Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4hhp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-12T16:48:02.601Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
This chapter is part of a book that is no longer available to purchase from Cambridge Core

2 - Instruments of EU external action

Bart Van Vooren  and
Ramses A. Wessel
Bart Van Vooren
Affiliation:
ALTIUS, Brussels
Ramses A. Wessel
Affiliation:
University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands
Get access

Summary

Central issues

  • In this chapter we analyse the instruments through which the EU conducts its external relations. We distinguish between instruments that are adopted within the EU legal order (internal) and those adopted by the Union in the international order (international). These may be instruments adopted by the EU alone (autonomous instruments) or the result of agreements between the Union and a counter-party (conventionally agreed instruments). These instruments can then be legally binding (hard law) or they may be committing in other more indirect or political ways (soft law).

  • International agreements are the EU’s legal external relations tools par excellence. They form the key legal instrument to allow the Union to play along in the global legal order and to establish legal relationships with third states and other international organizations. If the EU lacked the competence to conclude international agreements, its external relations would be the object of study of political scientists and international relations experts only, and not so much of lawyers. The main part of this chapter will therefore be devoted to the conclusion and variety of international agreements (including mixed agreements, association agreements (AAs) and agreements to accede or withdraw);

    • Type
    Chapter
    Information
    EU External Relations Law
    Text, Cases and Materials
     , pp. 34 - 73
    Publisher: Cambridge University Press
    Print publication year: 2014

    Access options

    Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

    References

    Casolari, F., ‘The Principle of Loyal Co-operation: A ‘Master Key’ for EU External Representation?’, in S. Blockmans and R. A. Wessel (eds.), Principles and Practices of EU External Representation (CLEER Working Papers, No. 5, 2012).Google Scholar
    Chalmers, D., Davies, G. and Monti, G., European Union Law, 2nd edn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011).Google Scholar
    Cremona, M., ‘Case C-246/07, Commission v. Sweden (PFOS), Judgment of the Court of Justice (Grand Chamber) of 20 April 2010’ (2011) 43 Common Market Law Review 1639–1665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    Cremona, M., ‘Defending the Community Interest: The Duties of Cooperation and Compliance’, in Cremona, M. and de Witte, B. (eds.), EU Foreign Relations Law: Constitutional Fundamentals (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2008), pp. 125–170.Google Scholar
    Cremona, M., ‘Member States Agreements as Union Law’, in Cannizzaro, E., Palcheti, P. and Wessel, R. A. (eds.), International Law as Law of the European Union (Leiden/Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2011), pp. 291–324.Google Scholar
    Czuczai, J., ‘Mixity in Practice: Some Problems and their (Real or Possible) Solution’, in Hillion, C. and Koutrakos, P. (eds.), Mixed Agreements Revisited – The EU and its Member States in the World (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2010), pp. 231–248.Google Scholar
    Delgado Casteleiro, A., ‘EU Declarations of Competence to Multilateral Agreements: A Useful Reference Base?’ (2012) 17 European Foreign Affairs Review, 4, 491–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    Dimopoulos, A., ‘The BITs Cases and their Practical and Doctrinal Implications’, in Díez-Hochleitner, J. et al. (eds.), Recent Trends in the Case Law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (2008–2011) (Madrid: La Ley, 2012), pp. 737–758.Google Scholar
    Eeckhout, P., EU External Relations Law, 2nd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    Gaja, G., ‘The European Community’s Rights and Obligations under Mixed Agreements’, in O’Keefe, D. and Schermers, H. G. (eds.), Mixed Agreements (The Hague: Kluwer, 1983).Google Scholar
    Gatti, M. and Manzini, P., ‘External Representation of the European Union in the Conclusion of International Agreements’ (2012) 49 Common Market Law Review 1703–1734.Google Scholar
    Heliskoski, J., Mixed Agreements as a Technique for Organizing the External Relations of the European Community and its Member States (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2001).Google Scholar
    Hillion, C., ‘Mixity and Coherence in EU External Relations: The Significance of the Duty of Cooperation’, in Hillion, C. and Koutrakos, P. (eds.), Mixed Agreements Revisited – The EU and its Member States in the World (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2010), pp. 87–115.Google Scholar
    Hoffmeister, F., ‘Curse or Blessing? Mixed Agreements in the Recent Practice of the European Union and its Member States’, in Hillion, C. and Koutrakos, P. (eds.), Mixed Agreements Revisited – The EU and its Member States in the World (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2010), pp. 249–268.Google Scholar
    Klabbers, J., The Concept of Treaty in International Law (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1996).Google Scholar
    Klabbers, J., Treaty Conflict and the European Union (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009).Google Scholar
    Kuijper, P. J., ‘International Responsibility for EU Mixed Agreements’, in Hillion, C. and Koutrakos, P. (eds.), Mixed Agreements Revisited – The EU and its Member States in the World (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2010), pp. 208–227.Google Scholar
    Lavranos, N., ‘Case Note, Cases C-205/06 and C-249/06’ (2009) 103 American Journal of International Law 716–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    Lazowski, A., ‘Enhanced Multilateralism and Enhanced Bilateralism: Integration without Membership in the European Union’ (2008) 45 Common Market Law Review 1433–1458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    Lazowski, A., ‘Withdrawal from the European Union and Alternatives to Membership’ (2012) 37 European Law Review 523–540.Google Scholar
    Maresceau, M., ‘A Typology of Mixed Bilateral Agreements’, in Hillion, C. and Koutrakos, P. (eds.), Mixed Agreements Revisited – The EU and its Member States in the World (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2010), pp. 11–29.Google Scholar
    Mendez, M., The Legal Effects of EU Agreements: Maximalist Treaty Enforcement and Judicial Avoidance Techniques (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    Rosas, A., ‘The European Union and Mixed Agreements’, in Dashwood, A. and Hillion, C. (eds.), The General Law of EC External Relations (Cambridge/London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2000).Google Scholar
    Senden, L., Soft Law in European Community Law (Portland, Oregon: Hart Publishing, 2004).Google Scholar
    Van Vooren, B., ‘A Case Study of “Soft Law” in EU External Relations: The European Neighbourhood Policy’ (2009) 34 European Law Review 696–719.Google Scholar
    Chalmers, D., Davies, G. and Monti, G., European Union Law, 2nd edn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), Chapter 3, Union Law-MakingCrossRefGoogle Scholar
    Senden, Linda, Soft Law in European Community Law (Portland, Oregon: Hart Publishing, 2004), p. 112 Google Scholar
    Cremona, M., ‘Case C-246/07, Commission v. Sweden (PFOS), Judgment of the Court of Justice (Grand Chamber) of 20 April 2010’ (2011) 43 Common Market Law Review 1639–1665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    Eeckhout, P., EU External Relations Law, 2nd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), p. 248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    Dimopoulos, A., ‘The BITs Cases and their Practical and Doctrinal Implications’, in Díez-Hochleitner, J. et al. (eds.), Recent Trends in the Case Law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (2008–2011) (Madrid: La Ley, 2012), pp. 737–758.Google Scholar
    Lavranos, N., ‘Case Note, Cases C-205/06 and C-249/06’ (2009) 103 American Journal of International Law 716–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    Mendez, M., The Legal Effects of EU Agreements: Maximalist Treaty Enforcement and Judicial Avoidance Techniques (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), p. xvii.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

    Save book to Kindle

    To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

    Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

    Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

    Available formats
    ×

    Save book to Dropbox

    To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

    Available formats
    ×

    Save book to Google Drive

    To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

    Available formats
    ×