Article 44 of Law 29/1998, of July 13, governing administrative jurisdiction.
- 29.
Gómez Puente (2004), pp. 780–799.
- 30.
STC 79/1992, point 5.
- 31.
STC 148/1998, point 8.
- 32.
STJCE of June 1, 1999, Konle-Austria, C302/97, Rec. 1999, p. 1/3099, section 64.
- 33.
Cienfuegos (2007), p. 76.
- 34.
Such as Law 40/2001, Law 38/2003, etc.
- 35.
Cienfuegos (2007) cit., p. 79.
- 36.
Azpitarte (2009), p. 140.
- 37.
Council of State report, cit., p. 113.
- 38.
Azpitarte (2009), cit., p. 142.
- 39.
Council Report, p. 311.
- 40.
Cit., p. 313.
References
Azpitarte Sánchez, M.: “El Estado Autonómico unitario y el informe del Consejo de Estado sobre la inserción del derecho europeo en el ordenamiento español”, Revista d´Estudis Autonomics y Federals, nº 9, 2009, p. 143.
Carrillo Salcedo, J.A.: Curso de Derecho internacional público, Madrid, 1994, p. 179
Cienfuegos, M.: Comunidades Autónomas, Tribunales de la Unión Europea y responsabilidad por el incumplimiento autonómico del derecho comunitario. Reflexiones a partir de la práctica reciente, Revista d´Estudis Autonomics i Federals, 5, 2007, p. 76
De Otto, Derecho Constitucional (Sistema de fuentes), 2ª ed., Barcelona, 1988, p. 283
Fernández Segado, Las Comunidades autónomas ante las relaciones internacionales: un paradigma del dinamismo evolutivo del Estado autonómico español, 2006, http://www.bibliojuridica.org/libros/4/1640/12.pdf.
Gómez Puente, M.: Un apunte sobre la dimensión regional de la responsabilidad del estado por incumplimiento del derecho comunitario europeo, Report on the Autonomous Communities, 2004 , Barcelona, 2005, pp. 780–799
Jauregui, G.: “Estatuto de Autonomía del País Vasco y Relaciones Internacionales”, en Revista de Estudios Políticos, n 46–47, 1985, pp. 462–463.
Lasagabaster Herrarte: Los principios de supletoriedad y prevalencia del Derecho estatal respecto al Derecho autonómico, Madrid, 1991, pp. 80 and 81
Muñoz Machado, Derecho Público de las Comunidades Autónomas (I), Madrid, 1982, pp. 409 to 413
Ruiz Robledo, A.: “La acividad exterior de las Comunidades autónomas en el segundo Estado autonómico”, Revista de Derecho Político, n 71-72, January-August 2008, p. 491
Tejedor Bielsa, La garantía constitucional de la unidad del ordenamiento en el Estado autonómico: competencia, prevalencia y supletoriedad, Madrid, 2000, pp. 200 to 202.
Trone, J.: “Federal constitutions and international relations”, Queensland, 2001, p. 20
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Torrealday, R.U. (2013). Some Questions Regarding Responsibility for Non-compliance with International Obligations in Federal States and in Spain. In: López Basaguren, A., Escajedo San Epifanio, L. (eds) The Ways of Federalism in Western Countries and the Horizons of Territorial Autonomy in Spain. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-27720-7_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-27720-7_13
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-27719-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-27720-7
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)