Source: https://www.jura.uni-konstanz.de/en/thym/lehre/archiv/sose-2018/international-relations-law-of-the-eu/
Timestamp: 2018-11-18 14:21:43+00:00

Document:
International Relations Law of the EU | SoSe 2018 | Archiv | Lehre | Chair of Public, European and International Law | Department of Law
Department of LawChair of Public, European and International LawLehreArchivSoSe 2018International Relations Law of the EU
Europäisches Parlament | Straßburg
Vorlesung im Schwerpunktbereich Nr. 7 „Internationales und Europäisches Recht.“
Sommersemester 2018; 2 SWS.
Donnerstag 11.45-13.15, Raum C 423.
Die Vorlesung in englischer Sprache richtet sich an Studierende des Schwerpunktbereichs Nr. 7, der Austauschprogramme Erasmus/LL.M. sowie des Masterstudiengangs „Kulturelle Grundlagen Europas“. Ziel ist die Vermittlung der rechtlichen Grundlagen der EU-Außenpolitik. Es geht um die rechtlich-institutionelle Infrastruktur ebenso wie die Ausgestaltung einzelner Sachpolitiken. Zugleich bezweckt die Vorlesung fachspezifische Erfahrungen mit der englischen Sprache, die grenzüberschreitende Diskussionen prägt.
Im ersten Abschnitt vertieft bzw. vermittelt die Vorlesung bereichsspezifische Grundfragen des Europa- und Völkerrechts. In Fortführung der Pflichtvorlesungen geht es um Kompetenzen, Institutionen, Rechtsquellen sowie die Rechtswirkungen des Völkerrechts innerhalb der EU-Rechtsordnung. Es folgt der Blick auf ausgewählte Sachpolitiken unter Einschluss der Außenhandelspolitik sowie der Sicherheits- und Verteidigungspolitik. Diese verdeutlichen die Bandbreite des auswärtigen EU-Handelns, das für die Rechts- und Politikpraxis zunehmende Bedeutung erlangt.
Zur Vermittlung fachspezifischer Englischkenntnisse beteiligen sich alle Studierenden mit einem max. 8-minütigem Kurzvortrag zu einem selbst gewählten Sachthema. Der freie mündliche Vortrag trainiert die rhetorischen und sprachlichen Fertigkeiten. Noten werden für Studierende des Schwerpunkts Nr. 7 nicht vergeben; es geht um die Erfahrungen und das Selbstbewusstsein im Umgang mit englischer Fachsprache. Prüfungsmodalitäten für andere Studiengänge werden in der ersten Vorlesung besprochen.
Course Outline: Download.
Presentations – Rules and Themes: Download.
English Vocabulary: Download.
Power Point Presentation – Introduction/Evolution: Download.
Presentations – Names: Download.
Weitere Lektüre finden Sie im ILIAS:
Zum ILIAS-Kurs
Each participant should have a German or English language edition of the EU Treaties and basic public international law instruments. My recommendations are:
Völker- und Europarecht, Hrsg. Rolf Schwartmann, 10. Auflage (C.F. Müller, 2015): 26,99 EUR.
A consolidated English language version of the EU Treaty, the TFEU and the Charter of Fundamental Rights can be found on the Europa website. All legislation may be downloaded electronically from the EUR-Lex-Homepage. The European External Action Service (EEAS) provides the general public with a database of international agreements concluded by the European Union.
Daniel Thym, ‘Foreign Affairs’, in: Armin von Bogdandy/Jürgen Bast (Eds.), Principles of European Constitutional Law, 2nd edn (Hart, 2009), pp. 309–343.
Daniel Thym, ‘Auswärtige Gewalt’, in: Armin von Bogdandy/Jürgen Bast (Hrsg.): Europäisches Verfassungsrecht, 2nd edn (Springer, 2009), pp. 441–488 (= German version).
Marise Cremona, ‘External Relations and External Competence of the European Union’, in: Paul Craig/Gráinne de Búrca (Eds.), The Evolution of EU Law, 2nd edn (OUP, 2011), pp. 217-268.
Textbooks (EU External Relations)
Note: MANY of these textbooks are too specific for the purposes of our course or do not sufficiently cover legal issues. I recommend the materials referred to in the general sections instead.
Christopher Hill/Michael Smith (Eds.), International Relations and the European Union, 3rd edn (OUP, 2017): 40.00 £.
de Waele, Henri: Legal Dynamics of EU External Relations. Dissecting a Layered Global Player, 2. Auflage (Springer, 2017): 65.44 €.
Panos Koutrakos, EU International Relations Law, 2nd edn (Hart, 2015): 43.99 £.
Bart Van Vooren/Ramses Wessel, EU External Relations Law. Text, Cases and Materials (CUP, 2014): 47.99 £.
Pieter Jan Kuijper and others, The Law of EU External Relations. Cases, Materials, and Commentary on the EU as an International Legal Actor, 2nd edition (OUP, 2016): no paperback version available.
Piet Eeckhout, External Relations of the European Union, 2nd edn (OUP, 2011): 47.49 £.
Eleftheria Neframi, L’Action extérieure de l'Union européenne. Fondements, moyens, principes (L.G.D.J., 2010): 20.30 €.
Textbooks (General EU Law)
Craig, Paul/de Búrca, Gráinne: EU Law. Text, Cases and Materials, 6. Auflage (OUP, 2015): 43.99 £.
Chalmers, Damian/Davies, Gareth/Monti, Giorgio: European Union Law. Text and Materials, 3. Auflage (CUP, 2014): 44.99 £.
Lenaerts, Koen/Van Nuffel, Piet: Constitutional Law of the European Union, 3. Auflage (Sweet & Maxwell, 2011): 39.95 £.
Neighbourhood Policy & Enlargement; Development.
Auswärtiges Amt; Quai d’Orsay; Foreign & Commonwealth Office.
Express and Implied Competences
P. Craig/G. de Búrca, EU Law. Text, Cases and Materials (6th edn 2015), § 10.1-3.
D. Thym, ‘Foreign Affairs’, in: Armin von Bogdandy/Jürgen Bast (Eds.), Principles of European Constitutional Law, 2nd edn (Hart, 2009), p. 309 at 316-320.
M. Cremona, ‘External Relations and External Competence of the European Union’, in: Paul Craig/Gráinne de Búrca (Eds.), The Evolution of EU Law, 2nd edn (OUP, 2011), p. 217 at 219-226 & 245-260: extensive description; participants are NOT expected to know all the details.
T. Oppermann/C.D. Classen/M. Nettesheim, Europarecht, 7th edn (C.H. Beck, 2016), § 38.
P. Koutrakos, EU International Relations Law, 2nd edn (Hart, 2015), ch. 3.
ECJ, AETR, 22/70, EU:C:1971:32: established the implied powers doctrine (paras 13-32; English abbreviation often ERTA instead of AETR).
ECJ, ILO-Convention No. 170, Opinion 2/91, EU:C:1993:106: application of the AETR/ERTA formula to minimum harmonisation at European and national level.
ECJ, Commission vs. Germany (open skies), C-476/98, EU:C:2002:631: illustrates the relevance of the AETR/ERTA doctrine after the adoption of harmonisation measures (here: civil aviation).
ECJ, Lugano Convention, Opinion 1/03, EU:C:2006:81: scope of the AETR/ERTA doctrine in areas with extensive (but not exclusive) EU action; separation clauses in international agreements.
ECJ, Commission vs. Council, C-114/12, EU:C:2014:2151, paras 64 et seq. confirms that Article 3(2) TFEU codifies earlier case law based on the ERTA judgment, including situations in which an area ‘is already largely covered’ by EU rules; in such scenarios, the EU has an exclusive competence without internal and external rules ‘coincid[ing] fully’ (paras 69-70).
ECJ, Marrakesh Treaty, Opinion 3/15, EU:C:2017:114: reiterates the significance of the AETR/ERTA doctrine for multilateral agreements (paras 102-130).
Power Point Presentation – Competences: Download.
Institutional Prerogatives & International Agreements
P. Craig/G. de Búrca, EU Law. Text, Cases and Materials (6th edn 2015), § 10.6.
D. Thym, ‘Foreign Affairs’, in: Armin von Bogdandy/Jürgen Bast (Eds.), Principles of European Constitutional Law, 2nd edn (Hart, 2009), p. 309 at 323-326.
J. Wouters/T. Ramopoulos, The Institutional Structure, in: Takis Tridimas/Robert Schütze (Eds.), The Oxford Principles of European Union Law, Vol. I (OUP, 2018), pp. 1067-1109.
P. Koutrakos, Decision Making Procedures, in: Takis Tridimas/Robert Schütze (Eds.), The Oxford Principles of European Union Law, Vol. I (OUP, 2018), pp. 1141-1173.
M. Krajewski, ‘Binnenorganisationen der EU-Außenpolitik’, in: Andreas von Arnauld (Ed.), Enzyklopädie Europarecht, Vol. X (Nomos, 2014), § 3.
P. Eeckhout, External Relations of the European Union, 2nd edn (OUP, 2011), pp. 193-211.
Consult the Treaties Office Database for an overview of the scope and breadth of bilateral agreements concluded with third states.
European Parliament newsroom about recent developments in the field of external relations.
ECJ, France vs. Commission, C-327/91, EU:C:1994:305: admissibility of actions for annulment after the entry into force of international agreements; implied powers concern the scope of EU competence, not institutional prerogatives (which follow Art. 218 TFEU).
ECJ, Commission vs. Ireland (Mox Plant), C-459/03, EU:C:2006:345: exclusive CJEU competence for the interpretation of Union law; Member States are prohibited from bringing such claims to international courts or conflict resolution bodies.
ECJ, Council vs. Commission, C-73/14, EU:C:2015:663 & ECJ, Council vs. Commission, C-660/13, EU:C:2016:616: scope of the executive power of the Commission to represent the EU position independently without prior authorisation by the Council under Art. 16(1)(2), 17(1)(6) TEU: yes for standing in the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea in situations with a pre-defined EU position (C-73/14), no for non-binding political statements with Switzerland concerning ‘essential aspects’ of bilateral relations (C-660/13).
ECJ, European Parliament vs. Council, C-263/14, EU:C:2016:435: the EP has be informed about all stages of the treaty negotiating procedure under Art. 218(10) TFEU, not only the final conclusion of the agreement.
General Court, Efler et al. vs. Commission, T-754/14, EU:T:2017:323: the Commission is obliged to allow the citizens’ initiative ‘Stop TTIP’ to proceed under Art. 11(4) TFEU.
Power Point Presentation: Download.
P. Craig/G. de Búrca, EU Law. Text, Cases and Materials (6th edn 2015), § 10.7-9.
M. Cremona, ‘External Relations and External Competence of the European Union’, in: Paul Craig/Gráinne de Búrca (Eds.), The Evolution of EU Law, 2nd edn (OUP, 2011), p. 217 at 232-244.
D. Thym, ‘Foreign Affairs’, in: Armin von Bogdandy/Jürgen Bast (Eds.), Principles of European Constitutional Law, 2nd edn (Hart, 2009), p. 309 at 320-323.
J. Klabbers, The Status and Effects of International Norms, in: Takis Tridimas/Robert Schütze (Eds.), The Oxford Principles of European Union Law, Vol. I (OUP, 2018), pp. 1208-1233.
ECJ, Kupferberg, 104/81, EU:C:1982:362: direct effect of international agreements in the EU legal order (paras 13-27).
ECJ, Polydor, 270/80, EU:C:1982:43: identical provisions of EU law and international agreements cannot always be interpreted similarly due to the different context (paras 14-22).
ECJ, Intertanko, C-308/06, EU:C:2008:312: compatibility of a directive with UNCLOS and an IMO-Convention (MARPOL)? CJEU fine-tunes its case-law on the status of international agreements in the EU legal order; agreements ratified by all Member States do not automatically bind the EU unless in cases of functional succession or where the agreement in questions reflects customary international law (paras 42 et seq.).
ECJ, Kadi & Al Baraak vs. Council & Commission, C-402/05 & C-415/05 P, EU:C:2008:461: primacy of the EU Treaty over international obligations (here: UNSC Resolutions) within the EU legal order; EU human rights standards supersede the enforcement of UN sanctions (paras 278-330).
ECJ, The Air Transport Association of America et al., C-366/10, EU:C:2011:864: are unilateral European measures extending the CO2 emissions trading scheme to air transport compatible with the EU’s international legal obligations? Excellent case to study the conditions for direct effect (paras 49-56) and the status of international custom (paras 101-110).
ECJ, Z., C-363/12, EU:C:2014:159: United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was ratified by the EU and must be considered when interpreting Union law, but it cannot be relied on to challenge the validity secondary law, since its provisions are not precise and unconditional (paras 84-90).
ECJ, Draft Agreement between Canada and the EU (Passenger Name Record), Opinion 1/15, EU:C:2017:592: reaffirms that international agreements must be compatible with EU fundamental rights (paras 125 et seq.).
ECJ, Western Sahara Campaign UK, C-266/16, EU:C:2018:118: general statements on the status of international law in the EU legal order and the binding effect of international custom (paras 46-48).
Handout zum Vortrag von Frau Schmelzer: Download.
Case Study: EEC – Turkey Association Agreement
See the reading list on the status of international law.
Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey of 12 Sept. 1963 (OJ 1977 L 361/29); Additional Protocol of 23 Nov. 1970 (OJ 1977 L 361/60).
EEC-Turkey Association Council Decision No. 1/80 of 19 Sept 1980.
ECJ, Sevince, C-192/89, EU:C:1990:322: international secondary law, in casu art. 6 of the Decision of the EEC-Turkey Association Council concerning the legal position of Turkish migrant workers, is directly applicable within the EU legal order (paras 13-26).
ECJ, Bozkurt, C-434/93, EU:C:1995:168: having regard to the objective and wording of the EEC-Turkey association agreement, the interpretation of the Association Council Decision 1/80 shall ‘so far as possible’ follow EU legal principles (paras 18-20).
ECJ, Soysal & Savatli, C-228/06, EU:C:2009:101: directly applicable provisions of international agreements (here: Article 41(1) Additional Protocol 1970 to the EEC-Turkey Association Agreement) have priority over secondary law (here: EU Visa Reg. 539/2001).
ECJ, Hengartner & Gasser, C-70/09, EU:C:2010:430: does the agreement between the EC and Switzerland on the free movement of persons of 21 June 1999 (OJ 2002 L 114/6) cover passive service recipients, e.g. German students buying sky passes or visiting operas (paras 36-42)?
ECJ, Demirkan, C-221/11, EU:C:2013:583: Article 41(1) Additional Protocol 1970 to the EEC-Turkey Association Agreement does not cover service recipients – in contrast to the fundamental freedom within the single market – In the light of divergent objectives (paras 44-61).
ECJ, Dogan, C-138/13, EU:C:2014:2066: Article 13 Association Council Decision No 1/80 and Article 41(1) Additional Protocol, ibid., are to be interpreted in the light of the fundamental freedoms when it comes to the term ‘restriction’; language tests for spouses of Turkish workers can be compatible, therefore, with EU law (paras 33-38).
Power Point Presentation: See previous section.
Mixed Agreements, Membership in International Organisations
P. Eeckhout, External Relations of the European Union, 2nd edn (OUP, 2011), pp. 212-266 (overview).
K. Odendahl, ‘Beziehungen zu Drittstaaten und internationalen Organisationen’, in: Andreas von Arnauld (Ed.), Enzyklopädie Europarecht, Vol. X (Nomos, 2014), § 5 (overview).
J. Heliskoski, Mixed Agreements, in: Takis Tridimas/Robert Schütze (Eds.), The Oxford Principles of European Union Law, Vol. I (OUP, 2018), pp. 1174-1207.
G. de Baere, Union Membership in International Organizations, in: Takis Tridimas/Robert Schütze (Eds.), The Oxford Principles of European Union Law, Vol. I (OUP, 2018), pp. 1234-1282.
D. Thym, ‘Die Europäische Union in den Vereinten Nationen’, Vereinte Nationen 2008, 121-126 (prior to the adoption of the UNGA Resolution on enhanced EU observer status).
European Union@United Nations.
UN General Assembly: Participation of the European Union in the work of the United Nations, Res. A/65/276 of 10 May 2011.
ECJ, European Economic Area I, Opinion 1/91, EU:C:1991:490: constitutional limits for EU participation in international agreements whenever the autonomy of Union law and its institutional system is at stake.
ECJ, Commission vs. Germany, C-433/03, EU:C:2005:462 : duty of loyal cooperation of the Member States once the Commission has initiated treaty negotiations.
ECJ, Commission vs. Greece, C-45/07, EU:C:2009:81: when international organisations without EU participation (here: IMO) discuss matters of exclusive Union competence the Member States are obliged to act as “trustees” of the EU standpoint (paras 27-31).
ECJ, Germany vs. Council, C-399/12, EU:C:2014:2258: adoption of EU decisions on joint negotiating positions in IOs that are covered by EU competences but to which the EU has not acceded so far can be covered by Art. 218(9) TFEU.
ECJ, Accession to the ECHR, Opinion 2/13, EU:C:2014:2454: the EU cannot accede to the ECHR under the draft accession agreement.
ECJ, Achmea, C-284/16, EU:C:2018:158: investment protection tribunals (in bilateral investment treaties among Member States) are incompatible with the autonomy of the EU legal order the EU’s system of judicial protection (paras 32-58).
Common Commercial Policy (incl. EU in the WTO)
T. Oppermann/C.D. Classen/M. Nettesheim, Europarecht, 7th edn (C.H. Beck, 2016), § 40.I-III.
M. Cremona, ‘External Relations and External Competence of the European Union’, in: Paul Craig/Gráinne de Búrca (Eds.), The Evolution of EU Law, 2nd edn (OUP, 2011), p. 217 at 226-232 (competence).
P. Eeckhout, External Relations of the European Union, 2nd edn (OUP, 2011), pp. 447-460 (instruments & actors).
S. Meunier/K. Nicolaïdes, ‘The European Union as a Trade Power’, in: Christopher Hill/Michael Smith/Sophie Vanhoonacker (Eds.), International Relations and the European Union, 3rd edn (OUP, 2017), pp. 209-234.
M. Krajewski, ‘Normative Grundlagen der EU-Außenwirtschaftsbeziehungen: Verbindlich, umsetzbar und angewandt?‘, Europarecht 2016, 235-255.
B. Daiber, ‘Das Freihandelsabkommen zwischen der EU und Südkorea’, Europarecht 2015, 542-574.
S. Boysen, ‘Das System des Europäischen Außenwirtschaftsrechts’, in: Andreas von Arnauld (Ed.), Enzyklopädie Europarecht, Vol. X (Nomos, 2014), § 9.
W. Weiß, ‘Vertragliche Handelspolitik der EU’, in: Andreas von Arnauld (Ed.), Enzyklopädie Europarecht, Vol. X (Nomos, 2014), § 10.
P. Koutrakos, EU International Relations Law, 2nd edn (Hart, 2015), chs 2 & 10.
A. Van Waeyenberge/P. Pecho, ‘Free Trade Agreements after the Treaty of Lisbon in the Light of the Case Law of the Court of Justice of the European Union’, European Law Journal 20 (2014), 749-762.
F. Hoffmeister, ‘Aktuelle Rechtsfragen in der Praxis der europäischen Außenhandelspolitik’, Zeitschrift für Europarechtliche Studien 2013, 385-401.
C. Herrmann/W. Michl, ‘Grundzüge des europäischen Außenwirtschaftsrechts’, Zeitschrift für Europarechtliche Studien 2008, p. 81 at 93-140.
Commission Website with recent developments and background information.
Information on CETA and on TTIP, incl. the EU’s negotiation position.
Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 ... laying down the Union Customs Code (OJ 2013 L 269/1); Regulation (EU) No 978/2012 … applying a Scheme of Generalised Tariff Preferences (OJ 2012 L 303/1); Regulation (EU) 2015/478 … on Common Rules for Imports (OJ 2015 L 83/16); Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 … on protection against dumped imports Union (OJ 2016 L 176/21).
Außenwirtschaftsgesetz (AWG); Außenwirtschaftsverordnung (AWV).
Scope of EU Competences
ECJ, International Fruit Company, 21-24/72, EU:C:1972:115: EEC as a member of the GATT 1947 by means of functional succession before the conclusion of the Uruguay round when the EC officially become a state party (WTO Agreement).
ECJ, International Agreement on Natural Rubber, Opinion 1/78, EU:C:1979:224: instrumental view of trade policy (not exclusively aimed at liberalisation).
ECJ, WTO, Opinion 1/94, EU:C:1994:384: CCP as defined by the Rome Treaty covers the GATT – not the GATS and TRIPs which are subject to shared, implied AETR competences by the EC and the Member States and therefore require a mixed agreement (note: CCP was amended by the Treaties of Nice and Lisbon to cover GATS and TRIPs).
ECJ, EU-Singapore FTA, Opinion 2/15, EU:C:2017:376: CCP as defined by the Treaty of Lisbon includes most aspects of trade in goods and services as well as foreign direct investment, but Member States have to participate through a mixed agreement insofar as investment protection beyond the sphere of foreign direct investment and investor-state dispute settlement are concerned (while all other areas can be the subject of an EU only agreement).
Direct Applicability of WTO Law
ECJ, Portugal vs. Council, C-149/96, EU:C:1999:574: WTO law is not directly applicable (paras 25 et seq.).­
ECJ, Léon Van Parys, C-377/02, EU:C:2005:121: Appellate Body decisions within the DSU confirming that the EU have violated WTO law do not change our conclusion that WTO law is, as a matter of principle, not directly effective.
ECJ, FIAMM & FIAMM Technologies, C-120/06 P and 121/06 P, EU:C:2008:476: companies cannot claim non-contractual liability for violations of WTO law by the EU.
BVerfGE 123, 267 (416-420) – Lissabon: scope of the CCP, as amended by the Lisbon Treaty, does not call into question German sovereignty (but should be interpreted narrowly).
Common Foreign, Security & Defence Policy
D. Thym, ‘Foreign Affairs’, in: Armin von Bogdandy/Jürgen Bast (Eds.), Principles of European Constitutional Law, 2nd edn (Hart, 2009), p. 309 at 330-338.
T. Oppermann/C.D. Classen/M. Nettesheim, Europarecht, 7th edn (C.H. Beck, 2016), § 39.
J. Howorth, ‘The EU’s Security and Defence Policy: The Quest for Purpose’, in: Christopher Hill/Michael Smith/Sophie Vanhoonacker (Eds.), International Relations and the European Union, 3rd edn (OUP, 2017), pp. 341-364.
G. Butler, ‘The Coming of Age of the Court’s Jurisdiction in the Common Foreign and Security Policy’, European Constitutional Law Review 13 (2017), pp. 673-703.
P. Koutrakos, EU International Relations Law, 2nd edn (Hart, 2015), ch. 12-13.
D. Thym, ‘GASP und äußere Sicherheit’, in: Andreas von Arnauld (Ed.), Enzyklopädie Europarecht, Vol. X (Nomos, 2014), § 16.
Materials (CFSP)
“Global Strategy for the European Union’s Foreign and Security Policy”, June 2016.
“A Secure Europe in a Better World – The European Security Strategy”, approved by the European Council on 12 December 2003, Council doc. 15895/03 of 8 Dec 2003.
Materials (CSDP)
Ongoing and former military and civil CSDP operations.
BVerfGE 123, 267 – Lissabon: intergovernmental character of the Common Security and Defence Policy as a mandatory requirement of German constitutional law (paras 381-391).
ECJ, European Parliament vs. Council, C-263/14, EU:C:2016:435: delimitation of the Common Foreign and Security Policy and supranational policies.
ECJ, H vs. Council et al., C-455/14 P, EU:C:2016:659: indirect judicial control of CSDP missions in cases involving EU personnel (paras 43 et seq.).
ECJ, Rosneft, C-72/15 P, EU:C:2017:236: indirect judicial control of CSDP missions, ere smart sanctions against individuals, in cases of alleged human rights violations (paras 48 et seq.).
Power Point Presentation: CFSP – Download.
Power Point Presentation: CSDP – Download.
Die Sprechstunde von Herrn Thym findet nach Vereinbarung per E-Mail donnerstags von 10:30 Uhr bis 11:30 Uhr statt.

References: § 10
 § 38
 § 10
 § 3
 Art. 218
 Art. 16
 Art. 218
 Art. 11
 § 10
in casu
 art. 6
 § 5
 Art. 218
 § 40
 § 9
 § 10
 § 39
 § 16