CLEER Working Paper 2012/5: Principles and Practices of EU External Representation

The Centre for the Law of EU External Relations (CLEER) has published CLEER Working Paper 2012/ 5: Steven Blockmans & Ramses A. Wessel (eds) Principles and Practices of EU External Representation.

The topics covered in the contributions cast a wide net over the new legal questions and challenges with which the European Union’s institutional framework and law is currently faced, and address ‘selected legal aspects’ of the principles and practice pertaining to the external representation of the European Union, so as to offer new insights into the rapidly developing field of EU external relations law.

List of contributors: Steven Blockmans, Paul James Cardwell, Federico Casolari, Ramses A. Wessel, Bart Van Vooren, Christina Eckes, Peter Van Elsuwege, Scarlett McArdle, Hans Merket, Jed Odermatt, Sven Van Kerckhoven and Jan Wouters.

Advertisement

GGS Working Paper Series: Worlds Apart? Comparing the Approaches of the European Court of Justice and the EU Legislature to International Law

The Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies has posted GGS Working Paper No.96: J. Wouters, J. Odermatt & T. Ramopoulos, Worlds Apart? Comparing the Approaches of the European Court of Justice and the EU Legislature to International Law.  Here is the abstract:

This paper examines and compares the approaches taken by the European Court of Justice and the EU legislature towards international law. Although the Court and legislature are tasked with different roles, such a comparison is warranted, especially since many of the complex legal problems facing the EU regarding international law in recent years have arisen in part due to a growing divergence between the two approaches. We begin by looking at the EU Treaties. Although little guidance is given on how international law is to be applied within the EU legal order, the Treaties are not entirely silent. Numerous references to international law and multilateralism, especially those included post-Lisbon, guide the Court and the legislature, helping to minimise inconsistencies between their approaches. We examine the Court’s approach to international law, which, especially in the light of recent case law, is much less ‘open’ than it is often portrayed. It stands in some contrast to that of the legislature, which shows greater willingness to take into account international law. We argue that the Court’s more guarded approach, often motivated by a desire to preserve the autonomy of EU law, is largely unwarranted. Rather, the Court should enter into a more open dialogue with international law, helping the EU to “contribute […] to the strict observance and the development of international law”, as prescribed by Article 3(5) TEU.