Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

The Treaty on European Union (TEU) pp 833–874Cite as

Article 21 [The Principles and Objectives of the Union’s External Action]

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

External action of the EU (and the European Community) has traditionally been afflicted by a strong fragmentation of competences and organisational structures.

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   189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   249.99
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 Koutrakos (2006), p. 17–32, 415–452; Eeckhout (2005), p. 9–57,101–137, 138–167.

  2. 2.

    As to the range of these competences see de Baere (2008), p. 9 et seqq.; Koutrakos (2006), p. 5 et seqq.

  3. 3.

    Cf. Koutrakos (2006), p. 383 et seqq.; Eeckhout (2005), p. 138–154.

  4. 4.

    Cf. de Baere (2008), p. 267 et seqq.; cf. furthermore Craig and de Burca (2008), p. 193 et seq.

  5. 5.

    Cf. Koutrakos (2006), p. 485–506; Eeckhout (2005), p. 162–164; van Elsuwege (2010), p. 992 et seqq.; cf. furthermore Hummer, in Vedder and Heintschel von Heinegg (2007). Art. III-292 para 8–10, and Pechstein (2010), p. 425 et seqq.

  6. 6.

    Cf. Terhechte, in Schwarze (2009), Art. 11 para 5; Duke, in Koutrakos (2011), p. 20 et seq.; Bungenberg (2009), 198 et seq.

  7. 7.

    Cf. Koutrakos (2006), p. 487–489; de Baere (2008), p. 213 et seqq.; Cremer (2009), p. 290 et seqq.

  8. 8.

    Cf. Koutrakos (2006), p. 483–485; Kaufmann-Bühler, in Grabitz et al. (2010), Art. 21 EUV para 1.

  9. 9.

    On the need of cross-pillar policy-making see Craig and de Burca (2008), p. 125; cf. also van Elsuwege (2010), p. 1017.

  10. 10.

    Cf. de Baere (2008), p. 102–103; Wessel (1999), p. 59–69; Terhechte, in Schwarze (2009), Art. 11 para 1; Koutrakos (2006), p. 387 et seq.

  11. 11.

    Cf. Kaufmann-Bühler, in Grabitz et al. (2010), Art. 21 EUV para 1; Koutrakos (2006), p. 484.

  12. 12.

    Regarding Art. III-292 see Vedder, in Streinz et al. (2005), p. 43 et seqq.

  13. 13.

    Kaufmann-Bühler, in Grabitz et al. (2010), Art. 21 EUV para 1.

  14. 14.

    Kaufmann-Bühler, in Grabitz et al. (2010), Art. 21 EUV para 1.

  15. 15.

    Concerning the competences under the CSFP as well as the instruments and the modes of decision making characteristic for CFSP see Frenz (2010), p. 490 et seqq.; cf. furthermore de Baere (2008), p. 101 et seqq.

  16. 16.

    Cf. Koutrakos (2006), p. 485.

  17. 17.

    Cf. Cremer, in Calliess and Ruffert (2011), Art. 21 EUV para 1.

  18. 18.

    Cf. Frenz (2010), p. 488; Kaufmann-Bühler, in Grabitz et al. (2010), Art. 21 EUV para 2.

  19. 19.

    Concerning the (still) differing structure of competences in external action cf. De Baere (2008), pp. 108–112. Cf. furthermore Cremona, in Dashwood and Maresceau (2008), p. 38 et seqq., and Baratta, in Cannizzaro (2002), p. 51 et seqq.

  20. 20.

    Cf. Kaufmann-Bühler, in Grabitz et al. (2010), Art. 21 EUV para 2; Hummer, in Vedder and Heintschel von Heinegg (2007), Art. III-292 para 35.

  21. 21.

    Cf. Kaufmann-Bühler, in Grabitz et al. (2010), Art. 21 EUV para 2.

  22. 22.

    Cf. Kaufmann-Bühler, in Grabitz et al. (2010), Art. 21 EUV para 2.

  23. 23.

    Concerning the (difficult) relationship between competences under the CFSP and traditional external competences of the Community cf. Dashwood, in Dashwood and Maresceau (2008), p. 70 et seqq.

  24. 24.

    Concerning the (attempted) simplification of legal instruments in CFSP see De Baere (2008), p. 102–103; cf. also De Witte (2003), p. 99 regarding the 2003 draft of a European Constitution.

  25. 25.

    As to the broad range of areas of external action that previously fell under the EC Treaty see Craig and de Burca (2008), p. 182 et seqq.

  26. 26.

    See Craig and de Burca (2008), p. 182 et seqq.

  27. 27.

    As to “implied powers” in the field of external action cf. Eeckhout (2005), p. 58 et seqq.

  28. 28.

    Cf. Cremer, in Calliess and Ruffert (2011), Art. 21 EUV para 2.

  29. 29.

    Cf. Cremer, in Calliess and Ruffert (2011), Art. 21 EUV para 2.

  30. 30.

    Cf. Frenz (2010), p. 489; Cremer, in Calliess and Ruffert (2011), Art. 21 EUV para 3.

  31. 31.

    Concerning the distribution of functions in EU external action cf. De Baere (2008), p. 127–138.

  32. 32.

    Cf. De Baere (2008), p. 125–128.

  33. 33.

    Cf. Kaufmann-Bühler, in Grabitz et al. (2010), Art. 21 EUV para 3.

  34. 34.

    Cf. Cremer, in Calliess and Ruffert (2011), Art. 21 EUV para 4.

  35. 35.

    Cf. Kaufmann-Bühler, in Grabitz et al. (2010), Art. 21 EUV para 6.

  36. 36.

    Cf. Hummer, in Vedder and Heintschel von Heinegg (2007). Art. III-292 para 37.

  37. 37.

    Cf. Hilf and Schorkopf, in Grabitz et al. (2010), Art. 2 EUV para 38.

  38. 38.

    Cf. Hilf and Schorkopf, in Grabitz et al. (2010), Art. 2 EUV para 8–14.

  39. 39.

    Cf. also Kaufmann-Bühler, in Grabitz et al. (2010), Art. 21 EUV para 6.

  40. 40.

    Cf. Kaufmann-Bühler, in Grabitz et al. (2010), Art. 21 EUV para 6.

  41. 41.

    Cf. Kaufmann-Bühler, in Grabitz et al. (2010), Art. 21 EUV para 6.

  42. 42.

    See as an overview of the complex debate on “fragmentation” Fischer-Lescano and Teubner (2006) and Koskenniemi (2006).

  43. 43.

    Cf. Hilf and Schorkopf, in Grabitz et al. (2010), Art. 2 para 27.

  44. 44.

    Cf. Hilf and Schorkopf, in Grabitz et al. (2010), Art. 2 para 29.

  45. 45.

    Cf. Rose (2008), p. 251 et seqq.

  46. 46.

    See Council Conclusions on Democracy Support in the EU’s External Relations, 2,974th External Relations Council meetings (Brussels, 17 November 2009). The EU Agenda is annexed to the Conclusions.

  47. 47.

    Cf. Hilf and Schorkopf, in Grabitz et al. (2010), Art. 2 para 29.

  48. 48.

    Cf. Hilf and Schorkopf, in Grabitz et al. (2010), Art. 2 para 34.

  49. 49.

    Cf. Tridimas (2006), p. 242 et seqq., 370 et seqq., 418 et seqq., 136 et seqq., 477 et seqq.

  50. 50.

    Cf. Hilf and Schorkopf, in Grabitz and Hilf (2004), Art. 6 para 28.

  51. 51.

    Cf. Tridimas (2006), p. 298 et seqq.

  52. 52.

    Cf. also the vast collection of relevant essays in Alston (1999).

  53. 53.

    Cf. furthermore Clapham, in Alston (1999), p. 627 et seqq.

  54. 54.

    Cf. Kaddous, in Cremona and De Witte (2008), p. 291 et seqq.; Craig and de Burca (2008), p. 202.

  55. 55.

    Cf. Kaddous, in Cremona and De Witte (2008), p. 291 et seqq.; Hörmann, in Hilf and Oeter (2010), p. 211 et seqq.; Craig and de Burca (2008), p. 206 et seqq.

  56. 56.

    Cf. only Oeter, in Zangl and Zürn (2004), p. 61 et seqq.

  57. 57.

    Cf. Bourgeois and Lynskey, in Dashwood and Maresceau (2008), p. 202–223.

  58. 58.

    Concerning the EU’s position in (other) international organizations, cf. Jørgensen and Wessel, in Koutrakos (2011), p. 261 et seqq.

  59. 59.

    See Jørgensen and Wessel, in Koutrakos (2011), p. 264 et seqq.

  60. 60.

    See also Wouters et al. (2006); Laatikainen (2010), p. 475 et seqq.; Marchesi (2010), p. 97 et seqq.

  61. 61.

    Cf. Terhechte, in Schwarze (2009), Art. 11 para 6.

  62. 62.

    Cf. Dashwood, in Dashwood and Maresceau (2008), p. 74 et seqq.

  63. 63.

    Cf. Dashwood, in Dashwood and Maresceau (2008), p. 99 et seqq.

  64. 64.

    Cf. Dashwood, in Dashwood and Maresceau (2008), p. 100 et seqq.

  65. 65.

    Cf. Kaufmann-Bühler, in Grabitz et al. (2010), Art. 21 EUV para 7.

  66. 66.

    Cf. Terhechte, in Schwarze (2009), Art. 11 para 6.

  67. 67.

    Cf. Kaufmann-Bühler, in Grabitz et al. (2010), Art. 21 EUV para 8; cf. furthermore Heintschel von Heinegg, in Vedder and Heintschel von Heinegg (2007), Art. I-3 para18.

  68. 68.

    Cf. Kaufmann-Bühler, in Grabitz et al. (2010), Art. 21 EUV para 9.

  69. 69.

    See also Heintschel von Heinegg, in Vedder and Heintschel von Heinegg (2007), Art. I-3 para 28.

  70. 70.

    Cf. Terhechte, in Schwarze (2009), Art. 11 para 23; Bruha and Rau (2006), p. 175 et seqq.

  71. 71.

    On the strong assumption of “universality” of human rights and democracy as values see the critical voices of Kingsbury (1998), p. 713 et seqq., and Leino (2005), p. 329 et seqq.

  72. 72.

    See Commission Communication, “The European Union and the External Dimension of Human Rights Policy: From Rome to Maastricht and Beyond?”, Brussels 22.11.1995, COM (95), 567 final, para 34.

  73. 73.

    Cf. Leino, in Cremona and de Witte (2008), p. 261, and Cardwell (2011), p. 33 et seq.

  74. 74.

    See Leino, in Cremona and de Witte (2008), p. 261 at footnote 10.

  75. 75.

    Cf. Kaufmann-Bühler, in Grabitz et al. (2010), Art. 21 EUV para 10; cf. also Cardwell (2011), p. 33.

  76. 76.

    Cf. Cardwell (2011), p. 31.

  77. 77.

    See Williams (2004), p. 61.

  78. 78.

    Cf. Schimmelfennig and Scholtz (2008), p. 187 et seqq.; cf. Also Cardwell (2011), p. 31 et seq.

  79. 79.

    See the examples given by Leino, in Cremona and de Witte (2008), at p. 262.

  80. 80.

    Cf. Kaufmann-Bühler, in Grabitz et al. (2010), Art. 21 EUV para. 10, and—more in detail—Leino, in Cremona and de Witte (2008), p. 259 et seqq.

  81. 81.

    European Union Guidelines on Human Rights dialogues, adopted by the Council of the EU on 13 December 2001.

  82. 82.

    Cf. Leino, in Cremona and de Witte (2008), p. 266.

  83. 83.

    Cf. Leino, in Cremona and de Witte (2008), p. 266 et seqq.; cf. furthermore Cardwell (2011), p. 34 et seqq.

  84. 84.

    Cf. Leino, in Cremona and de Witte (2008), p. 268 et seq.

  85. 85.

    Cf. Leino, in Cremona and de Witte (2008), p. 269 et seqq.

  86. 86.

    Cf. also Leino, in Cremona and de Witte (2008), p. 262 et seqq.

  87. 87.

    See Donnelly (1989), p. 234.

  88. 88.

    Cf. Leino, in Cremona and de Witte (2008), p. 264 et seq.

  89. 89.

    Leino, in Cremona and de Witte (2008), p. 265.

  90. 90.

    Leino, in Cremona and de Witte (2008), p. 265.

  91. 91.

    Cf. more in detail Leino, in Cremona and de Witte (2008), p. 277 et seqq.

  92. 92.

    Cf. Cardwell (2011), p. 26 et seq.

  93. 93.

    Regulation 1889/2006 of the European Parliament and the European Council of 20 December 2006 on establishing a financial instrument, O.J. L 386/1 (2006).

  94. 94.

    Cf. Khaliq (2008), p. 73.

  95. 95.

    Cf. Cardwell (2011), p. 28 et seqq.; cf. furthermore Pace (2010), p. 611 et seqq.

  96. 96.

    Cf. Heintschel von Heinegg, in Vedder and Heintschel von Heinegg (2007), Art. I-3 para 26.

  97. 97.

    Cf. also Heintschel von Heinegg, in Vedder and Heintschel von Heinegg (2007), Art. I-3 para 26.

  98. 98.

    Cf. Heintschel von Heinegg, in Vedder and Heintschel von Heinegg (2007), Art. I-3 para 20.

  99. 99.

    Cf. only Keukeleire et al., in Koutrakos (2011), p. 172 et seqq.; Economides and Ker-Lindsay (2010), p. 495 et seqq.

  100. 100.

    Cf. Martenczuk and Zimmermann, in Schwarze (2009), Art. 177 para 18 et seqq.

  101. 101.

    Cf. Heintschel von Heinegg, in Vedder and Heintschel von Heinegg (2007), Art. I-3 para 24; Zimmermann (2006), p. 109 et seqq.

  102. 102.

    For an overview of the complex discourse on sustainable development see Cordonier Segger and Khalfan (2004), French (2005), Gehring and Cordonier Segger (2005), Schrijver (2008).

  103. 103.

    See only González Alonso (2009), p. 857 et seqq.

  104. 104.

    See Leino, in Cremona and de Witte (2008), p. 272.

  105. 105.

    See Leino, in Cremona and de Witte (2008), p. 272, cf. Zimmermann (2006), p. 109 et seqq.

  106. 106.

    Joint Statement by the Council and the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States Meeting Within the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission on European Union Development: “The European Consensus”, O.J. C/46/1 (2006).

  107. 107.

    Joint Statement by the Council and the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States Meeting Within the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission on European Union Development: “The European Consensus”, O.J. C/46/1 (2006), para 86.

  108. 108.

    Cf. Seppänen (2005), p. 96 et seqq.

  109. 109.

    See Kennedy, in Perry and Hatchard (2003).

  110. 110.

    See Leino, in Cremona and de Witte (2008), p. 276.

  111. 111.

    See Leino, in Cremona and de Witte (2008), p. 283.

  112. 112.

    Cf. Leino, in Cremona and de Witte (2008), p. 281 et seqq.

  113. 113.

    Cf. Bungenberg (2009), p. 202.

  114. 114.

    Cf. Heintschel von Heinegg, in Vedder and Heintschel von Heinegg (2007), Art. I-3 para 23.

  115. 115.

    Cf. Müller-Graff, in Dashwood and Maresceau (2008), p. 189 et seqq.; Bungenberg (2009), p. 203 et seqq.; cf. furthermore Krenzler and Pitschas, in Herrmann et al. (2006), p. 31 et seqq.; Krajewski (2005), p. 91 et seqq.

  116. 116.

    Cf. Hörmann, in Hilf and Oeter (2010), p. 694 et seqq.; Jones (2010), p. 45 et seq.

  117. 117.

    Cf. Boysen, in Hilf and Oeter (2010), p. 662 et seqq.

  118. 118.

    See Dimopoulos (2010), p. 158 et seqq., in particular pp. 166–169.

  119. 119.

    As to Art. 174 TEU-Amsterdam cf. Käller, in Schwarze (2009), Art. 174 para 14 et seqq., 46 et seqq.

  120. 120.

    Cf. Inglis, in Dashwood and Maresceau (2008), p. 431.

  121. 121.

    Decision 1600/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the Sixth Community Environment Action Programme, O.J. L 242/1 (2002); see also the mid-term review on the Action Programme, COM(2007) 225.

  122. 122.

    Cf. Inglis, in Dashwood and Maresceau (2008), p. 431 et seq.

  123. 123.

    See Inglis, in Dashwood and Maresceau (2008), p. 432 et seq.

  124. 124.

    Inglis, in Dashwood and Maresceau (2008), p. 432 et seq.

  125. 125.

    Cf. Inglis, in Dashwood and Maresceau (2008), p. 433.

  126. 126.

    See Cordonier Segger and Khalfan (2004), French (2005), Gehring and Cordonier Segger (2005), and Schrijver (2008).

  127. 127.

    See only the Stern Report—Stern (2006).

  128. 128.

    Cf. Inglis, in Dashwood and Maresceau (2008), p. 436.

  129. 129.

    Cf. Inglis, in Dashwood and Maresceau (2008), p. 438.

  130. 130.

    Cf. Inglis, in Dashwood and Maresceau (2008), p. 438.

  131. 131.

    Cf. Inglis, in Dashwood and Maresceau (2008), p. 438.

  132. 132.

    Concerning these examples cf. Inglis, in Dashwood and Maresceau (2008), p. 448 et seqq., 452 et seqq.

  133. 133.

    Cf. Nettesheim, in Oppermann et al. (2009), p. 736.

  134. 134.

    Cf. Martenczuk and Zimmermann, in Schwarze (2009), Art. 177 para 10.

  135. 135.

    Cf. Schmalenbach, in Calliess and Ruffert (2011), Art. 214 para 1 and 4.

  136. 136.

    Cf. Duke, in Koutrakos (2011), p. 38.

  137. 137.

    Concerning the concept of “good global governance” see Foqué (1998), as well as Petrovsky (1998).

  138. 138.

    See Thym, in von Bogdandy and Bast (2009), p. 316.

  139. 139.

    Cf. Fink-Hooijer (1994), p. 174; Tomuschat (1996), p. 1076.

  140. 140.

    Cf. Cremer, in Calliess and Ruffert (2011), Art. 21 EUV para 2.

  141. 141.

    Cf. Cremer, in Calliess and Ruffert (2011), Art. 21 EUV para 3.

  142. 142.

    Cf. Duke, in Koutrakos (2011), p. 21 and 23.

  143. 143.

    Cf. Duke, in Koutrakos (2011), p. 23 et seq.

  144. 144.

    Cf. Duke, in Koutrakos (2011), p. 24.

  145. 145.

    Cf. Duke, in Koutrakos (2011), p. 25 et seq.

  146. 146.

    Cf. Cremona, in Koutrakos (2011), p. 55 et seq.

  147. 147.

    EC Commission, Communication to the European Council, “Europe in the World – Some Practical Proposals for Greater Coherence, Effectiveness and Visibility”, 8 June 2006, COM(2006) 278.

  148. 148.

    IGC Mandate, adopted by the European Council June 2007, para 1.

  149. 149.

    See Cremona, in Koutrakos (2011), p. 77.

  150. 150.

    Cf. Cremona, in Koutrakos (2011), p. 59 et seq.

  151. 151.

    Cf. only Gauttier (2004), p. 23 et seqq.; Cremona 2008a, p. 11 et seqq.; Hillion, in Cremona 2008b, p. 17 et seqq.; Hamonic (2008), p. 675 et seqq.; Bosse-Platière (2009); van Elsuwege (2010), p. 1013 et seq.; Cremona, in Koutrakos (2011), p. 55 et seqq.

  152. 152.

    Cf. Tietje (1997), p. 212; Wessel (2000), p. 1150; Koutrakos (2001), p. 39; cf. furthermore Duke, in Koutrakos (2011), p. 16 et seqq., and van Elsuwege (2010), p. 1013 et seq.

  153. 153.

    See only Gauttier (2004), p. 24.

  154. 154.

    See Tietje (1997), p. 211.

  155. 155.

    See Hillion, in Cremona (2008a, b), p. 17 et seqq.

  156. 156.

    See also the definitional attempt of Duke, in Koutrakos (2011), p. 18.

  157. 157.

    See Cremona, in Koutrakos (2011), p. 55 et seq.

  158. 158.

    Cf. Duke, in Koutrakos (2011), p. 54.

  159. 159.

    Cf. Hummer, in Vedder and Heintschel von Heinegg (2007). Art. III-292 para 44; Duke, in Koutrakos (2011), p. 21

  160. 160.

    Cf. Cremona, in Koutrakos (2011), p. 71; cf. furthermore de Baere (2008), p. 231 et seqq.

  161. 161.

    See Cremona, in Koutrakos (2011), p. 62 et seqq., 76 et seqq.

  162. 162.

    See in particular Duke, in Koutrakos (2011), p. 30 et seqq.

  163. 163.

    See in detail Koutrakos, in Cremona and de Witte (2008), p. 171 et seqq., furthermore de Baere (2008), p. 267 et seqq.

  164. 164.

    See Cremona, in Koutrakos (2011), p. 89 et seq.

  165. 165.

    See Cremona, in Koutrakos (2011), at p. 90.

  166. 166.

    See Cremona, in Koutrakos (2011); cf. furthermore van Elsuwege (2010), p. 1015.

  167. 167.

    As to the consequences of such fragmentation on policy coherence, see Duke, in Koutrakos (2011), p. 38 et seqq.

  168. 168.

    See Duke, in Koutrakos (2011), p. 38 et seq.

  169. 169.

    Concerning the new institution of the HR/VP see Duke, in Koutrakos (2011), p. 33 et seqq.; Missiroli (2010), p. 430 et seqq.

  170. 170.

    Cf. Duke, in Koutrakos (2011), p. 42 et seqq.; Missiroli (2010), p. 433 et seqq.

  171. 171.

    Cf. Duke, in Koutrakos (2011), p. 48 et seqq.

  172. 172.

    See also Duke, in Koutrakos (2011), p. 47.

References

  • Alston, P. (Ed.). (1999). The EU and human rights. Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Bogdandy, A., & Bast, J. (Eds.). (2009). Principles of European constitutional law. Oxford: Hart Publishing & C.H. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bosse-Platière, I. (2009). L’article 3 du Traité UE: recherche sur une exigence de cohérence de l’action extérieure de l’union européenne. Brussels: Bruylant.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruha, T., & Rau, M. (2006). Verfassungsrechtliche Dimensionen europäischer Aussenpolitik. In T. Bruha & C. Nowak (Eds.), Die Europäische Union: Innere Verfasstheit und globale Handlungsfähigkeit (pp. 165–182). Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bungenberg, M. (2009). Außenbeziehungen und Außenhandelspolitik. EuR – Beiheft, 44(1), 195–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calliess, C., & Ruffert, M. (Eds.). (2011). EUV/AEUV-Kommentar (4th ed.). Munich: C.H. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cannizzaro, E. (Ed.). (2002). The European Union as an actor in international relations. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cardwell, P. J. (2011). Mapping out democracy promotion in the EU’s external relations. European Foreign Affairs Review, 16(1), 21–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cordonier Segger, M.-C., & Khalfan, A. (2004). Sustainable development law: Principles, practices and prospects. Oxford: OUP.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Craig, P., & de Burca, G. (2008). EU law: Text, cases, and materials (4th ed.). Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cremer, H.-J. (2009). Die gemeinsame Außen-, Sicherheits- und Verteidigungspolitik im Spannungsfeld zwischen Souveränität der Mitgliedstaaten und Supranationalität der EU. In U. Fastenrath & C. Nowak (Eds.), Der Lissabonner Reformvertrag. Änderungsimpulse in einzelnen Rechts- und Politikbereichen (pp. 275–298). Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cremona, M. (2008a). Coherence through law. Hamburg Review of Social Sciences, 3(1), 11–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cremona, M. (2008b). Developments in EU external relations law. Oxford: OUP.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cremona, M., & de Witte, B. (Eds.). (2008). EU foreign relations law: Constitutional fundamentals. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dashwood, A., & Maresceau, M. (Eds.). (2008). Law and practice of EU external relations: Salient features of a changing landscape. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Baere, G. (2008). Constitutional principles of EU external relations. Oxford: OUP.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • De Witte, B. (2003). The constitutional law of external relations. In I. Pernice & M. Poiares Maduro (Eds.), A constitution for the European Union: First comments on the 2003-draft of the European convention. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dimopoulos, A. (2010). The effects of the Lisbon treaty on the principles and objectives of the common commercial policy. European Foreign Affairs Review, 15(2), 153–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donnelly, J. (1989). Universal Human Rights in theory and practice. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Economides, S., & Ker-Lindsay, J. (2010). Forging EU Foreign Policy Unity from diversity: The ‘Unique Case’ of the Kosovo status talks. European Foreign Affairs Review, 15(4), 495–510.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eeckhout, P. (2005). External relations of the European Union: Legal and constitutional foundations. Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 Market Law Review, 47(4), 987–1019.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fink-Hooijer, F. (1994). The Common Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union. European Journal of International Law, 5(1), 173–198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer-Lescano, A., & Teubner, G. (2006). Regime-Kollisionen. Zur Fragmentierung des globalen Rechts. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foqué, R. (1998). Global governance and the rule of law: Human rights and general principles of good global governance. In K. Wellens (Ed.), International law: Theory and practice. Essays in honour of Eric Suy (pp. 25–44). The Hague: Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • French, D. (2005). International law and policy of sustainable development. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frenz, W. (2010). Die neue GASP. Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht, 70(3), 487–521.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gauttier, P. (2004). Horizontal coherence and the external competences of the European Union. European Law Journal, 10(1), 23–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gehring, M., & Cordonier Segger, M.-C. (Eds.). (2005). Sustainable development in World Trade Law. The Hague: Kluwer Law.

    Google Scholar 

  • González Alonso, L. N. (2009). Desarrollo y seguridad en la jurisprudencia del TJCE: los limites al discurso de la coherencia en la acción exterior de la Union Europea. Revista de derecho comunitario europeo, 13(34), 867–894.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grabitz, E., & Hilf, M. (Eds.). (2004). EUV – EGV. Kommentar. Loose Leaf. München: C.H. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grabitz, E., Hilf, M., & Nettesheim, M. (2010). Das Recht der Europäischen Union. Kommentar zum Vertrag von Lissabon. Loose leaf. München: C.H. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamonic, A. (2008). Cohérence et action extérieure de l’Union européenne. Revue du marché commun et de l’Union européenne, 523, 675–679.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herrmann, C., Krenzler, H. G., & Streinz, R. (Eds.). (2006). Die Außenwirtschaftspolitik der Europäischen Union nach dem Verfassungsvertrag. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilf, M., & Oeter, S. (Eds.). (2010). WTO-Recht. Rechtsordnung des Welthandels (2nd ed.). Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, K. (2010). The Doha Blues. Institutional crisis and reform in the WTO. Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khaliq, U. (2008). Ethical dimensions of the Foreign Policy of the European Union: A legal appraisal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kingsbury, B. (1998). Confronting difference: The puzzling durability of Gentili’s combination of pragmatic pluralism and normative judgment. American Journal of International Law, 92(4), 713–723.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koskenniemi, M. (2006). Fragmentation of international law: Difficulties arising from the diversification and expansion of international law. Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission, UN-Doc. A/CN.4/L.682 of 13 April 2006. Available under http://www.helsinki.fi/oik/globalgovernance/Mallisivusto/tutkimus/L_682_E%5B1%5D.pdf.

  • Koutrakos, P. (2001). Trade, foreign policy and defence in EU constitutional law. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koutrakos, P. (2006). EU international relations law. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koutrakos, P. (Ed.). (2011). European Foreign Policy: Legal and political perspectives. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krajewski, M. (2005). External trade law and the constitution treaty: Towards a federal and more democratic commercial policy? Common Market Law Review, 42(1), 91–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laatikainen, K. V. (2010). Multilateral leadership at the UN after the Lisbon treaty. European Foreign Affairs Review, 15(4), 475–493.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leino, P. (2005). European universalism? The EU and human rights conditionality. Yearbook of European Law, 24, 329–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marchesi, D. (2010). The EU Common Foreign and Security Policy in the UN Security Council: Between representation and coordination. European Foreign Affairs Review, 15(2), 97–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Missiroli, A. (2010). The new EU ‘Foreign Policy’ system after Lisbon: A work in progress. European Foreign Affairs Review, 15(4), 427–452.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oppermann, T., Classen, C. D., & Nettesheim, M. (2009). Europarecht (4th ed.). Munich: C.H. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pace, M. (2010). Interogating the European Union’s democracy promotion agenda: Discursive configurations of ‘Democracy’ from the Middle East. European Foreign Affairs Review, 15(5), 611–628.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pechstein, M. (2010). Die Intergouvernementalität der GASP nach Lissabon. Juristen Zeitung, 65(9), 425–432.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perry, A., & Hatchard, J. (Eds.). (2003). Contemplating complexity, law and development in the 21st century. London: Cavendish Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petrovsky, V. (1998). Good global governance and the UN. In Boutros Boutros-Ghali amicorum discipulorumque liber (vol. 2, pp. 1265–1277). Brussels: Bruylant.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose, R. (2008). Evaluating democratic governance: A bottom-up approach to European Union enlargement. Democratization, 15(2), 251–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schimmelfennig, F., & Scholtz, H. (2008). EU democracy promotion in the European Neighborhood. European Union Politics, 9(2), 187–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schrijver, N. (2008). The evolution of sustainable development in international law: Inception, meaning and status. Leiden: Nijhoff.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarze, J. (Ed.). (2009). EU-Kommentar (2nd ed.). Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seppänen, S. (2005). Possibilities and challenges of the human rights-based approach to development. Helsinki: The Erik Castrén Institute Research Reports 17/2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern, N. (2006). Review on the economics of climate change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Streinz, R., Ohler, C., & Herrmann, C. (2005). Die neue Verfassung für Europa. Munich: C.H. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Streinz, R., Ohler, C., & Herrmann, C. (2008). Der Vertrag von Lissabon zur Reform der EU: Einführung mit Synopse (2nd ed.). Munich: C.H. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tietje, C. (1997). The concept of coherence in the TEU and the CSFP. European Foreign Affairs Review, 2(2), 211–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomuschat, C. (1996). Das Endziel der europäischen Integration – Maastricht ad infinitum? Deutsches Verwaltungsblatt, 111(19), 1073–1082.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tridimas, T. (2006). The general principles of EU law (2nd ed.). Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vedder, C., & Heintschel von Heinegg, W. (Eds.). (2007). Europäischer Verfassungsvertrag. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wessel, R. A. (1999). The European Union’s Foreign and Security Policy: A legal institutional perspective. The Hague: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wessel, R. A. (2000). The inside looking out: Consistency and delimitation in EU external relations. Common Market Law Review, 37(5), 1135–1171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, A. (2004). EU human rights policies: A study in Irony. Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wouters, J., Hoffmeister, F., & Ruys, T. (Eds.). (2006). The United Nations and the European Union: An ever stronger partnership. The Hague: Asser Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zangl, B., & Zürn, M. (Eds.). (2004). Verrechtlichung – Baustein für Global Governance? Bonn: J.H.W. Dietz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann, A. (2006). Aktuelle Herausforderungen der Entwicklungspolitik der EU. In S. Kadelbach (Ed.), Die Außenbeziehungen der EU (pp. 109–124). Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty for Economics, Law and Social Science, University of Erfurt, Erfurt, Germany

    Hermann-Josef Blanke

  2. National Research Council Institute for Regionalism, Federalism and Self-Government, Rome, Italy

    Stelio Mangiameli

Authors
  1. Hermann-Josef Blanke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stelio Mangiameli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty for Economics, Law and Social Sc, University of Erfurt, Erfurt, Germany

    Hermann-Josef Blanke

  2. National Research Council - Institute fo Regionalism, Federalism and Self-Governm, Rome, Italy

    Stelio Mangiameli

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Blanke, HJ., Mangiameli, S. (2013). Article 21 [The Principles and Objectives of the Union’s External Action]. In: Blanke, HJ., Mangiameli, S. (eds) The Treaty on European Union (TEU). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31706-4_22

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation