No CrossRef data available.
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.
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.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 February 2016
The second half of the twentieth century is witnessing a tremendous development of the concept of international organizations as “subjects” of international law. These “subjects” are endowed with international legal personality and with powers—express or implied—to achieve their declared objectives.
The corner-stone to this new edifice was erected as long ago as 1949 by the International Court of Justice in its Advisory Opinion on Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations. The Court examined the purposes and principles set out in the Charter of the U.N. and concluded
that the Organization is an international person.… [I]t is a subject of international law and capable of possessing international rights and duties, and… it has capacity to maintain its rights by bringing international claims.
… . Under international law, the Organization must be deemed to have those powers which, though not expressly provided in the Charter, are conferred upon it by necessary implication as being essential to the performance of its duties.
1 I.C.J. Reports 1949, p. 173 at 179, 182.
2 Art. 4 of the EEC Treaty, 1957, and the Treaty establishing a Single Council and a Single Commission of the European Communities signed in Brussels on 8 April 1965.
3 OJ C. 63/36 (13.3.78).
4 See Pescatore, P., The Law of Integration (Sijthoff, Leiden, 1974)Google Scholar.
5 Case 6/64 (1964) European Court Reports (ECR) 585 at 593.
6 Seyrsted, , Objective International Personality of Intergovernmental Organizations (Copenhagen, 1963)Google Scholar.
7 Reuter, Paul, (1973) 2 Yrbk. Int'l L. Comm'n 82, §41Google Scholar.
8 Report of the Int'l Law Comm'n on the work of its 34th Session: Ch. II: “Questions of Treaties concluded between States and International Organizations or between two or more International Organizations”, and see Prof.Tammes', comments on Article 6, (1974) 1 Yrbk. Int'l L. Comm'n 136Google Scholar, §§53–55.
9 For a comprehensive study on the EEC external relations see Megret, . Le droit de la Communauté économique européenne, Relations extérieures, vol. 12 (1980)Google Scholar. See also Twichett, K.J., Europe and the World. The External Relations of the Common Market (London, 1976)Google Scholar; Jacot-Guillarmod, O., Droit communautaire et droit international public (Geneva, 1979)Google Scholar; Kovar, R., “Contribution de la Cour de Justice au développement de la condition internationale de la Communauté européenne” (1978) Cahier de droit européen (CDE) 527–573Google Scholar; Bleckmann, A., “Die Kompetenz der Europäischen Gemeinschaft zum Abschluss völkerrechtlicher Verträge” (1977) Eur. R. 109–121Google Scholar.
10 Cf. Judge Pescatore's approach in his Hague, Lectures “Les relations extérieures des Communautées européennes” (1961) 103 Recueil des cours 1–244 at 25, 36 and 97Google Scholar, and his later attitude in his book The Law of Integration, op. cit. supra n. 4 at 37–44 and his article on “External Relations in the Case Law of the Court of Justice of the E.C.” (1979) 16 Comm. Mkt. L.R. 615.
11 See Reuter, Paul, La Communauté européenne du charbon et de l'acier (Paris, 1953) 116–140Google Scholar. But the case of the ECSC is somewhat different.
12 Case 22/70, Commission of the European Communities v. Council of the European Communities (1971) ECR 263. This case has given rise to a copious bibliography.
13 OJ L. 77, p. 49.
14 Supra n. 12 at 274, paras. 14–15.
15 Ibid., at para. 17.
16 See supra p. 346.
17 Supra n. 12 at 281, para. 77.
18 (1975) ECR 1355.
19 (1977) ECR 741.
20 Joined Cases 3, 4 and 6/76, Cornelis Kramer and Others (1976) ECR 1279.
21 Ruling 1/78 ex art. 103 Euratom Treaty (1978) ECR 2151.
22 The doctrine of stare decisis or the binding force of precedents does not apply to the European Court, but the persuasive force of a jurisprudance constante is common to all Member States.
23 Supra n. 10 at 617 (of his article in the Comm. Mkt. L.R.).
24 Supra n. 19 at 755, paras. 3–4 (emphasis added). See Groux, J., “Le parallélisme des compétences internes et externes de la CEE” (1978) CDE 3–32Google Scholar.
25 Supra n. 20 at 1309, paras. 30–33.
26 Case 141/78, French Republic v. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1979) ECR 2923.
27 E.g., Council Regulation (EEC) No. 170/83 establishing a Community system for the conservation and management of fisheries resources, OJ L. 024 (27.1.83) p. 1.
28 Supra n. 21 at 2181.
29 (1979) ECR 2871 at 2920.
30 (1981) 2, Part II Yrbk. Int'l L. Comm'n 202.
31 OJ L. 240/48 (1977).
32 Art. 20(n) The International Wheat Agreement, 1974, OJ L. 155/25 (1974), and also Art. 4(3) The International Coffee Agreement, 1976, OJ L. 309/30 (1976) p. 321.
33 OJ L. 227/22 (1981) p. 27.
34 See Brückner, P., An Ever Closer Union, (European Perspectives, Brussels-Luxembourg, 1985) 129Google Scholar.
35 See the UNCTAD Resolution 93 (IV) of 28 May 1976.
36 See, supra n. 29, Opinion 1/78.
37 See Schermers, Henry G., “The Community's Relations under Public International Law” in Thirty Years of Community Law (European Perspectives, Brussels-Luxembourg, 1981) 219–231 at 231Google Scholar; see also by the same author, “The Internal Effect of Community Treaty-Making” in Essays in European Law and Integration, O'Keefe and Schermers (eds.), (Kluwer, Deventer, 1982) 174; see also Simmonds, K.R., “The Community's Participation at the UN Law of the Sea Convention” in the above Essays, at 179–197Google Scholar.
38 OJ C. 94 (15.4.85). The European Parliament adopted a resolution on the conclusion of the Lomé Convention (III). (Official text not yet published in the OJ).
39 See, e.g., the Agreement with Switzerland, OJ L. 300 (31.12.72).
40 1975 Agreement, OJ L. 136 (28.5.75), the Additional Protocol of 1977, OJ L. 270 (27.9.78).
41 Decision 74/393, OJ L. 208/23.
42 OJ L. 260/1 (1976).
43 See P. Brückner's observation that the treaty-making “provisions can only be fitted into a coherent system with some intellectual effort”, op. cit. supra n. 34 at 128.
44 See Lachmann, Per, “International Legal Personality of the E.C.: Capacity and Competence” (1984) Legal Issues of European Integration (LIEI) (Special Issue) 3–21 at 21Google Scholar; and see Everling, U., “Sind die Mitgliedstaaten der EWG noch Herren der Verträge?” in Festchrift Mosler (1983) 173–193Google Scholar.
45 Supra n. 18, Opinion 1/75 at 1364.
46 An example of the reverse maxim of in foro externo, in foro interno in a federal system is to be found in Art. 51 (xxix) of the Australian Constitution, as interpreted by the Australian High Court in the Koowarta (1982) and in the Tasmanian Dam (1983) cases, (1982) 56 Australian L.J. Reports 625 and (1983) 57 ibid. 450. Where Australia has become a party to a treaty, the Federal Parliament is empowered under the Article to make laws in relation to matters not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, if such laws are necessary to enable the Federal Government to discharge its obligations as a party to the treaty.