Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Article 37 [Agreements Concluded by the Union with Third States or International Organisations]

(ex-Article 24 TEU)

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

  • 2713 Accesses

Abstract

The Union 3–6 may conclude agreements 9,11 with one or more States or international organisations 9 in areas covered by this chapter. 10

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.

    Generally, see Aust (2007); Boyle and Chinkin (2007), p. 233 et seqq.

  2. 2.

    The legal capacities of States are inherent in their sovereign status. See Brownlie (2008), p. 106.

  3. 3.

    As the International Court of Justice held in Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict (Advisory Opinion) (1996) ICJ Rep. 66, p. 78, “international organizations are subjects of international law which do not, unlike States, possess a general competence. International organizations are governed by the ‘principle of speciality’, that is to say, they are invested by the States which create them with powers, the limits of which are a function of the common interests whose promotion those States entrust to them”. On the notion of conferred powers, see Sands and Klein (2009), p. 474–480; Klabbers (2009), p. 53–73; Amerasinghe (2005), p. 77–86; White (2005), p. 68–69.

  4. 4.

    See Case 22/70 Commission v. Council (European Agreement on Road Transport) (ECJ 31 March 1971) para 13–14, where the ECJ interpreted this provision to mean that “in its external relations the Community enjoys the capacity to establish contractual links with third countries over the whole field of objectives defined in part one of the Treaty”.

  5. 5.

    ICJ, Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations (Advisory Opinion) (1949) ICJ Rep. 174. See Rama-Montaldo (1970).

  6. 6.

    ICJ, Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations (Advisory Opinion) (1949) ICJ Rep. 174, p. 179.

  7. 7.

    ICJ, Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations (Advisory Opinion) (1949) ICJ Rep. 174, p. 178–179.

  8. 8.

    The dominant position of the MS in the EU thus prompted the German Federal Constitutional Court in the Maastricht judgment, 2 BvR 2134, 2159/92 (Judgment of 12 October 1993) para 124 (in: BVerfGE 89, 155, 195), to conclude that the TEU-Maastricht employed the term Union “as a name for the MS acting in concert, not as an independent legal entity”.

  9. 9.

    For example von Bogdandy and Nettesheim (1996), p. 284–286; Dörr (1995); Klabbers (1998); Ress (1995); Wessel (1997).

  10. 10.

    For example Curtin (1993), p. 27; Everling (1992), p. 1061; Heukels and de Zwaan (1994), p. 202–204; Pechstein (1996); Paasivirta (1997).

  11. 11.

    For example Cremona (1998), p. 70; Lenaerts and De Smijter (1999–2000), p. 130; Monar (1997), p. 427; Neuwahl (1998), p. 185–186; Paasivirta (1997), p. 57–59; de Zwaan (1999), p. 100–105; Vignes (1998), p. 760.

  12. 12.

    Declaration on Articles J.I4 and K.10 of the Treaty on European Union, Final Act, O.J. C 340/131 (1997). But see Cannizzaro (2003), p. 38–39.

  13. 13.

    For example Blokker and Heukels (1998), p. 27–38; Hafner (1998), p. 270–272; Langrish (1998), p. 13–14; Leal-Arcas (2007); Marquardt (2001); Pachinger (2003), p. 92–103; Tizzano (1998), p. 25–28; Wichard (1999), p. 174; de Witte (1998), p. 63–4; Wessel (2000), p. 527–531.

  14. 14.

    Cf. Gautier (2000), p. 351.

  15. 15.

    Marquardt (2001), p. 344–345.

  16. 16.

    See Mignolli (2001), p. 983–989; Grard (2006), p. 352. Incidentally, this is how the Working Group on Legal Personality of the European Convention interpreted Art. 24.5 TEU-Nice. See Council doc. CONV 305/02, Final report of Working Group III on Legal Personality, 1 October 2002, para 29–34.

  17. 17.

    For example Council Decision 2004/924/CFSP of 22 November 2004 implementing Joint Action 2002/589/CFSP with a view to a European Union contribution to ECOWAS in the framework of the Moratorium on Small Arms and Light Weapons, O.J. L 389/41 (2004). It is also worth noting that the titles and preambles of all agreements refer to the “European Union” as one of their parties.

  18. 18.

    See Editorial Comment (2001); Eeckhout (2005), p. 159–60; Grard (2006), p. 352–354; Kleine (2005), p. 115–131; Koutrakos (2006), p. 409; Marquardt (2003), p. 814; Naert (2007), p. 101; Reichard (2004), p. 52; Sari (2008c), p. 80–85; Thym (2006), p. 870–875; Tsagourias (2007), p. 116–117; Verwey (2004), p. 60–61.

  19. 19.

    The fact that at least some of these agreements differentiate between the Union on the one hand and its MS on the other means that the term “European Union” refers to a separate entity and not the MS acting collectively. See Art. 5(a) Agreement between the EU and NATO on the Security of Information, 14 March 2003, O.J. L 80/36 (2003); Art. 2(6) Agreement between the European Union and New Zealand on the participation of New Zealand in the European Union Police Mission in Afghanistan (EUPOL AFGHANISTAN), 3 October 2007, O.J. L 274/18 (2007). In any event, at the relevant time the CFSP has already such a level of institutional density that it would be unconvincing to characterise the Union purely and solely as an agent of its MS without any separate will of its own.

  20. 20.

    See Council doc. CONV 305/02, Final report of Working Group III on Legal Personality, 1 October 2002.

  21. 21.

    Council doc. CONV 305/02, Final report of Working Group III on Legal Personality, 1 October 2002, para 22–28.

  22. 22.

    See Passos and Marquardt (2007).

  23. 23.

    See also Kaufmann-Bühler in Grabitz et al. (2010), Art. 37 EUV para 2–4.

  24. 24.

    By analogy, see Passos and Marquardt (2007).

  25. 25.

    Council doc. CONV 305/02, Final report of Working Group III on Legal Personality, 1 October 2002, para 22–28.

  26. 26.

    However, it has been suggested that Art. 40 TEU may be called upon to avoid this effect, see Cremer, in Calliess and Ruffert (2011), Art. 37 EUV para 12.

  27. 27.

    Agreement between the MS of the European Union concerning the status of military and civilian staff seconded to the institutions of the European Union, of the headquarters and forces which may be made available to the European Union in the context of the preparation and execution of the tasks referred to in Art. 17(2) TEU, including exercises, and of the military and civilian staff of the MS placed at the disposal of the EU to act in this context (EU SOFA), 17 November 2003, O.J. C 321/6 (2003). See Sari (2007); Sari (2008a).

  28. 28.

    Cf. Manin (1987), p. 468–471.

  29. 29.

    The Vienna Convention of 1986 never entered into force. However, the EEC participated in the conference drawing up the Convention. See Manin (1987).

  30. 30.

    The case-law of the ECJ offers several examples of such rules considered to form part of customary international law by the Court: e.g. Case C-162/96 A. Racke GmbH & Co. v Hauptzollamt Mainz (ECJ 16 June 1998) para 46 (the termination and the suspension of treaty relations); see Opinion 1/91 Re the Draft Treaty on a European Economic Area (ECJ 14 December 1991) para 14 (treaty interpretation); Case C-386/08 Brita GmbH v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen (ECJ 25 February 2010) para 44 (pacta tertiis nec nocent nec prosunt).

  31. 31.

    Agreement between the International Criminal Court and the European Union on cooperation and assistance, 10 April 2006, O.J. L 115/50 (2006). This was intended largely as a follow-up to Common Position 2003/444/CFSP of 16 June 2003 on the International Criminal Court, O.J. L 150/67 (2003).

  32. 32.

    Agreement between the European Space Agency and the European Union on the security and exchange of classified information, 18 July 2008, O.J. L 219/59 (2008).

  33. 33.

    Agreement between the EU and NATO on the Security of Information, 14 March 2003, O.J. L 80/36 (2003).

  34. 34.

    Emphasis added.

  35. 35.

    Cf. Cremer, in Calliess and Ruffert (2011), Art. 37 EUV para 10.

  36. 36.

    See also Kaufmann-Bühler, in Grabitz et al. (2010), Art. 37 EUV para 4.

  37. 37.

    For example Agreement between the European Union and New Zealand on the participation of New Zealand in the European Union military crisis management operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Operation Althea), 4 May 2005, O.J. L 127/28 (2005); Agreement between the European Union and the Russian Federation on the participation of the Russian Federation in the European Union military operation in the Republic of Chad and in the Central African Republic (EUFOR Tchad/RCA), 5 November 2008, O.J. L 307/16 (2008); Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Croatia on the participation of the Republic of Croatia in the European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast (Operation Atalanta), 27 July 2009, O.J. L 202/84 (2009). Not all participation agreements concluded by the EU have been published in the Official Journal.

  38. 38.

    The third countries concerned were Bulgaria, Canada, Iceland, Norway, Romania, Russia, Turkey and Ukraine. For example see Agreement between the European Union and Canada establishing a framework for the participation of Canada in the European Union crisis management operations, 24 November 2005, O.J. L 315/21 (2005).

  39. 39.

    Council doc 12047/04, Draft model agreement on the participation of a third State in an European Union military crisis management operation, 3 Sept 2004; Council doc 12050/04, Draft model agreement on the participation of a third State in an European Union civilian crisis management operation, September 2004.

  40. 40.

    Council Decision 2001/264/EC of 19 March 2001 adopting the Council’s security regulations, O.J. L 101/1 (2001), as amended most recently by Council Decision 2007/438/EC of 18 June 2007 amending Decision 2001/264/EC adopting the Council’s security regulations, O.J. L 164/24 (2007).

  41. 41.

    Agreement between the EU and NATO on the Security of Information, 14 March 2003, O.J. L 80/36 (2003).

  42. 42.

    For example Agreement between the European Union and the Principality of Liechtenstein on security procedures for exchanging classified information, 6 July 2010, O.J. L 187/2 (2010); Agreement between Australia and the European Union on the security of classified information, 13 January 2010, O.J. L 26/31 (2010).

  43. 43.

    For example Agreement between the European Union and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia on the status and activities of the European Union Police Mission in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (EUPOL Proxima), 11 December 2003, O.J. L 16/66 (2004); Agreement between the European Union and the Gabonese Republic on the status of the European Union-led forces in the Gabonese Republic, 16 June 2006, O.J. L 187/43 (2006); Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Djibouti on the status of the European Union-led forces in the Republic of Djibouti in the framework of the EU military operation Atalanta, 5 January 2009, O.J. L 33/43 (2009). For details, see Sari (2008b).

  44. 44.

    Council doc 8720/05, Draft Model Agreement on the status of the European Union-led forces between the European Union and a Host State, 18 May 2005.

  45. 45.

    Council doc 10564/05, Draft Model Agreement on the status of the European Union Civilian Crisis Management Mission in a Host State (SOMA), 27 June 2005.

  46. 46.

    For details, see Sari (2008b), pp. 75–85 and 99.

  47. 47.

    Council doc 11894/07, Draft Model Agreement on the status of the European Union-led forces between the European Union and a Host State, 20 July 2007.

  48. 48.

    Council doc 17141/08, Draft Model Agreement on the Status of the European Union Civilian Crisis Management Mission in a Host State (SOMA), 15 December 2008.

  49. 49.

    Agreement between the International Criminal Court and the European Union on cooperation and assistance, 10 April 2006, O.J. L 115/50 (2006).

  50. 50.

    See Reichard (2006), pp. 273–310. The text of the “Berlin Plus” agreement is classified, but see EU-NATO Declaration on ESDP (2003) 42 International Legal Materials 242.

  51. 51.

    Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Government of Kenya on the conditions and modalities for the transfer of persons suspected of having committed acts of piracy and detained by the European Union-led naval force (EUNAVFOR), and seized property in the possession of EUNAVFOR, from EUNAVFOR to Kenya and for their treatment after such transfer, 6 March 2009, O.J. L 79/49 (2009). A similar Exchange of Letters was affected with the Seychelles: Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Republic of Seychelles on the Conditions and Modalities for the Transfer of Suspected Pirates and Armed Robbers from EUNAVFOR to the Republic of Seychelles and for their Treatment after such Transfer, O.J. L 315/37 (2009). The operation was launched by Joint Action 2008/851/CFSP of 10 November 2008 on a European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast, O.J. L 301/33 (2008), as amended by Council Decision 2009/907/CFSP of 8 December 2009 amending Joint Action 2008/851/CFSP on a European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast, O.J. L 322/27 (2009).

Table of Cases

  • ECJ 31.03.1971, 22/70, Commission v. Council (European Agreement on Road Transport), ECR 263 [cit. in para 2]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 16.06.1998, C-162/96, A. Racke GmbH & Co. v Hauptzollamt Mainz, ECR I-3655 [cit. in para 9]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 25.02.2010, C-386/08, Brita GmbH v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen, ECR I-1289 [cit. in para 9]

    Google Scholar 

References

  • Amerasinghe, C. F. (2005). Principles of the institutional law of international organizations (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Aust, A. (2007). Modern treaty law and practice (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Blokker, N. M., & Heukels, T. (1998). The European Union: Historical origins and institutional challenges. In T. Heukels, N. Blokker, & M. Brus (Eds.), The European Union after Amsterdam – A legal analysis (pp. 9–50). The Hague: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, A. E., & Chinkin, C. M. (2007). The making of international law. Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brownlie, I. (2008). Principles of public international law (7th ed.). Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calliess, C., & Ruffert, M. (Eds.). (2011). EUV/AEUV Kommentar: Das Verfassungsrecht der Europäischen Union mit Europäischer Grundrechtecharta (4th ed.). München: Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cannizzaro, E. (2003). Fragmented sovereignty? The European Union and its Member States in the International Arena. Italian Yearbook of International Law, 13, 35–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cremona, M. (1998). The European Union as an international actor: The issues of flexibility and linkage. European Foreign Affairs Review, 3(1), 67–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curtin, D. (1993). The constitutional structure of the Union: A Europe of bits and pieces. Common Market Law Review, 30(1), 17–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Witte, B. (1998). The pillar structure and the nature of the European Union: Greek temple or French Gothic cathedral? In T. Heukels, N. Blokker, & M. Brus (Eds.), The European Union after Amsterdam – A legal analysis (pp. 51–68). The Hague: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Zwaan, J. W. (1999). The legal personality of the European Communities and the European Union. Netherlands Yearbook of International Law, 30, 75–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dörr, O. (1995). Zur Rechtsnatur der Europäischen Union. Europarecht, 30(4), 334 et seqq.

    Google Scholar 

  • Editorial Comment. (2001). The European Union – A new international actor. Common Market Law Review, 38(4), 825–828.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Everling, U. (1992). Reflections on the structure of the European Union. Common Market Law Review, 29(4), 1053–1077.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gautier, P. (2000). The reparation for injuries case revisited: The personality of the European Union. Max-Plank Yearbook of United Nations Law, 4, 331–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grabitz, E., Hilf, M., & Nettesheim, M. (2010). Das Recht der Europäischen Union. München: Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grard, L. C. (2006). L’Union européenne, sujet de droit international. Revue générale de droit international public, 110, 337–372.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hafner, G. (1998). The Amsterdam treaty and the treaty-making power of the European Union. In G. Hafner, G. Loibl, A. Rest, L. Sucharipa-Behrmann, & K. Zemanek (Eds.), Liber Amicorum Professor Ignaz Seidl-Hohenveldern in honour of his 80th birthday (pp. 257–284). The Hague: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heukels, T., & de Zwaan, J. W. (1994). The configuration of the European Union: Community dimensions of institutional interaction. In D. Curtin & T. Heukels (Eds.), Institutional dynamics of European integration: Essays in honour of Henry G. Schermers (pp. 195–228). Dordrecht/Boston: M. Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klabbers, J. (1998). Presumptive personality: The European Union in international law. In M. Koskenniemi (Ed.), International law aspects of the European Union (pp. 231–253). The Hague: Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klabbers, J. (2009). An introduction to international institutional law (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kleine, M. (2005). Die militärische Komponente der Europäischen Sicherheits- und Verteidigungspolitik: Eine Untersuchung aus europarechtlicher und verfassungsrechtlicher Perspektive. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Langrish, S. (1998). The treaty of Amsterdam: Selected highlights. European Law Review, 23(1), 3–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leal-Arcas, R. (2007). EU legal personality in foreign policy? Boston University International Law Journal, 24(2), 165–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenaerts, K., & De Smijter, E. (1999–2000). The European Union as an actor under international law. Yearbook of European Law, 19, 95–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manin, P. (1987). The European Communities and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between states and international organizations or between international organizations. Common Market Law Review, 24(3), 457–481.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marquardt, S. (2001). The conclusion of international agreements under Article 24 of the treaty on European Union. In V. Kronenberger (Ed.), The European Union and the international legal order: Discord or harmony? (pp. 333–349). The Hague: TMC Asser Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Marquardt, S. (2003). La capacité de l’Union européenne de conclure des accords internationaux dans le domaine de la coopération policière et judiciaire en matière pénale. In G. de Kerchove & A. Weyembergh (Eds.), Sécurité et justice: enjeu de la politique extérieure de l’Union européenne (pp. 179–194). Brussels: Éditions de l’Université de Bruxelles.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mignolli, A. (2001). Sul treaty-making power nel secondo e nel terzo pilastro dell’Unione europea. Rivista di diritto internazionale, 84(4), 978–1008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monar, J. (1997). The European Union’s foreign affairs system after the treaty of Amsterdam: A “strengthened capacity for external action”? European Foreign Affairs Review, 2(4), 413–436.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naert, F. (2007). ESDP in practice: Increasingly varied and ambitious EU security and defence operations. In M. Trybus, & N. D. White (Eds.), European Security Law (p. 61 et seqq.). Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neuwahl, N. A. E. M. (1998). A partner with a troubled personality: EU treaty-making in matters of CFSP and JHA after Amsterdam. European Foreign Affairs Review, 3(2), 177–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paasivirta, E. (1997). The European Union: From an aggregate of states to a legal person? Hofstra Law and Policy Symposium, 2, 37–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pachinger, M. M. (2003). Die Völkerrechtspersönlichkeit der Europäischen Union. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Passos, R., & Marquardt, S. (2007). International agreements: Competences, procedures and judicial control. In G. Amato, H. Bribosia, & B. de Witte (Eds.), Genèse et destinée de la Constitution européenne: Commentaire du Traité établissant une Constitution pour l’Europe à la lumière des travaux préparatoires et perspectives d’avenir (pp. 875–915). Brussels: Bruylant.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pechstein, M. (1996). Rechtssubjektivität für die Europäische Union? Europarecht, 31(1), 137–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rama-Montaldo, M. (1970). International legal personality and implied powers of international organizations. British Yearbook of International Law, 44, 111–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichard, M. (2004). Some legal issues concerning the EU-NATO Berlin Plus agreement. Nordic Journal of International Law, 73(1), 37–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reichard, M. (2006). The EU–NATO relationship: A legal and political perspective. Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ress, G. (1995). Ist die Europäische Union eine juristische Person? Europarecht (Suppl. 2), 27–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sands, P., & Klein, P. (2009). Bowett’s law of international institutions (6th ed.). London: Sweet & Maxwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sari, A. (2007). The EU Status of Forces Agreement: Continuity and change in the law of visiting forces. Revue de droit militaire et de droit de la guerre, 46(1), 9–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sari, A. (2008a). The EU Status of Forces Agreement (EU SOFA). Journal of Conflict and Security Law, 13(3), 353–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sari, A. (2008b). Status of Forces and Status of Mission Agreements under the ESDP: The EU’s evolving practice. European Journal of International Law, 19(1), 67–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sari, A. (2008c). The conclusion of international agreements by the European Union in the context of the ESDP. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 57(1), 53–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thym, D. (2006). Die völkerrechtlichen Verträge der Europäischen Union. Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht, 66, 863–925.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tizzano, A. (1998). La personnalité internationale de l’Union européenne. Revue du Marché Unique Européen, 4(1), 11–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsagourias, N. (2007). EU peacekeeping operations: Legal and theoretical issues. In M. Trybus & N. D. White (Eds.), European Security Law (pp. 102–133). Oxford: OUP.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Verwey, D. R. (2004). The European Community, the European Union and the international law of treaties. The Hague: TMC Asser Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Vignes, D. (1998). L’absence de personnalité juridique de l’Union européenne: Amsterdam persiste et signe. In G. Hafner, G. Loibl, A. Rest, L. Sucharipa-Behrmann, & K. Zemanek (Eds.), Liber Amicorum Professor Seidl-Hohenveldern (pp. 757–770). The Hague: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Bogdandy, A., & Nettesheim, M. (1996). Ex Pluribus Unum: Fusion of the European Communities into the European Union. European Law Journal, 2(3), 267–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wessel, R. A. (1997). The international legal status of the European Union. European Foreign Affairs Review, 2(1), 109–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wessel, R. A. (2000). Revisiting the international legal status of the EU. European Foreign Affairs Review, 5(4), 507–537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, N. D. (2005). The law of international organisations (2nd ed.). Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wichard, J. C. (1999). Wer ist Herr im europäischen Haus? Europarecht, 34(1), 170–184.

    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 37 [Agreements Concluded by the Union with Third States or International Organisations]. 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_38

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation