IJ №3 (31) 2019
International agreements of the EU Members with the third countries in the CJEU jurisprudence

The article is freely available.

Download the article

The full text of the article is available only in Russian.

Abstract

The existence of the general and the special regimes in international law constitutes the essence of the phenomenon of fragmentation and requires that a definition be made of the rules according to which an international law norm is selected to be applied in certain case. This issue is particularly relevant in the European Union, as the European Court of Justice seeks to establish the autonomy of the EU legal system and in some cases to set barriers to the application of the general international law norms. The claim of the Court of Justice to be the exclusive interpreter of all and any effective rules in the EU legal order has been especially evident after the Kadi and Achmea cases as well as the Opinion 2/13 on the ECHR accession. This ambition can also be detected in the CJEU’s judgements on the interpretation of the international agreements of the EU Member States with the third countries. In several instances the Court contraposes the international obligations of the Member States in the external agreements and in the Founding Treaties and gives priority to the latter. In doing so, the Court uses the rhetoric of autonomy and relies upon the Treaty provisions which provide for the sincere cooperation of the Members States. Earlier such an attitude was observable only in the jurisprudence of the high and constitutional courts of the states and it proves that the Court increasingly tends to attribute state-like qualities to the EU. At the same time the EU itself was established and has been functioning on the basis of a treaty and has several times confirmed its adherence to the international law. In several cases the CJEU held that the EU has to respect the international law and its legal norms shall be interpreted in the light of the latter. Even in Kadi case the exception was made for the implementation of the UN Security Council resolution only under the protection of the foundations and fundamental rights of the EU and in the circumstances of the blatant deficiencies of the UN sanctions lists inclusion. The Court has again asserted in this case that the Community (the EU) is bound by the UN Charter. Consequently, it should be acknowledged that although the CJEU set forth certain barriers in the EU legal order for the legal effect of the international law, it still confirmed the principle of respect for it by the EU.

About the author:
Ilya Lifshits – Candidate of Sciences (Ph.D.) in Law, Associate Professor, Russian Foreign Trade Academy, Moscow, Russia.

Citation: Lifshits I. (2019) Mezhdunarodnye dogovory gosudarstv – chlenov Evropeyskogo soyuza s tret’imi stranami v praktike Suda ES [International agreements of the EU Members with the third countries in the CJEU jurisprudence]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol.9, no.3, pp.84–101. (In Russian).

References:

Boklan D., Lifshits I. (2019) Eurasian Economic Union Court and WTO Dispute Settlement Body: Two Housewives in One Kitchen. Russian Law Journal, vol.7, no.3, pp.169–193.

Crawford J. (2013) Mr. Kadi and Article 103. EJIL: Talk! Blog of the European Journal of International Law. Available at: https://www.ejiltalk.org/mr-kadi-and-article-103-by-james-crawford-a-poem/ (accessed: 23.08.2019).

De Burca G. (2009) The European Court of Justice and the International Legal Order after Kadi. Harvard International Law Journal, vol.51, no.1, pp.1–52.

De Burca G. (2015) Internalization of international law by the CJEU and the US Supreme Court. International Journal of Constitutional Law, vol.13, no.4, pp.987–1007.

Entin K.V. (2015) Pravo Evropeyskogo Soyuza i praktika Suda Evropeyskogo Soyuza: uchebnoe posobie [EU Law and Case Law of the Court of Justice of EU: A Learning Guide], Moscow: NORMA; INFRA-M. (In Russian).

Entin K., Diyachenko E. (2019) Obzor praktiki Suda Evraziyskogo ekonomicheskogo soyuza v 2018 godu [An overview of the case-law of the Eurasian Economic Union Court in 2018]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol.9, no.1, pp.3–22. (In Russian).

Entin M., Voynikov V. (2019) Institutional and Legal Development of EAEU and EU in Comparative Perspective. Russian Law Journal, vol.7, no.3, pp.155–168.

Ispolinov A.S. (2011) Sanktsii Soveta Bezopasnosti OON, Sudy ES i prava cheloveka [UN Security Council sanctions, EU Courts and human rights]. Evraziyskiy yuridicheskiy zhurnal, no.6, pp.31–41. (In Russian).

Ispolinov A.S. (2013) Sud Evropeyskogo Soyuza, Yassin Kadi i stat’ya 103 Ustava OON [Court of the European Union, Yassin Kadi and Article 103 of the UN Charter]. Rossiyskiy yuridicheskiy zhurnal, no.6, pp.27–35. (In Russian).

Ispolinov A.S. (2017) Prioritet, pryamoe deystvie i pryamoy ehffekt norm prava Evraziyskogo ehkonomicheskogo soyuza [Priority, Direct Applicability and Direct Effect of the Eurasian Economic Union Law]. Zhurnal mezhdunarodnogo prava i mezhdunarodnykh otnosheniy, vol.80–81, no.1–2, pp.11–21. (In Russian).

Ispolinov A.S. (2017) Voprosy vzaimodeystviya mezhdunarodnogo i vnutrennego prava v resheniyakh Konstitutsionnogo suda Rossiyskoy federatsiy [Interaction of international law and domestic law in decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation]. Rossijskiy juridicheskiy zhurnal, no.1, pp.73–93. (In Russian).

Ispolinov A.S. (2018) Reshenie Suda ES po delu Achmea: krestovyy pokhod protiv investitsionnogo arbitrazha [Achmea Court decision: A crusade against investment arbitration]. Zakon.ru, 10 May. Available at: https://zakon.ru/blog/2018/05/10/reshenie_cuda_es_po_delu_achmea_krestovyj_pohod_protiv_investicionnogo_arbitrazha (accessed: 22.08.2019). (In Russian).

Karliuk M. (2018). The Eurasian economic Union: an emerging autonomous legal order? Available at: https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/8586669 (accessed: 22.08.2019).

Klabbers J. (2017) International Law, 2nd ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kokott J., Sobotta C. (2012) The Kadi Case – Constitutional Core Values and International Law – Finding the Balance. European Journal of International Law, vol.23, no.4, pp.1015–1024.

Komarova T. (2017) The Court of Justice of the European Union and International Legal Order. Russian Law Journal, vol.5, no.3, pp.140–167.

Kovler A., Fokin E., Cherenkova V. (2019) Organy mezhdunarodnogo pravosudiya v integratsionnykh sistemakh sovremennogo mira [Bodies of international justice in the integration systems of the modern world]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, no.2, pp.44–61. (In Russian).

Kuijper P.J., Hoffmeister F., De Baere G., Ramopoulos T. (2013) The Law of EU external relations: Cases, Materials, and Commentary on the EU as an International Legal Actor, Oxford: OUP Oxford.

Lifshits I.M. (2018) Nekotorye aspekty vzaimodeystviya mezhdunarodnogo finansovogo prava i prava Evropeyskogo soyuza [Certain issues of interaction between international financial law and EU law]. Vestnik Baltiyskogo federal’nogo universiteta imeni I.Kanta, no.2, pp.5–13. (In Russian).

Lifshits I.M. (2019) Chlenstvo Evropeyskogo soyuza v mezhdunarodnykh organizatsiyakh v kontekste ego pravosub’ektnosti [EU Membership in international organizations in the context of its personality]. Moskovskiy zhurnal mezhdunarodnogo prava, no.1, pp.54–67. (In Russian).

Palombella G. (2010) Verkhovenstvo prava za ramkami gosudarstva: ne­udachi, ozhidaemye dostizheniya i teoriya [The Rule of Law beyond the State: Failures, Promises, and Theory]. Sravnitel’noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, vol.19, no.2, pp.70–89. (In Russian).

Rusinova V. (2017) Dostuchat’sya v Sovet Bezopasnosti OON: sanktsionnye spiski i obyazatel’stva gosudarstv po zashchite prav cheloveka v reshe­niyakh mezhdunarodnykh i kvazisudebnykh organov [Knocking on the UN Security Council’s door: the Sanctions lists and obligations of states to respect human rights in decisions of international judicial and quasi-judicial bodies]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, no.1, pp.68–84. (In Russian).

Shaw M.N. (2017) International Law, 8th ed., New York: Cambridge University Press.

Smbatyan A.S. (2013) Kontseptsiya «osobosti» pravoporyadka tamozhennogo soyuza v reshenii Suda EvrAzES po prokatnym valkam [The concept of «specifity» of the Customs Union legal order in the EURASEC Court Judgements on mill rolls]. Evraziyskiy yuridicheskiy zhurnal, no.8, pp.31–36. (In Russian).

Issue articles