Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2pzkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-17T19:27:13.772Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The International Responsibility of the European Union—The EU Perspective: Between Pragmatism and Proceduralisation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2017

Andrés Delgado Casteleiro
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

EU management of its international responsibility for wrongful acts varies between a pragmatic approach and the proceduralisation of its responsibility. The EU either lays down complex procedures in order to manage the allocation of responsibility in order to (allegedly) preserve the internal division of competences or takes a pragmatic approach which disregards any internal division of competences. This chapter critically analyses these two trends in EU practice. More precisely, it identifies from the ongoing development in the incipient foreign direct investment policy of the EU and in its accession to the European Convention on Human Rights the problems linked to this way of managing the EU’s international responsibility. Overall, it argues that instead of complex and slow procedures or ad hoc pragmatic solutions, the EU should adhere to a rule-based approach which is at the same time pragmatic and respects the principles underpinning the proceduralisation of responsibility.

Type
Research Article
Information
Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies , Volume 15 , 2013 , pp. 563 - 586
Copyright
Copyright © Centre for European Legal Studies, Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge 2013

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

1 See, for instance, Dashwood, A, ‘Mixity in the Era of the Lisbon Treaty’ in Hillion, C and Koutrakos, P (eds), Mixed Agreements Revisited. The EU and its Member States in the World (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2010)Google Scholar; Ehlermann, C-D, ‘Mixed Agreements: A List of Problems’ in O’Keeffe, D and Schermers, HG (eds), Mixed Agreements (Deventer, Kluwer Law and Taxation, 1983)Google Scholar; Hoffmeister, F, ‘Curse or Blessing? Mixed Agreements in the Recent Practice of the European Community and its Member States’ in Hillion, C and Koutrakos, P (eds), Mixed Agreements in EU Law Revisited. The EU and its Member States in the World (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2010)Google Scholar; Amadeo, S, Unione Europea e Treaty-Making Power (Milan, Dott A Giuffrè Editore, 2005)Google Scholar; Bourgeois, JHJ, Dewost, JL and Gaiffe, MA, La Communauté européenne et les accords mixtes. Quelles perspectives? (Brussels, Presses Interuniversitaires Européennes, 1997)Google Scholar; Kuijper, PJ, Of ‘Mixity’ and ‘Double-Hatting’: EU External Relations Law Explained (Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Press, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar Neframi, E, L’action extérieure de l’Union européenne. Fondements, moyens, principes (Paris, LGDJ, 2010)Google Scholar.

2 For a recent overview of all the issues, see Cannizazaro, E, PP, and Wessel, RA, International Law as Law of the European Union (Leiden, Martinus Nijhoff, 2012)Google Scholar.

3 See, eg, Case Concerning the Conservation and Sustainable Exploitation of Swordfish Stocks in the South-Eastern Pacific Ocean (Chile/European Union) Order 2009/1 ITLOS; AES Summit Generation Ltd and AES-Tisza Ero˝mu˝ Kft v Republic of Hungary ICSID Case No ARB/07/22.

4 International Law Commission, ‘Draft Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations’ [2011] 2 Yearbook of the International Law Commission, Part Two.

5 PJ Kuijper, ‘International Responsibility for EU Mixed Agreements’ in Hillion and Koutrakos (n 1); Talmon, S, ‘Responsibility of International Organizations: Does the European Community Require Special Treatment?’ in Ragazzi, M (ed), International Responsibility Today Essays in Memory of Oscar Schachter (Leiden, Martinus Nijhoff, 2005)Google Scholar; Gaja, G, ‘Some Reflections on the European Community’s International Responsibility’ in Schermers, HG, Heukels, T and Mead, P (eds), Non-contractual Liability of the European Communities (Leiden, Martinus Nijhoff, 1988)Google Scholar; Paasivirta, E and Kuijper, PJ, ‘Does One Size Fit All? The European Community and the Responsibility of International Organizations’ (2005) XXXVI Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 169 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 PJ Kuijper and E Paasivirta, ‘Further Exploring International Responsibility: The European Community and the ILC’s Project on Responsibility of International Organizations’ [2004] International Organizations Law Review 111.

7 Hoffmeister, F, ‘Litigating against the European Union and its Member States: Who Responds under the ILC’s Draft Articles on International Responsibility of International Organizations?’ (2010) 21 European Journal of International Law 723 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; M Björklund, ‘Responsibility in the EC for Mixed Agreements’ [2001] Nordic Journal Of International Law 373; Neframi, E, ‘International Responsibility of the European Community and of Member States under Mixed Agreements’ in Cannizzaro, E (ed), The European Union as an Actor in International Relations (Leiden, Kluwer Law International, 2002)Google Scholar.

8 Eeckhout, P, ‘External Relations of the EU and the Member States: Competence, Mixed Agreements, International Responsibility, and Effects of International Law’ in Xenopoulos, X (ed), FIDE 2006 (Cyprus, FIDE, 2006)Google Scholar.

9 See, for instance, Case C-29/99 Commission v Council (Convention on Nuclear Safety) [2002] ECR I-11221; Heliskoski, J, Mixed Agreements as a Technique for Organizing the International Relations of the European Community and its Member States (Leiden, Kluwer Law International, 2001) 118 Google Scholar.

10 Heliskoski (n 9) 157.

11 Hoffmeister (n 1).

12 Eeckhout (n 8) 10.

13 Article 4(3) TEU; C-246/07 Commission v Sweden (PFOS) [2010] ECR I-03317.

14 See below, note 20.

15 European Commission, ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for managing financial responsibility linked to investor-state dispute settlement tribunals established by international agreements to which the European Union is party’ COM(2012) 335 final.

16 Ibid. Furthermore, the Commission also mentions a new organising principle in the area of international investment: budget neutrality. However, it is not completely clear how this principle would operate in this area of international law, and whether it can and should be extended to other instances of the EU’s treaty-making practice.

17 Draft Explanatory Report to the Agreement on the Accession of the European Union to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The last version can be found in Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH), ‘Report to the Committee of Ministers on the elaboration of legal instruments for the accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights’, CDDH (2011) 009, parad 32–33.

18 Klabbers, J, An Introduction to International Institutional Law (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2009) 64 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 On functionalism and the EU, see Klabbers, J, ‘Contending Approaches to International Organizations: Between Functionalism and Constitutionalism’ in Klabbers, J and Wallendahl, A (eds), Research Handbook on the Law of International Organizations (Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20 McGoldrick, D, International Relations of the European Union (London, Longman, 1997) 99 Google Scholar; Cremona, M, ‘The Doctrine of Exclusivity and the Position of Mixed Agreements in the External Relations of the European Community’ [1982] Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 411 Google Scholar.

21 See Borger, J, ‘EU Anger over British Stance on UN Statements’ The Guardian (London, 20 October 2011)Google Scholar. Available at: www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/20/uk-eu-un-statementswording.

22 Arrangement between the Council and the Commission concerning participation in international negotiations on raw materials (PROBA 20). On file with the author.

23 Article 5 TFEU; cf Opinion 1/78 re International Agreement on Natural Rubber [1978] ECR 2151.

24 Dimopoulos, A, EU Foreign Investment Law (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Herrmann, CW, ‘The Treaty of Lisbon Expands the EU’s External Trade and Investment Powers’ (2010) 14 American Society of International Law Insight 4 Google Scholar; Eilmasnberger, T, ‘Bilateral Investment Treaties and EU Law’ (2009) 46 CML Rev 383 Google Scholar; Burgstaller, M, ‘European Law and Investment Treaties’ (2009) 26 Journal of International Arbitration 181 Google Scholar; Radu, A, ‘Foreign Investors in the EU: Which “Best Treatment”? Interactions between Bilateral Investment Treaties and EU Law’ (2008) 14 European Law Journal 237 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25 European Commission (n 15) 2.

26 Nollkaemper, A, ‘Constitutionalization and the Unity of the Law of International Responsibility’ (2009) 16 Indiana Journal of Global Studies 535 Google Scholar.

27 Kuijper (n 5); PM Olson, ‘Mixity from the Outside: the Perspective of a Treaty Partner.’ in Hillion and Koutrakos (n 1).

28 Simmonds, KR, ‘The European Economic Community and the New Law of the Sea’ (1982) VI Recueil de Cours de la Académie du Droit International 218 Google Scholar; Cremona, (n 20), 411; cf Ehlermann (n 1).

29 Olson (n 27).

30 PROBA 20, 1.

31 Participation of the European Union in the work of the United Nations. UNGA Res 65/276.

32 Ruling 1/78/EURATOM Nuclear Materials [1978] ECR 2151.

33 Heliskoski (n 9) 123. cfHyett, S, ‘The Duty of Cooperation: A Flexible Concept’ in Dashwood, A and Hillion, C (eds), The General Law of EC External Relations (London, Sweet & Maxwell, 2000)Google Scholar.

34 Opinion 1/94 Competence of the Community to Conclude International Agreements Concerning Services and the Protection of Intellectual Property [1994] ECR I-05267 [106].

35 Ibid.

36 cfHeliskoski, J, ‘The “Duty of Cooperation” between the European Community and its Member States within the World Trade Organization’ (1996) VII Finnish Yearbook of International Law 59 Google Scholar.

37 C Hillion, ‘Mixity and Coherence in EU External Relations: The Significance of the “Duty of Cooperation”’ in Hillion and Koutrakos (n 1); Neframi, E, ‘The Duty of Loyalty: Rethinking its Scope through its Application in the Field of EU External Relations’ (2011) 47 CML Rev 323 Google Scholar.

38 Case C-25/94 Commission v Council (FAO) [1996] ECR I-1469.

39 Case C-246/07 Commission v Sweden (PFOS) [2010] ECR I-03317.

40 Case C-45/07 Commission v Greece (IMO) [2009] ECR I-00701.

41 Case C-266/03 Commission v Luxembourg (Inland Waterways) [2005] ECR I-04805; Case C-433/03 Commission v Germany (Inland Waterways) [2005] ECR I-06985.

42 Casteleiro, A Delgado and Larik, J, ‘The Duty to Remain Silent: Limitless Loyalty in EU External Relations?’ (2011) 36 European Law Review 524 Google Scholar.

43 Case C-459/03 Commission v Ireland (MOX Plant) [2006] ECR I-04635.

44 Heliskoski, J, ‘Joint Competence of the European Community and its Member States and the Dispute Settlement Practice of the World Trade Organization’ (1999–2000) 2 Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies 61 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

45 Heliskoski (n 9) 157.

46 Koskenniemi, M, ‘Theory: Implications for the Practioners’ in British Institute of International and Comparative Law (ed), Theory and International Law: An Introduction (London, BIICL, 1991) 32 Google Scholar.

47 R Schütze, ‘Federalism and Foreign Affairs: Mixity as a (Inter)national Phenomenon’ in Hillion and Koutrakos (n 1); Rosas, A, ‘The European Union and Mixed Agreements’ in Dashwood, A and Hillion, C (eds), The General Law of EC External Relations (London, Sweet & Maxwell, 2000)Google Scholar; Rosas, A, ‘Mixed Union: Mixed Agreements’ in Koskenniemi, M (ed), International Law Aspects of the European Union (Leiden, Kluwer Law International, 1998)Google Scholar.

48 Weiler, JHH, ‘External Legal Relations of Non-Unitary Actors’ in Weiler, JHH (ed), The Constitution of Europe: Do the New Clothes Have an Emperor? (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1999)Google Scholar; cfNeuwahl, NA, ‘Mixed Agreements: Analysis of the Phenomenon and their Legal Significance’ (Florence, European University Institute, 1988)Google Scholar; HG Schermers, ‘A Tipology of Mixed Agreements’ in O’Keeffe and Schermers (n 1).

49 A Rosas, ‘The Future of Mixity’ in Hillion and Koutrakos (n 1) 371; Holdgard, R, External Relations Law of the European Community: Legal Reasoning and Legal Discourses (Leiden, Wolter Kluwer, 2008) 148 Google Scholar.

50 Tomuschat, C, ‘The International Responsibility of the European Union’ in Cannizazaro, E (ed), The European Union as an Actor in International Relations (Leiden, Kluwer Law International, 2002) 185 Google Scholar.

51 United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime [2004] OJ L261/70.

52 Joint Position 1999/235/JHA of 29 March 1999 defined by the Council on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, on the proposed United Nations convention against organised crime [1999] OJ L87/1.

53 European Commission, ‘Proposal for a Council Decision on the signing, on behalf of the European Community, of the United Nations Convention against transnational organised crime and its Protocols on combating trafficking in persons, especially women and children, and the smuggling of migrants by land, air and sea’ COM(2000)760 final.

54 Ad Hoc Committee on the Elaboration of a Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, Ninth session, Vienna, 5–16 June 2000, A/AC.254/2, para 15.

55 Eeckhout (n 8) 10.

56 Rijken, C and Kronenberger, V, ‘The United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime and the European Union’ in Kronenberger, V (ed), The EU and the International Legal Order: Discord or Harmony? (The Hague, TMC Asser Press, 2001)Google Scholar.

57 Koskenniemi (n 46) 32.

58 Kennedy, D, ‘Comment on Rodolf Wiethölter’s “Materialization and Proceduralization in Modern Law”, and “Proceduralization of the Category of Law”’ (2011) 12 German Law Journal 478 Google Scholar.

59 Cf Heliskoski (n 9) 166.

60 Kuijper and Paasivirta (n 6) 113 seem to accept that the practice of the EU in this regard has the potential to create custom.

61 Koskenniemi (n 46) 13. In fact, as Koskenniemi points outprocesudralisation is a common trend in international law making and is especially present in Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEIA).

62 Partnership Agreement between the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000. [2000] OJ L317/3.

63 Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement provides that: ‘If measures are taken in cases of special urgency, they shall be immediately notified to the other Party and the Council of Ministers. At the request of the Party concerned, consultations may then be called in order to examine the situation thoroughly and, if possible, find solutions.’

64 Cf Dashwood (n 1).

65 C Rijken and V Kronenberger (n 56).

66 See art 36(4) of the Palermo Convention.

67 For an overview of this practice, see Casteleiro, A Delgado, ‘EU Declarations of Competence to Multilateral Agreements: A Useful Reference Base?’ (2012) 17 European Foreign Affairs Review 491 Google Scholar.

68 Herrmann (n 24).

69 European Commission, ‘Towards a comprehensive European international Investment policy (Communication)’ COM(2010) 343 final.

70 Statement submitted by the European Communities to the Secretariat of the Energy Charter pursuant to Article 26(3)(b)(ii) of the Energy Charter Treaty [1998] OJ L69/115.

71 AES Summit Generation Ltd (n 3); Electrabel SA v Republic of Hungary (ICSID) ICSID Case No ARB/07/19.

72 European Commission (n 69) 10.

73 Ibid.

74 European Commission (n 15).

75 For a more in-depth critique of the provisions, see Tiejte, C, Sipiorsk, E and Topfër, G, Responsibility in Investor-State-Arbitration in the EU: Managing Financial Responsibility Linked to Investor-State Dispute Settlement Tribunals Established by the EU’s International Investment Agreements (Brussels, European Parliament, 2012) 19 Google Scholar.

76 Cf Dimopoulos (n 24).

77 For an overview, see Lock, T, ‘End of an Epic? The Draft Agreement on the EU’s Accession to the ECHR’ (2011) 31 Yearbook of European Law 162 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; C Eckes, ‘EU External Representation in Context: Accession to the ECHR as the Final Step Towards Mutual Recognition’ in S Blockmans and RA Wessel (eds), ‘Principles and Practices of EU External Representation’ (2012) CLEER Working Paper 2012/5; Martín, JM Cortés, ‘Adhesión al CEDH y Autonomía del Derecho de la Unión: Legitimación pasiva de la Unión y sus miembros y compatibilidad material’ (2010) 22 Revista General de Derecho Europeo 53 Google Scholar.

78 For a brief overview, see Gaja, G, ‘The “Co-Respondent Mechanisms” According to the Draft Agreement for the Accession of the EU to the ECHR’ (2013) 2 ESIL Reflections Google Scholar, Available at: http://www.esil-sedi.eu/sites/default/files/ESIL%20Reflections%20-%20Gaja_0. pdf (Last accessed 25/09/2013).

79 Draft Revised Agreement on the Accession of the European Union to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The last version can be found in the Council of Europe document 47+1 (2012) R03. Third Negotiation Meeting between the CDDH Ad Hoc Negotiation Group and the European Commission on the Accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights.

80 Draft Explanatory report to the Agreement on the Accession of the European Union to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The last version can be found in Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH) Report to the Committee of Ministers on the elaboration of legal instruments for the accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights: CDDH (2011) 009.

81 Draft Revised Agreement (n 79) 17.

82 Ibid 18. However, see comment 4 on p 2 of the same document.

83 CDDH (2011) 0009 (n 80) para 47.

84 S Vezzani, ‘L’Unione eurpea e i suoi Stati membri davanti ai giudici di Strasburgo: una valutazione critica del meccanismo del co-respondent’ (2012) 8. Available at: www.sidi-isil.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Conforti-Ladh%C3%A9sion-de-lUE-%C3%A0-la-CEDH.pdf.

85 Above n 15.