Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T13:51:10.428Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How Confidential Negotiations of the TTIP Affect Public Trust

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Vigjilenca Abazi
Vigjilenca Abazi*
Affiliation:
Maastricht University, Faculty of Law
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

“When EU Heads of States and Governments unanimously gave the European Commission a mandate to negotiate the EU–US Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership on 17 June 2013, they understood that these talks would become the leitmotiv of a new era in EU trade policy. However, few people would have guessed that it would primarily be because of transparency.”

The public demands for more transparent EU negotiations have significantly increased, especially with regard to the EU–US negotiations of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. For many pundits transparency in negotiations comes as a surprise, as the candid statement by the Commissioner's Malmström cabinet member illustrates, since traditionally EU negotiations almost exclusively take place behind closed doors and with almost no public disclosure of documents. Scholars have also noted how ‘remarkable’ the TTIP negotiations are for the fact that the negotiating directives were publically released, which was not a common practice before, leading someMembers of European Parliament to initiate adjudication for public disclosure of documents.

Type
Symposium on TTIP Leaks
Information
European Journal of Risk Regulation , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , June 2016 , pp. 247 - 251
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016

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 Mungengová, Jolana (Member of Cabinet at the EU Trade Commissioner), The EU Enhanced Transparency in TTIP: A successful Shift in Paradigm (CERiM blog, 1 March 2016).Google Scholar

2 See generally Curtin, Deirdre, ‘Official Secrets and the Negotiation of International Agreements. Is the EU Executive Unbound?’ (2013) 50 Common Market Law Review 423.Google Scholar

3 Cremona, Marise, Negotiating the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (2015) 52 Common Market Law Review 351, 361.Google Scholar

4 See Case C-350/12 P, Council v. Sophie In 't Veld, Judgment of the European Court of Justice (First Chamber) of 3 July 2014, EU:C:2014:2039.

5 See Greenpeace Netherlands, Press Release, Greenpeace Netherlands releases TTIP documents (2 May 2016), available online <http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/press/releases/2016/Greenpeace-Netherlands-releases-TTIP-documents/> [accessed 30 May 2016] See also in this issue, Ronny Patz, ‘Just the TTIP of the iceberg? Dynamics and effects of information leaks in EU politics’.

6 See Eckes, Christina, How the European Parliament's participation in international relations affects the deep tissue of the EU's power structures (2014) 12(4) International Journal of Constitutional Law 904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7 See Abazi, Vigjilenca and Hillebrandt, Maarten, ‘The Legal Limits to Confidential Negotiations: Recent Case Law Developments in Council Transparency: Access Info Europe and in 't Veld’ (2015) 52 Common Market Law Review 825.Google Scholar

8 Evelyn Coremans, Negotiating TTIP: The Impact of Transparency on Working Practices in EU Trade Policy, Paper presented at the workshop ‘The Law and Politics of Confidential EU Negotiations', Brussels, 12 February 2016.

9 Cremona, Negotiating the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, 361.

10 For an elaborate discussion on trust and transparency see, Abazi, Vigjilenca and Tauschinsky, Eljalill, ‘Reasons of Control and Trust: Grounding the Public Need for Transparency in the European Union’ (2015) 11 Utrecht Law Review 78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11 In all those areas not covered by the CFSP, see Article 17(1) TEU.

12 See Art. 1 TEU, see also Title II of TEU, particularly Articles 10, 11, 12 TEU.

13 See Abazi, V. ‘Parliamentary Oversight Behind Closed Doors’ (2016) 5 Cambridge Journal of Comparative and International Law, Forthcoming. Google Scholar

14 Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents [2001] OJ L145/43.

15 Case C-350/12 P, Council v. Sophie in 't Veld, para 53, 64.

16 See Case C-266/05 P Sison v Council (known as Sison II), EU:C:2007:75, paras 34-35.

17 Abazi and Hillebrandt, ‘The Legal Limits to Confidential Negotiations, 837.v

18 C-658/11, EU:C:2014:2025,

19 C-658/11, para 65

20 C-658/11, para 85

21 C-658/11, para 80

22 C-658/11, para 72

23 Juan Santos Vara, ‘The Role of the European Parliament in the Conclusion of the Transatlantic Agreements on the Transfer of Personal Data after Lisbon’ (2013) CLEER Working Papers 2013/2, <http://www.asser.nl/upload/documents/20130226T013310-cleer_13-2_web.pdf> [accessed 30 May 2016]

24 Ibid., 20.

25 Abazi and Hillebrandt, ‘The Legal Limits to Confidential Negotiations, 838.

26 Aurélien Colson, The Ambassador Between Light and Shade: The Emergence of Secrecy as the Norm for International Negotiation, Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2008.

27 Ibid.

28 L. N. Rangarajan (1998): Diplomacy, states and secrecy in communications, Diplomacy & Statecraft, 9:3, 18-49

29 Ibid.

30 In 't Veld vs Commission, para 117.

31 T-63/10 Jurasinovic vs Council, para 9.

32 This is true for both, EU policy documents and (legal) literature. Cf, for example, Com(2016) 117final or Com(2013) 0864 final, see Lennaerts, Koen: ‘In the Union we Trust: Trust Enhancing Principles of Community Law’, 41 Common Market Law Review (2004), pp. 317–343.Google Scholar

33 Communication from the Commission, Better regulation for better results, Com(2015) 215 final.

34 See generally Simmel, Georg, ‘The Sociology of Secrecy and of Secret Societies’ (1906) 11 American Journal of Sociology 441.Google Scholar

35 Bok, Sissela, Secrets: On the Ethics of Concealment and Revelation (Pantheon Books 1982), 6.Google Scholar