Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Article 22 [Identification of EU Interests and Objectives in the External Action Area: Competent Authorities and Instruments]

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Treaty on European Union (TEU)

  • 2752 Accesses

Abstract

Art. 22 TEU constitutes a complementary provision to Art. 21 TEU. The core theme underlying both articles is the issue of coherence and consistency. Both articles may be understood as reactions to the traditional state with its fragmentation of competences and organisational structures, which had been a logical consequence of the pillarisation of the EU since Maastricht. The segmentation into the classical community pillar and the new, second pillar of CFSP had led to strong institutional rivalries and a clear lack of consistency between Community policies of an external character and intergovernmental CFSP.

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

Access this chapter

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

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Koutrakos (2006), p. 17–32, 415–452; Eeckhout (2005), p. 9–57, 101–137, 138–167.

  2. 2.

    See Dijkstra (2009), p. 431 et seqq.; Thym (2009), p. 339 et seqq.

  3. 3.

    Cf. Koutrakos (2008), p. 485–506; Eeckhout (2005), p. 162–164; van Elsuwege (2010), p. 992 et seqq.; Thym (2009), p. 336 et seqq.

  4. 4.

    Cf. Nettesheim, in Oppermann et al. (2009), p. 99.

  5. 5.

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

  6. 6.

    Cf. Kaufmann-Bühler, in Grabitz et al. (2011), Art. 22 EUV para 1.

  7. 7.

    On the scope of Art. 13 TEU-Nice, see Terhechte, in Schwarze (2009), Art. 13 para 1–4.

  8. 8.

    Cf. Kaufmann-Bühler, in Grabitz et al. (2011), Art. 22 para 1.

  9. 9.

    Cf. Cremer, in Calliess and Ruffert (2011), Art. 22 EUV para 1.

  10. 10.

    Cf. Cremer, in Calliess and Ruffert (2011), Art. 22 EUV, footnote 1; cf. also Cremer, in Calliess and Ruffert (2006), Art. III-40 para 9.

  11. 11.

    Concerning the (still) differing structure of competences in external action, cf. De Baere (2008), pp. 108–112. Cf. furthermore Cremona (2008a), p. 38 et seqq.

  12. 12.

    As far as Art. 4.1 TEU-Nice is concerned, cf. Stumpf, in Schwarze (2009), Art. 4 para 3.

  13. 13.

    Cf. regarding Art. 13 TEU-Nice Terhechte, in Schwarze (2009), Art. 13 para 3–5.

  14. 14.

    Cf. Kaufmann-Bühler, in Grabitz et al. (2011), Art. 22 EUV para 3.

  15. 15.

    Cf. Kaufmann-Bühler, in Grabitz et al. (2011), Art. 22 EUV para 2.

  16. 16.

    Cf. Kaufmann-Bühler, in Grabitz et al. (2011), Art. 22 EUV para 10.

  17. 17.

    Cf. Kaufmann-Bühler, in Grabitz et al. (2011), Art. 22 EUV para 2.

  18. 18.

    Concerning the role of the European Council see Bulmer and Wessels (1987); Pernice (2003), p. 161 et seqq.; de Schoutheete (2006), p. 30 et seqq.; Carchidi (2007); Blázquez Peinado (2008), p.180 et seqq.; Dann (2009), p. 261 et seqq.

  19. 19.

    Cf. Craig and de Búrca (2008), p. 55; Calliess, in Calliess and Ruffert (2011), Art. 15 para 1.

  20. 20.

    Cf. Craig and de Búrca (2008), p. 55.

  21. 21.

    Craig and de Búrca (2008), pp. 55–56.

  22. 22.

    Cf. de Schoutheete (2006), p. 57.

  23. 23.

    Cf. Koutrakos (2006), p. 391.

  24. 24.

    Cf. Wiehard, in Calliess and Ruffert (2006), Art. I-21 para 2; Cremer, in Calliess and Ruffert (2006), Art. I-40 para 8.

  25. 25.

    Cf. Calliess, in Calliess and Ruffert (2011), Art. 15 para 3.

  26. 26.

    Cf. Thym (2009), p. 329.

  27. 27.

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

  28. 28.

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

  29. 29.

    Cf. also Kaufmann-Bühler, in Grabitz et al. (2011), Art. 22 EUV para 4.

  30. 30.

    See also Youngs (2004), p. 415 et seqq., in particular p. 421 et seqq., and Dunne (1995), p. 367 et seqq.

  31. 31.

    Cf. Cremer, in Calliess and Ruffert (2011), Art. 21 para 2; cf. furthermore Kaufmann-Bühler, in Grabitz et al. (2011), Art. 22 para 4.

  32. 32.

    Cf. Kaufmann-Bühler, in Grabitz et al. (2011), Art. 22 EUV para 4.

  33. 33.

    Kaufmann-Bühler, in Grabitz et al. (2011), Art. 22 EUV para 4.

  34. 34.

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

  35. 35.

    Cf. Kaufmann-Bühler, in Grabitz et al. (2011), Art. 22 EUV para 2.

  36. 36.

    Cf. Terhechte, in Schwarze (2009), Art. 12 para 3, but also Art. 13 para 11.

  37. 37.

    European Council of 26 Sept. 2010, Conclusions, Doc. EUCO 21/1/10 REV 1, Annex 1 lit. (a).

  38. 38.

    European Council of 26 Sept. 2010, Conclusions, Doc. EUCO 21/1/10 REV 1, Annex 1 lit. (a).

  39. 39.

    European Council of 26 Sept. 2010, Conclusions, Doc. EUCO 21/1/10 REV 1, Annex 1 lit. (b).

  40. 40.

    European Council of 26 Sept. 2010, Conclusions, Doc. EUCO 21/1/10 REV 1, Annex 1 lit. (c).

  41. 41.

    European Council of 26 Sept. 2010, Conclusions, Doc. EUCO 21/1/10 REV 1, Annex 1 lit. (e).

  42. 42.

    European Council of 16/17 Dec. 2010, Conclusions, Doc. EUCO 30/1/10 REV 1, para 9.

  43. 43.

    European Council of 16/17 Dec. 2010, Conclusions, Doc. EUCO 30/1/10 REV 1, para 9.

  44. 44.

    Cf. Kaufmann-Bühler, in Grabitz et al. (2011), Art. 22 EUV para 3.

  45. 45.

    Cf. Kaufmann-Bühler, in Grabitz et al. (2011), Art. 22 EUV para 3.

  46. 46.

    Cf. Kaufmann-Bühler, in Grabitz et al. (2011), Art. 22 EUV para 3.

  47. 47.

    Cf. de Baere (2008), p. 9 et seqq., 267 et seqq.; cf. furthermore Koutrakos (2006), p. 415 et seqq.; Gauttier (2004), p. 28 et seqq.

  48. 48.

    Cf. Koutrakos (2006), p. 7 et seqq., 77 et seqq.

  49. 49.

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

  50. 50.

    Cf. Cremer, in Calliess and Ruffert (2011), Art. 21 EUV para 4; Kaufmann-Bühler, in Grabitz et al. (2011), Art. 22 EUV para 13.

  51. 51.

    See Common Strategy 1999/414/CFSP of 4 June 1999 on Russia, O.J. L 157/1; Common Strategy 1999/877/CFSP of 11 December 1999 on Ukraine, O.J. L 331/1; Common Strategy 2000/458/CFSP of 19 June 2000 on the Mediterranean Region, O.J. L 183/5; cf. furthermore Kaufmann-Bühler, in Grabitz et al. (2011), Art. 22 EUV para 13.

  52. 52.

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

  53. 53.

    Cf. Kaufmann-Bühler, in Grabitz et al. (2011), Art. 22 EUV para 3.

  54. 54.

    Cf. Terhechte, in Schwarze (2009), Art. 13 para 11.

  55. 55.

    Cf. Cremer, in Calliess and Ruffert (2011), Art. 22 EUV para 4.

  56. 56.

    Cf. Kaufmann-Bühler, in Grabitz et al. (2011), Art. 22 EUV para 13.

  57. 57.

    Cf. Cremer, in Calliess and Ruffert (2011), Art. 22 EUV para 4.

  58. 58.

    Cf. Cremer, in Calliess and Ruffert (2011), Art. 22 EUV para 4.

  59. 59.

    Cf. Cremer, in Calliess and Ruffert (2011), Art. 22 para 6 et seqq.

  60. 60.

    See Common Strategy 1999/877/CFSP of 11 Dec. 1999 on Ukraine, O.J. L 331/1, para 41.

  61. 61.

    See Common Strategy 2000/458/CFSP of 19 June 2000 on the Mediterranean Region, O.J. L 183/5, para 28.

  62. 62.

    See Common Strategy 2000/458/CFSP of 19 June 2000 on the Mediterranean Region, O.J. L 183/5, para 28.

  63. 63.

    Cf. also Calliess, in Calliess and Ruffert (2011), Art. 15 para 5.

  64. 64.

    See European Council Decision 2009/882/EU of 1 December 2009 adopting its Rules of Procedure, O.J. L 315/51, at Art. 6.1 of the annexed Rules of Procedure.

  65. 65.

    Cf. also Cremer, in Calliess and Ruffert (2011), Art. 22 EUV para 10.

  66. 66.

    Cf. Kaufmann-Bühler, in Grabitz et al. (2011), Art. 22 EUV para 5.

  67. 67.

    Cf. Terhechte, in Schwarze (2009), Art. 13 para 10.

  68. 68.

    Cf. Kaufmann-Bühler, in Grabitz et al. (2011), Art. 22 EUV para 6.

  69. 69.

    Cf. Cremer, in Calliess and Ruffert (2011), Art. 22 EUV para 5; cf. furthermore Kaufmann-Bühler, in Grabitz et al. (2011), Art. 22 EUV para 6.

  70. 70.

    See Art. 12 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Council (footnote 64 above).

  71. 71.

    See Art. 15.2 TEU.

  72. 72.

    See Art. 4.4 (3) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Council (footnote 64 above).

  73. 73.

    As a critical voice in that regard see Kaufmann-Bühler, in Grabitz et al. (2011), Art. 22 para 8 et seq., in particular para 9.

  74. 74.

    Concerning the role of the new EEAS see Missiroli (2010), p. 433 et seqq., and Duke (2011), p. 42 et seqq.; see furthermore Morillas (2011), p. 251 et seq., and in detail Vanhoonacker and Reslow (2010), p. 1 et seqq.

  75. 75.

    As to the roles of COREPER and PSC in foreign policy formulation since Lisbon see Duke (2011), p. 40 et seqq.; see furthermore Missiroli (2010), p. 444; Morillas (2011), p. 247, 249 et seq.; Juncos and Reynolds (2007), p. 127 et seqq.

  76. 76.

    To a certain degree, the concrete division of tasks between FAC and GAC is still unresolved—see Duke (2011), p. 38 et seqq.

  77. 77.

    See Kaufmann-Bühler, in Grabitz et al. (2011), Art. 22 EUV para 7.

  78. 78.

    See Kaufmann-Bühler, in Grabitz et al. (2011), Art. 22 EUV para 7.

  79. 79.

    Cf. Cremer, in Calliess and Ruffert (2011), Art. 22 EUV para 11.

  80. 80.

    See Kaufmann-Bühler, in Grabitz et al. (2011), Art. 22 EUV para 7.

  81. 81.

    See only Dashwood (2008a), p. 70 et seqq.; Koutrakos (2008), p. 171 et seqq.; van Elsuwege (2010), p. 1001 et seqq.; Cremona (2011), p. 82 et seqq.

  82. 82.

    Cf. Dashwood (2008a), p. 76 et seqq., 93 et seqq., as well as van Elsuwege (2010), p. 1005 et seqq.

  83. 83.

    See, for example, Cremona (2011), pp. 86–88, and Dashwood (2008a), p. 93 et seqq.

  84. 84.

    Cf. Kaufmann-Bühler, in Grabitz et al. (2011), Art. 22 EUV para 10.

  85. 85.

    Cf. Cremer, in Calliess and Ruffert (2011), Art. 22 para 5 et seqq.

  86. 86.

    Cf. Kaufmann-Bühler, in Grabitz et al. (2011), Art. 22 EUV para 10.

  87. 87.

    Cf. Thym (2008), p. 203 et seqq.

  88. 88.

    As to the new role of the HR, in particular in the operational business of CFSP, see Missiroli (2010), p. 430 et seqq., as well as Piris (2010), p. 243 et seqq.

  89. 89.

    Cf. Cremer, in Calliess and Ruffert (2011), Art. 22 EUV para 9.

  90. 90.

    Concerning the instrument of Union actions, see in detail Dashwood (2008b), p. 53 et seqq.; cf. furthermore Frenz (2010), p. 497 et seqq.

  91. 91.

    Cf. also Cremer, in Calliess and Ruffert (2011), Art. 22 EUV para 7, and Frenz (2010), p. 496.

  92. 92.

    Cf. Frenz (2010), p. 497.

  93. 93.

    Cf. Kaufmann-Bühler, in Grabitz et al. (2011), Art. 22 EUV para 11; Thym (2009), p. 333 (also concerning the practical limits of any shift to qualified majority voting).

  94. 94.

    See in particular Grevi, in Amato et al. (2007), p. 778 et seqq.; see also van Elsuwege (2010), p. 995.

  95. 95.

    Cf. Cremer, in Calliess and Ruffert (2011), Art. 22 EUV para 7.

  96. 96.

    Cf. Cremer, in Calliess and Ruffert (2011), Art. 22 EUV para 8.

  97. 97.

    Concerning the growing shift of powers of initiative from MS to the HR see Morillas (2011), p. 244 et seq., in particular p. 252 et seq.

  98. 98.

    Cf. Kaufmann-Bühler, in Grabitz et al. (2011), Art. 22 EUV para 7.

  99. 99.

    Cf. also Cremer, in Calliess and Ruffert (2011), Art. 22 EUV para 12.

  100. 100.

    See also Duke (2011), p. 33 et seqq.; cf. furthermore Missiroli (2010), p. 430 et seqq., in particular at p. 432 et seq.

  101. 101.

    Concerning the two levels of “vertical” and “horizontal” coherence see Cremona (2011), p. 62 et seqq.

  102. 102.

    Concerning the duty of loyal cooperation according to Art. 4.3 TEU and, specifically for the area of CFSP, Art. 24.3 TEU see Hillion and Wessel (2008), p. 91 et seqq., as well as Cremona (2008b), p. 157 et seqq.

References

  • Amato, G., Bribosia, H., & de Witte, B. (Eds.). (2007). Genèse et destine de la Constitution Europé-enne. Commentaire du Traité établissant une Constitution pour l’Europe à la lumière des travaux préparatoires et perspectives d’avenir. Brussels: Bruylant.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blázquez Peinado, M. D. (2008). Algunas consideraciones en torno a la regulación del Consejo, el Consejo Europeo y la Comisión en el Tratado de Lisboa. Revista de Derecho Constitucional Europeo, 29, 165–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bulmer, S., & Wessels, W. (1987). The European Council – Decision-making in European Politics. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calliess, C., & Ruffert, M. (Eds.). (2006). Verfassung der Europäischen Union. Kommentar der Grundlagenbestimmungen. Munich & Vienna: C.H. Beck & Manz.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Carchidi, C. R. (2007). Il Consiglio Europeo: evoluzione, competenze e prassi. Milano: Giuffré.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Cremona, M. (2008a). Defining competence in EU external relations: Lessons from the Treaty reform process. In A. Dashwood & M. Maresceau (Eds.), Law and practice of EU external relations: Salient features of a changing landscape (pp. 54–69). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cremona, M. (2008b). Defending the community interest. The duties of cooperation and compliance. In M. Cremona & B. de Witte (Eds.), EU foreign relations law: Constitutional fundamentals (pp. 125–170). Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cremona, M. (2011). Coherence in European Union Foreign Relations Law. In P. Koutrakos (Ed.), European Foreign Policy: Legal and political perspectives (pp. 55–92). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dann, P. (2009). Political institutions. In A. von Bogdandy & J. Bast (Eds.), Principles of European constitutional law (2nd ed., pp. 237–273). Oxford: Hart Publishing & C.H. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dashwood, A. (2008a). Article 47 TEU and the relationship between first and second pillar competences. In A. Dashwood & M. Maresceau (Eds.), Law and practice of EU external relations: Salient features of a changing landscape (pp. 70–103 et seqq). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dashwood, A. (2008b). The law and practice of CFSP joint actions. In M. Cremona & B. de Witte (Eds.), EU foreign relations law: Constitutional fundamentals (pp. 53–77). Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • De Schoutheete, P. (2006). The European Council. In J. Peterson & M. Shackleton (Eds.), The Institutions of the European Union (2nd ed., pp. 37–59). Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dijkstra, H. (2009). Commission versus Council Secretariat: An analysis of Bureaucratic Rivalry in European Foreign Policy. European Foreign Affairs Review, 14(4), 431–450.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duke, S. (2011). Consistency, coherence and European external action: The path to Lisbon and beyond. In P. Koutrakos (Ed.), European Foreign Policy: Legal and political perspectives (pp. 15–54). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunne, T. (1995). The Social Construction of International Society. European Journal of International Law, 1(3), 367–389.

    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 

  • 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 

  • Grabitz, E., Hilf, M., & Nettesheim, M. (2011). Das Recht der Europäischen Union. Kommentar zum Vertrag von Lissabon. Loose leaf. Munich: C.H. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillion, C., & Wessel, R. A. (2008). Restraining external competences of EU Member States under CFSP. In M. Cremona & B. de Witte (Eds.), EU foreign relations law: Constitutional fundamentals (pp. 79–121). Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Juncos, A., & Reynolds, C. (2007). The Political and Security Committee: Governing in the shadow. European Foreign Affairs Review, 12(2), 127–147.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Koutrakos, P. (2008). Legal basis and delimitation of competence in EU external relations. In M. Cremona & B. de Witte (Eds.), EU foreign relations law: Constitutional fundamentals (pp. 171–198). Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    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 

  • Morillas, P. (2011). Institutionalization or intergovernmental decision-taking in Foreign Policy: The implementation of the Lisbon treaty. European Foreign Affairs Review, 16(2), 243–257.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Pernice, I. (2003). Il Consiglio europeo e il presidente del’Unione europea: quale leadership democratica in Europa? Diritto e cultura, 13(1–2), 161–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piris, J.-C. (2010). The Lisbon treaty. A legal and political analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Thym, D. (2008). Parliamentary involvement in European international relations. In M. Cremona & B. de Witte (Eds.), EU foreign relations law: Constitutional fundamentals (pp. 201–232). Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thym, D. (2009). Foreign affairs. In A. von Bogdandy & J. Bast (Eds.), Principles of European constitutional law (2nd ed., pp. 309–343). Oxford: Hart Publishing & C.H. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanhoonacker, S., & Reslow, N. (2010). The European external action service: Living forwards by understanding backwards. European Foreign Affairs Review, 15(1), 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Youngs, R. (2004). Normative dynamics and strategic interests in the EU’s external identity. Journal of Common Market Studies, 42(2), 415–435.

    Article  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 22 [Identification of EU Interests and Objectives in the External Action Area: Competent Authorities and Instruments]. 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_23

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation