Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Linkage of the Common Commercial Policy to the General Objectives for the Union’s External Action

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Common Commercial Policy after Lisbon

Part of the book series: European Yearbook of International Economic Law ((Spec. Issue))

Abstract

In 2005, the conference on the EU’s external economic policy according to the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (TCE) dealt with the objectives of the Common Commercial Policy (CCP) and of the external action of the EU. With the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon, it is time to analyse the CCP in the context of the general principles and objectives, which are applicable for the EU’s external action within the TEU and the TFEU.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Vedder, Ziele der Gemeinsamen Handelspolitik und Ziele des auswärtigen Handelns, in: Herrmann/Krenzler/Streinz (eds.), Die Außenwirtschaftspolitik der Europäischen Union nach dem Verfassungsvertrag, 2006, p. 43 et seq.

  2. 2.

    Presidency Conclusions of the European Council Meeting in Laeken on 14 and 15 December 2001, Annex I, Bulletin EU 12-2001, under point I.27: “Beyond its borders, in turn, the European Union is confronted with a fast-changing, globalised world. Following the fall of the Berlin Wall, it looked briefly as though we would for a long while be living in a stable world order, free from conflict, founded upon human rights. Just a few years later, however, there is no such certainty. The eleventh of September has brought a rude awakening. The opposing forces have not gone away: religious fanaticism, ethnic nationalism, racism and terrorism are on the increase, and regional conflicts, poverty and underdevelopment still provide a constant seedbed for them.

    What is Europe’s role in this changed world? Does Europe not, now that is finally unified, have a leading role to play in a new world order, that of a power able both to play a stabilising role worldwide and to point the way ahead for many countries and peoples? Europe as the continent of humane values, the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the French Revolution and the fall of the Berlin Wall; the continent of liberty, solidarity and above all diversity, meaning respect for others’ languages, cultures and traditions. The European Union’s one boundary is democracy and human rights. The Union is open only to countries which uphold basic values such as free elections, respect for minorities and respect for the rule of law.

    Now that the Cold War is over and we are living in a globalised, yet also highly fragmented world, Europe needs to shoulder its responsibilities in the governance of globalisation. The role it has to play is that of a power resolutely doing battle against all violence, all terror and all fanaticism, but which also does not turn a blind eye to the world’s heartrending injustices. In short, a power wanting to change the course of world affairs in such a way as to benefit not just the rich countries but also the poorest. A power seeking to set globalisation within a moral framework, in other words to anchor it in solidarity and sustainable development”.

  3. 3.

    Therefore, one can refer to the commentaries on the TCE: Hummer, Art. III-292, Art. III-293, Art. III-314 TCE, in: Vedder/Heintschel von Heinegg (eds.), Europäischer Verfassungsvertrag. Handkommentar, 2007; Heintschel von Heinegg, Art. I-2, Art. I-3 TCE, in: Vedder/Heintschel von Heinegg (eds.), Europäischer Verfassungsvertrag. Handkommentar, 2007; Calliess, Art. I-2 TCE, in: Calliess/Ruffert (eds.), Verfassung der Europäischen Union, 2006; and Ruffert, Art. I-3 TCE, in: Calliess/Ruffert (eds.), Verfassung der Europäischen Union, 2006; with regard to TEU/TFEU, see: Hummer, Art. 21, Art. 22 TEU, in: Vedder/Heintschel von Heinegg (eds.), Europäisches Unionsrecht. Handkommentar, 2012; Heintschel von Heinegg, Art. 2, Art. 3 TEU, in: Vedder/Heintschel von Heinegg (eds.), Europäisches Unionsrecht. Handkommentar, 2012; Callies, Art. 2, Art. 3 TEU, in: Callies/Ruffert (eds.) EUV/AEUV. Kommentar, 4th ed. 2011; Cremer, Art. 21, Art. 22 TEU, in: Callies/Ruffert (eds.) EUV/AEUV. Kommentar, 4th ed. 2011; Hahn, Art. 206 TFEU, in: Callies/Ruffert (eds.) EUV/AEUV. Kommentar, 4th ed. 2011; Schwarze, Art. 2 TEU, in: Schwarze (ed.), EU-Kommentar, 3rd ed. 2012; Becker, Art 3 TEU, in: Schwarze (ed.), EU-Kommentar, 3rd ed. 2012; Terhechte, Art. 21, Art. 22 TEU, in: Schwarze (ed.), EU-Kommentar, 3rd ed. 2012; Osteneck, Art. 206 TFEU, in: Schwarze (ed.), EU-Kommentar, 3rd ed. 2012; Pechstein, Art. 3 TEU, in: Streinz (ed.) EUV/AEUV. Kommentar, 2nd ed. 2012; Regelsberger/Kugelmann, Art. 21 TEU, in: Streinz (ed.) EUV/AEUV. Kommentar, 2nd ed. 2012; Nettesheim/Duvigneau, Art. 206 TFEU, in: Streinz (ed.) EUV/AEUV. Kommentar, 2nd ed. 2012.

  4. 4.

    The conclusion that the EEC is a de facto member of the GATT was only reached later on by the ECJ, Joined Cases 21-24/72, International Fruit Company, [1972] ECR, 1219.

  5. 5.

    For this established case law, see e.g. ECJ, Case C-280/93, Germany v. Council, [1994] ECR I, 4973, para. 109 et seqq.; ECJ, Case C-149/96, Portugal v. Council, [1999] ECR I, 8395, para. 41 et seqq.

  6. 6.

    Herrmann, Die gemeinsame Handelspolitik der Europäischen Union im Lissabon Urteil, in: Hatje/Terhechte (eds.), Grundgesetz und europäische Integration. Die Europäische Union nach dem Lissabon-Urteil des Bundesverfassungsgerichts, EuR-Beiheft (2010) 1, p. 193 (206): “fundamentally new legal basis”.

  7. 7.

    See below “Conflict of Objectives, Politicization of the CCP”.

  8. 8.

    See below “Mandatory Orientation Towards the General Objectives for the Union’s External Action”.

  9. 9.

    Streinz/Ohler/Herrmann, Der Vertrag von Lissabon zur Reform der EU, 3rd ed. 2010, p. 133.

  10. 10.

    See above “CCP Objectives, Art. 206 TFEU”.

  11. 11.

    Not even the commentaries contain such a detailed analysis: Hummer, Ar.t III-292 TCE, in: Vedder/Heintschel von Heinegg (eds.), Europäischer Verfassungsvertrag. Handkommentar, 2007; Geiger, Art. 21 TEU, Art. 2 TEU and Art. 3 TEU, in: Geiger/Khan/Kotzur, EUV/AEUV, Kommentar, 5th ed. 2010; Bitterlich, Art 2 TEU, Art 3 TEU and Art. 21 TEU, in: Lenz/Borchardt (eds.), EU-Verträge. Kommentar nach dem Vertrag von Lissabon, 5th ed. 2010; in most detail Kaufmann-Bühler, Art. 21 TEU, para. 8 et seqq., in: Grabitz/Hilf/Nettesheim (eds.), Das Recht der Europäischen Union, 46th suppl. 2011; Regelsberger/Kugelmann, Art. 21 TEU, in: Streinz (ed.) EUV/AEUV. Kommentar, 2nd ed. 2012; Terhechte, Art. 21, Art. 22 TEU, in: Schwarze (ed.), EU-Kommentar, 3rd ed. 2012; Hummer, Art. 21 TEU, in: Vedder/Heintschel von Heinegg (eds.), Europäisches Unionsrecht. Handkommentar, 2012; Cremer, Art. 21 TEU, in: Callies/Ruffert (eds.) EUV/AEUV. Kommentar, 4th ed. 2011.

  12. 12.

    See below “Conflict of Objectives, Politicization of the CCP”.

  13. 13.

    The term “fair trade” can be interpreted to solely include WTO-conform trade; however, the term is used in a broader understanding, see Dimopoulos, The Effects of the Lisbon Treaty on the Principles and Objectives of the Common Commercial Policy, EFAR 15 (2010) 2, p. 153 (163 et seqq.): “equitable trade”.

  14. 14.

    For the CFSP and CSDP, see Vedder, Möglichkeiten und Grenzen effektiven Krisenmanagements durch die EU – Der rechtliche Rahmen, in: Isak (ed.), Krise, Kompetenz, Kooperation. Beiträge zum 9. Österreichischen Europarechtstag 2009, 2010, p. 15 et seqq.

  15. 15.

    Vedder, Art. I-43 TCE, para. 3, 5 and Art. III-329 TCE, para. 2, in: Vedder/Heintschel von Heinegg (eds.), Europäischer Verfassungsvertrag. Handkommentar, 2007; Vedder, Art. 222 TFEU, para. 1, 3, 5, in: Vedder/Heintschel von Heinegg (eds.), Europäisches Unionsrecht. Handkommentar, 2012.

  16. 16.

    Convention on the Rights of the Child of 20 November 1989 (entered into force 2 September 1990), 1577 U.N.T.S. 3; see in that regard Schorlemer/Schulte-Herbrügge (eds.), 1989–2009. 20 Jahre UN-Kinderrechtskonvention, 2010.

  17. 17.

    See Vedder, Art. I-43 TCE, para. 1 f., in: Vedder/Heintschel von Heinegg (eds.), Europäischer Verfassungsvertrag. Handkommentar, 2007; Vedder, Art. 222 TFEU, para. 1 f., in: Vedder/Heintschel von Heinegg (eds.), Europäisches Unionsrecht. Handkommentar, 2012.

  18. 18.

    Conclusions of the Presidency of 12./13.12.1997, Bull. EU 12/1997 p. 9: “The members of the conference must share a common commitment to peace, security and good neighbourliness, respect for other countries’ sovereignty, the principles upon which the European Union is founded, the integrity and inviolability of external borders and the principles of international law and a commitment to the settlement of territorial disputes by peaceful means, in particular through the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in The Hague”.

  19. 19.

    See Vedder, Möglichkeiten und Grenzen effektiven Krisenmanagements durch die EU – Der rechtliche Rahmen, in: Isak (ed.), Krise, Kompetenz, Kooperation. Beiträge zum 9. Österreichischen Europarechtstag 2009, 2010, p. 18, 25 et seq.

  20. 20.

    See Vedder, Möglichkeiten und Grenzen effektiven Krisenmanagements durch die EU – Der rechtliche Rahmen, in: Isak (ed.), Krise, Kompetenz, Kooperation. Beiträge zum 9. Österreichischen Europarechtstag 2009, 2010, p. 17 et seq.

  21. 21.

    Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe of 1.8.1975 and Charter of Paris of 27.5.1997, in: Fastenrath (ed.), KSZE/OSZE: Dokumente der Konferenz über Sicherheit und Zusammenarbeit in Europa, 26th suppl. 2010, documents A.1 and A.2.

  22. 22.

    Conclusions of the Presidency of 21./22.6.2007, Article I.27 and attachment 2 Article A.4; Summit Declaration “Growth and responsibility in the world economy” of 7.6.2007, p. 18 et seqq., available at: http://www.g-8.de/Content/EN/Artikel/__g8-summit/anlagen/2007-06-07-gipfeldokument-wirtschaft-eng,templateId=raw,property=publicationFile.pdf/2007-06-07-gipfeldokument-wirtschaft-eng.pdf.

  23. 23.

    Vedder/Lorenzmeier, Art. 133 EC-Treaty, in: Grabitz/Hilf (eds.), Das Recht der Europäischen Union, 38th suppl. 2008, para. 304 et seqq.

  24. 24.

    Energy Charter Treaty of 17 December 1994, [1998] OJ L 69/1; on that account see also Bamberger/Wälde, The Energy Charter Treaty, in: Roggenkamp/Redgwell/Rønne/del Guayo (eds.), Energy Law in Europe, 2nd ed. 2007, p. 145 (145 et seqq.).

  25. 25.

    See above “Freedom and Equality, Solidarity and Mutual Respect Among Peoples, Art. 2, Art. 3 para. 5, Art. 21 para. 1 TEU”.

  26. 26.

    Khan, Art. 222 TFEU, para. 3, in: Geiger/Khan/Kotzur, EUV/AEUV, Kommentar, 5th ed. 2010; Vedder, Art. I-43 TCE, para. 2, 5, in: Vedder/Heintschel von Heinegg (eds.), Europäischer Verfassungsvertrag. Handkommentar, 2007; Vedder, Art. 222 TFEU, para. 2, 5, in: Vedder/Heintschel von Heinegg (eds.), Europäisches Unionsrecht. Handkommentar, 2012.

  27. 27.

    Kotzur, Art. 214 AEUV, para. 1 et seqq., in: Geiger/Khan/Kotzur, EUV/AEUV, Kommentar, 5th ed. 2010; Ollmann, Art. 214 TFEU, para. 1 et seqq., in: Lenz/Borchardt (eds.), EU-Verträge. Kommentar nach dem Vertrag von Lissabon, 5th ed. 2010.

  28. 28.

    “responsible governance” is claimed in many international treaties concluded by the EG and in many political documents of the organs of the EU, see below “Commercial Policy Agreements”.

  29. 29.

    e.g. Art. 21 para. 2 lit. f TEU, Art. 191 para. 1 bullet point 4 TFEU, Art. 32, 34, 35 TEU.

  30. 30.

    ECJ, Opinion 1/78, International Agreement on Natural Rubber, [1979] ECR 2871.

  31. 31.

    ECJ, Case 45/86, Tariff Preferences, [1987] ECR 1493.

  32. 32.

    ECJ, Case C-70/94, Werner, [1995] ECR I, 3189, para. 10 et seq. ECJ, Case C-83/94, Leifer, [1995] ECR I, 3231, para. 9.

  33. 33.

    ECJ, Case T-184/95, Dorsch Consult, [1998] ECR II, 667.

  34. 34.

    ECJ, Case C-84/95, Bosphorus, [1996] ECR I, 3953.

  35. 35.

    ECJ, Opinion 2/00, Cartagena Protocol, [2001] ECR I, 9713, para. 23, in particular the assertion of the commission, para. 35, shows that commercial policy can be open for environmental aims.

  36. 36.

    Prior to the creation of a special legal basis for trade embargos by the Maastricht Treaty in the form of Art. 228a TEEC, now Art. 215 TFEU, trade embargos were – and basically still are today – trade policy instruments, quantitative restrictions to imports and exports at level zero, Vedder/Lorenzmeier, Art. 133 EC-Treaty, para. 88 et seqq., in: Grabitz/Hilf (eds.), Das Recht der Europäischen Union, 38th suppl. 2008.

  37. 37.

    For the implementation of this commitment from a competence perspective, see below “Political Implementation of Non-commercial Policy Objectives within CCP”.

  38. 38.

    E.g. Agreement on Partnership and Cooperation establishing a partnership between the European Communities and their Member States, of one part, and the Russian Federation, of the other part, [1997] OJ L 327/3.

  39. 39.

    Council Decision 2011/265/EU of 16 September 2010 on the signing, on behalf of the European Union, and provisional application of the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Korea, of the other part, [2010] OJ L 127/1.

  40. 40.

    Communication from the Commission of 6 October 2006, COM (2006) 567 final.

  41. 41.

    “to promote foreign direct investment without lowering or reducing environmental, labour or occupational health and safety standards in the application and enforcement of environmental and labour laws of the Parties”.

  42. 42.

    In Art. 13.4 the Parties recognize the fundamental rights at work of the ILO; furthermore, the Union and South Korea accept in Art. 13.5 that responsible international environmental governance as well as international environmental agreements, especially the Kyoto Agreement and the future fight against climate change, are of significance.

  43. 43.

    E.g. Cooperation Agreement between the European Community and the People`s Republic of Bangladesh on partnership and development of 22 May 2000, [2001] OJ L 118/48; Council Decision concerning the conclusion of the Cooperation Agreement between the European Community and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan of 29 April 2004, [2004] OJ L 378/23; Simma/Aschenbrenner/Schulte, Human rights considerations in development cooperation activities of the European Community, in: Alston/Bustelo (eds.), The European Union and Human Rights, 1999.

  44. 44.

    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 L 317/3 as amended in [2005] OJ L 209/27 and [2010] OJ L 287/3.

  45. 45.

    Preamble: “Affirming their commitment to work together towards the achievement of the objectives of poverty eradication, sustainable development and the gradual integration of the ACP countries into the world economy; […]”.

  46. 46.

    Art. 20 para. 1: “The objectives of ACP-EC development cooperation shall be pursued through integrated strategies […].In this context […]shall aim at: […] e) promoting environmental sustainability, regeneration and best practices, and the preservation of natural resource base”.

  47. 47.

    Art. 9 para.1 sub.-para. 2: “Respect for all human rights and fundamental freedoms, including respect for fundamental social rights, democracy based on the rule of law and transparent and accountable governance are an integral part of sustainable development”.

  48. 48.

    Art. 9 para. 3 sub.-para. 1: “In the context of a political and institutional environment that upholds human rights, democratic principles and the rule of law, good governance is the transparent and accountable management of human, natural, economic and financial resources for the purposes of equitable and sustainable development”. Art. 9 para. 3 sub.-para. 2: Good governance […] shall […] constitute a fundamental element of this Agreement.”

  49. 49.

    Art. 11 para. 1: “The Parties shall pursue an active, comprehensive and integrated policy of peace building and conflict prevention and resolution, and human security, and shall address situations of fragility within the framework of the Partnership. This policy shall be based on the principle of ownership and shall in particular focus on building national, regional and continental capacities, and on preventing violent conflicts at an early stage by addressing their root-causes, including poverty, in a targeted manner, and with an adequate combination of all available instruments”.

  50. 50.

    Art. 11a: “The Parties reiterate their firm condemnation of all acts of terrorism and undertake to combat terrorism through international cooperation, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and international law […] the Parties agree to exchange:

    – Information on terrorists groups and their support networks; […]”.

  51. 51.

    Art. 11b para. 1: “the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction […] represents one of the most serious threats to international stability and security. […] this provision constitutes an essential element of this Agreement”.

  52. 52.

    Art. 32a: “The Parties acknowledge that climate change is a serious global environmental challenge and a threat to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals […] cooperation shall:

    a) recognise the vulnerability of ACP States and in particular of small islands and low-lying ACP States to climate-related phenomena”.

  53. 53.

    Art. 11 para. 7: “In promoting the strengthening of peace and international justice, the Parties reaffirm their determination to:

    – share experience in the adoption of legal adjustments required to allow for the ratification and implementation of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court; and

    – fight against international crime in accordance with international law, giving due regard to the Rome Statute.

    The Parties shall seek to take steps towards ratifying and implementing the Rome Statute and related instruments”.

  54. 54.

    Article 31a: “Cooperation shall support the efforts of ACP States to develop and strengthen across all sectors policies and programmes aimed at addressing the HIV/AIDS pandemic and preventing it from hampering development”.

  55. 55.

    Art. 20 para. 2: “Systematic account shall be taken in mainstreaming into all areas of cooperation the following thematic or cross-cutting themes: human rights, gender issues, democracy, good governance, environmental sustainability, climate change, communicable and non-communicable diseases and institutional development and capacity building. These areas shall also be eligible for Community support”.

  56. 56.

    Founded at the European Mediterranean Conference of 13 July 2008 in Paris, Joint Declaraton of the Paris Sumit for the Mediterranean, available at: http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/cae/servlet/contentblob/363400/publicationFile/3694/EuroMed-ErklParis.pdf.

  57. 57.

    E.g. Art. 2 of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an Association between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria, of the other part of 18 July 2005, [2005] OJ L 265/1: “Respect for the democratic principles and fundamental human rights established by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights shall inspire the domestic and international policies of the Parties and shall constitute an essential element of this Agreement”.

  58. 58.

    E.g. Art. 6 of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an Association between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria, of the other part of 18 July 2005, [2005] OJ L 265/1.

  59. 59.

    Art. 2 et seqq. of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, of the other part of 9 April 2011, [2004] OJ L 84/1; Art. 2 et seqq. of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Croatia, of the other part of 29 October 2001, [2005] OJ L 26/1; Art. 1 of the Interim Agreement on trade and trade-related matters between the European Community, of the one part, and the Republic of Serbia, of the other part of 29 April 2008, [2010] OJ L 28/1; Art. 1 of the Interim Agreement on trade and trade-related matters between the European Community, of the one part, and Bosnia and Herzegovina, of the other part of 16 June 2008, [2008] OJ L 169/10; Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Albania, of the other part of 12 June 2006, [2009] OJ L 107/165; Art. 2 and 4 Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Montenegro, of the other part of 15 October 2007, [2010] OJ L 108/3.

  60. 60.

    For a description, see Vedder/Lorenzmeier, Art. 133 EC-Treaty, para. 273 et seqq., in: Grabitz/Hilf (eds.), Das Recht der Europäischen Union, 38th suppl. 2008.

  61. 61.

    ECJ, Case 45/86, Tariff Preferences, [1987] ECR 1493.

  62. 62.

    Council Regulation (EC) No 732/2008 of 22 July 2008 applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences from 1 January 2009 and amending Regulations (EC) No 552/97, (EC) No 1933/2006 and Commission Regulations (EC) No 1100/2006 and (EC) No 964/2007, [2008] OJ L 211/1 as amended [2011] L 145/28. This Regulation is according to its Art. 32 para. 2 applicable until “31 December 2013 or until a date laid down by the next Regulation, whichever is the earlier”. A Commission proposal for a new Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences can be found in COM(2011) 241 final.

  63. 63.

    According to Art. 19 IV of the Regulation No 732/2008: Regulation (EU) No 143/2010 of the Council of 15 February 2010 temporarily withdrawing the special incentive arrangement for sustainable development and good governance provided for under Regulation (EC) No 732/2008 with respect to the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, [2010] OJ L 45/1; Council Regulation (EC) No 1933/2006 of 21 December 2006 temporarily withdrawing access to the generalised tariff preferences from the Republic of Belarus, [2006] OJ L 405/1; Council Regulation (EC) No. 552/97 of 24 March 1997 temporarily withdrawing access to generalized tariff preferences from the Union of Myanmar, [1997] OJ L 85/8.

  64. 64.

    Joint statement of EU High Representative Catherine Ashton and EU Trade Commissioner Karel de Gucht on Burma-Myanmar of 15 June 2012, MEMO/12/449.

  65. 65.

    Proof: Vedder/Lorenzmeier, Art. 133 EC-Treaty, para. 90 et seqq., in: Grabitz/Hilf (eds.), Das Recht der Europäischen Union, 38th suppl. 2008.

  66. 66.

    Council Decision 94/942/CFSP of 19 December 1994 on the joint action adopted by the Council of the basis of Article J.3 of the Treaty on European Union concerning the control of exports of dual-use goods, [1994] OJ L 367/8, and Regulation (EC) No 3381/94 of 19 December 1994 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports of dual-use goods, [1994] OJ L 367/1.

  67. 67.

    ECJ, Case C-70/94, Werner, [1995] ECR I, 3189, para. 10 f.; ECJ, Case C-83/94, Leifer, [1995] ECR I, 3231, para. 9; ECJ, Case C-14/95, Centro-Com, [1997] ECR I, 81, para. 26 et seqq.

  68. 68.

    Council Decision 2000/402/CFSP of 22 June 2000 repealing Decision 94/942/CFSP on the joint action concerning the control of exports of dual-use, [2000] OJ L 159/218 and Council Regulation (EC) No 1334/2000 of 22 June 2000 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports of dual-use items and technology goods, [2000] OJ L 159/1, following Council Regulation (EC) No 394/2006 of 27 February 2006 amending and updating Regulation (EC) No 1334/2000 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports of dual-use items and technology, [2006] OJ L 74/1; see also Vedder/Lorenzmeier, Art. 133 EGV, para. 17, 53, 182, in: Grabitz/Hilf (eds.), Das Recht der Europäischen Union, 38th suppl. 2008.

  69. 69.

    European Union Code of Conduct Arms Exports of 8 June 1998, Doc. 8675/2/98 Rev. 2; replaced by Common Position 2008/944/CFSP of 8 December 2008 defining common rules governing control of exports of military technology and equipment, [2008] OJ L 335/99; and the Common military list of the European Union of 27 February 2012, [2012] OJ C 85/1; the Common Position 2008/944/CFSP obliges the Member States to pay attention to the respect for human rights and the maintenance of peace and security when licensing the export of munitions; see also Thirteenth Annual Report According to Article 8(2) of Council Common Position 2008/944/CFSP defining common rules governing control of exports of military technology and equipment, [2011] OJ L 382/1; Council Joint Action 2002/589/CFSP of 12 July 2002 on the European Union’s contribution to combating the destabilising accumulation and spread of small arms and light weapons and repealing Joint Action 1999/34/CFSP, [2002] OJ L 191/1; Council Common Position 2003/468/CFSP of 23 June 2003 on the control of arms brokering, [2003] OJ L 156/79; Council Decision 2009/1012/CFSP of 22 December 2009 on support for EU activities in order to promote the control of arms exports and the principles and criteria of Common Position 2008/944/CFSP among third countries, [2009] OJ L 348/16.

  70. 70.

    ECJ, Case C-91/05, ECOWAS, [2008], ECR I, 3651 para. 71 et seq. Eeckhout, The EU´s Common Foreign and Security Policy after Lisbon: From Pillar Talk to Constitutionalism, in: Biondi/Eeckhout/Ripley (eds.), EU-Law After Lisbon, 2012, p. 265 (270 et seqq.).

  71. 71.

    Council Regulation (EEC) No 3626/82 of 3 December 1982, [1982] OJ L 384/1; replaced by Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein, [1997] OJ L 61/1; lastly amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 101/2012 of 6 February 2012 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein, [2012] OJ L 39/133.

  72. 72.

    In detail see Vedder/Lorenzmeier, Art. 133 EGV, para. 188 f. in: Grabitz/Hilf (eds.), Das Recht der Europäischen Union, 38th suppl. 2008.

  73. 73.

    Art. 3 Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 of 16 September 2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on trade in seal products, [2009] OJ L 286/38: “The placing on the market of seal products shall be allowed only where the seal products result from hunts traditionally conducted by Inuit and other indigenous communities and contribute to their subsistence”.

  74. 74.

    ECJ, Case C-162/96, Racke, [1988] ECR I, 3688, para. 42.

  75. 75.

    Communication from the Commission to the EP, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions of 20 October 2005, COM (2005) 525, “European values in the globalised world”; Communication from the Commission of 6 December 2006, COM (2006) 763 final, “Europe's trade defence instruments in a changing global economy, A Green Paper for public consultation”; Communication from the Commission to the Council and the EP of 24 October 2006, COM (2006) 631 final, “EU – China: Closer partners, growing responsibilities”; Communication from the Commission to the Council, the EP, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions of 4 October 2006, COM (2006) 567 final, “Global Europe: Competing in the World, A Contribution to the EU's Growth and Jobs Strategy”.

  76. 76.

    See e.g. European Parliament resolution of 24 April 2008 on the free trade agreement between the EC and the Gulf Cooperation Council, [2009] OJ C 259E/83.

  77. 77.

    See Annex I para. a) Conclusions of the European Council of 16 September 2010, EUCO 21/1/10 REV 1, available at: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/116547.pdf.

  78. 78.

    Annex I para. a) Conclusions of the European Council of 16 September 2010, EUCO 21/1/10 REV 1, available at: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/116547.pdf: “The importance of issues like climate change, energy policy, trade, development or Justice and Home Affairs issues, including migration and visa policy in dealings with partners and at a multilateral level must be fully taken into account in preparations for summits and international events. In this regard the European Union should further enhance the coherence and complementarity between its internal and external policies. The practice of holding orientation debates well before summits should be further developed, with a particular emphasis on setting priorities and concrete tasking”.

  79. 79.

    ECJ, Case T-85/09, Kadi, [2010] ECR II, 5177, para. 115.

  80. 80.

    See above “The Dispute about Finality”.

  81. 81.

    Kaufmann-Bühler, Art. 21 TEU, para. 6, in: Grabitz/Hilf/Nettesheim (eds.), Das Recht der Europäischen Union, 46th suppl. 2011: “Selbstbindung”; Nettesheim/Duvigneau, Art. 206 TFEU, para. 25, in: Streinz (ed.) EUV/AEUV. Kommentar, 2nd ed. 2012; Vedder, Ziele der Gemeinsamen Handelspolitik und Ziele des auswärtigen Handelns, in: Herrmann/Krenzler/Streinz (eds.), Die Außenwirtschaftspolitik der Europäischen Union nach dem Verfassungsvertrag, 2006, p. 43 (46).

  82. 82.

    See ECJ, Case 112/80, Dürrbeck, [1981] ECR, 1059, para. 42 et seqq.; ECJ, Case 245/81, Edeka v. Germany, [1982] ECR, 2745, para. 22; ECJ, C-150/94, UK v. Council, [1998] ECR I, 7235, para. 64.

  83. 83.

    Vedder, Art. 131 EC-Treaty, in: Grabitz/Hilf/Nettesheim (eds.), Das Recht der Europäischen Union, 41st suppl. 2010, para. 14; Hahn, Art. 206 TFEU, para. 7, in: Callies/Ruffert (eds.) EUV/AEUV. Kommentar, 4th ed. 2011; Müller-Ibold, Art. 206 TFEU, para. 3, in: Lenz/Borchardt (eds.), EU-Verträge. Kommentar nach dem Vertrag von Lissabon, 5th ed. 2010; Kahn, Art. 206 TFEU, para. 3, in: Geiger/Khan/Kotzur, EUV/AEUV, Kommentar, 5th ed. 2010: “unionsrechtliches bindendes Programm”; Dimopoulos, The Effects of the Lisbon Treaty on the Principles and Objectives of the Common Commercial Policy, EFAR 15 (2010) 2, p. 153 (160).

  84. 84.

    Vedder, Art. 131 EC-Treaty, para. 16, in: Grabitz/Hilf (eds.), Das Recht der Europäischen Union, 40th suppl. 2009; Nettesheim/Duvigneau, Art. 206 TFEU, para. 5, in: Streinz (ed.), EUV/AEUV, 2nd ed. 2012; Osteneck, Art. 206 TFEU, para. 4, in: Schwarze (ed.), EUV/AEUV. Kommentar, 3rd ed. 2012.

  85. 85.

    Vedder, Art. 131 EC-Treaty, para. 14, in: Grabitz/Hilf (eds.), Das Recht der Europäischen Union, 40th suppl. 2009; Hahn, Art. 206 TFEU, para. 4, in: Callies/Ruffert (eds.) EUV/AEUV. Kommentar, 4th ed. 2011.

  86. 86.

    Explicitly: Dimopoulos, The Effects of the Lisbon Treaty on the Principles and Objectives of the Common Commercial Policy, EFAR 15 (2010) 2, p. 153 (161 et seqq.); Kahn, Art. 206 TFEU, para. 3, in: Geiger/Khan/Kotzur, EUV/AEUV, Kommentar, 5th ed. 2010; Bungenberg, Außenbeziehungen und Außenpolitik, in: Schwarze/Hatje (eds.) Der Reformvertrag von Lissabon, EuR-Beiheft (2009) 1, p. 195 (242): “klarer Auftrag”.

  87. 87.

    Krajewski, The Reform of the Common Commercial Policy, in: Biondi/Eeckhout/Ripley (eds.), EU-Law After Lisbon, 2012, p. 292 (296 et seqq.); Hahn, Art. 207 TFEU, para. 4 f., in: Callies/Ruffert (eds.) EUV/AEUV. Kommentar, 4th ed. 201; Nettesheim/Duvigneau, Art. 207 TFEU para. 24 et seqq. in: Streinz (ed.), EUV/AEUV, 2nd ed. 2012, Osteneck, Art. 207 TFEU, para. 4, in: Schwarze (ed.), EUV/AEUV. Kommentar, 3rd ed. 2012.

  88. 88.

    International agreements concluded on the basis of Art. 218 TFEU have according to consistent case law of the ECJ the rank of secondary law, however with primacy before autonomous secondary law, ECJ, Case 181/73, Haegmann, [1974], ECR, 449 (460); ECJ, Case C-308/06, Intertanko, [2008] ECR I, 4057, para. 42.

  89. 89.

    Brok, Die neue Macht des Europäischen Parlaments nach “Lissabon” in Bereichen der gemeinsamen Handelspolitik, Integration 33 (2010) 3, p. 209 (216 et seqq.); Bungenberg, Going Global? The EU Commercial Policy After Lisbon, in: Herrmann/Terhechte (eds.), European Yearbook of International Economic Law, 2010, p. 123 (129); before the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, see European Parliament resolution of 24 April 2008 on the free trade agreement between the EC and the Gulf Cooperation Council, [2009] OJ C 259E/83.

  90. 90.

    On this subject see the contribution of Krajewski, New functions and new powers for the European Parliament: Assessing the changes of the common commercial policy from the perspective of democratic legitimacy, within this volume.

  91. 91.

    Cf. the contribution of Krajewski, New functions and new powers for the European Parliament: Assessing the changes of the common commercial policy from the perspective of democratic legitimacy, within this volume.

  92. 92.

    See above “The Dispute about Finality”.

  93. 93.

    ECJ, Opinion 2/00, Cartagena Protocoll, [2001] ECR I, 9713, para. 22 et seqq.

  94. 94.

    Dimopoulos, The Effects of the Lisbon Treaty on the Principles and Objectives of the Common Commercial Policy, EFAR 15 (2010) 2, p. 153 (165).

  95. 95.

    See above “Preclusion of competence extension”.

  96. 96.

    See e.g. Vedder/Lorenzmeier, Art. 133 EC-Treaty, para. 29 et seqq., 57, in: Grabitz/Hilf (eds.), Das Recht der Europäischen Union, 38th suppl. 2008.

  97. 97.

    ECJ, Opinion 2/00, Cartagena Protocol, [2001] ECR I, 9713, para. 44.

  98. 98.

    Dimopoulos, The Effects of the Lisbon Treaty on the Principles and Objectives of the Common Commercial Policy, EFAR 15 (2010) 2, p. 153 (164).

  99. 99.

    See e.g. the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities of 13 December 2006, [2010] OJ L 23/35; see also Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia of 24 February 1976 to which the Union acceded to through Council Decision 2012/308/CFSP of 26 April 2012 on the accession of the European Union to the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia, [2012] OJ L 154/; the Council Decision takes special regard to the aim of the treaty to “promote peace, stability and cooperation in the region” and “calls for the settlement of disputes by peaceful means, the preservation of peace, the prevention of conflicts and the strengthening of security in Southeast Asia”, thus, “the rules and principles set out in the Treaty correspond to the objectives of the Union’s common foreign and security polity”.

  100. 100.

    See above “Democracy, Rule of Law, Human Rights and Human Dignity, Art. 2, Art. 3 para. 5, Art. 21 para. 1, Art. 21 para. 2 lit. b TEU”.

  101. 101.

    ECJ, Case 347/87, Orkem, [1989] ECR, 3283, para. 31; ECJ, Joined Cases C-297/88 and C-197/89, Dzodzi, [1990] ECR I, 3763, para. 68; ECJ, Case C-249/96, Grant, [1996] ECR I, 621, para. 44.

  102. 102.

    See CFI, Case T-315/01, Kadi, [2005] ECR II, 3649, para. 193: “Nevertheless, the Community must be considered to be bound by the obligations under the Charter of the United Nations in the same way as its Member States, by virtue of the Treaty establishing it”; ECJ, Joined Cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05, Kadi/Al Barkaat, [2008] ECR I, 6351, para. 293: “Observance of the undertakings given in the context of the United Nations is required just as much in the sphere of the maintenance of international peace and security when the Community gives effect, by means of the adoption of Community measures taken on the basis of Articles 60 EC and 301 EC, to resolutions adopted by the Security Council under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations”.

  103. 103.

    UN GA Res. 55/2, United Nations Millenium Declaration of 18 September 2000, UN GOAR, 55th Sess., Supp. No. 49, p. 4.

  104. 104.

    Tomuschat, Human Rights: Between Realism and Idealism, 2nd ed. 2008, p. 25 (54 et seqq.).

  105. 105.

    Streinz/Ohler/Herrmann, Der Vertrag von Lissabon zur Reform der EU, 3rd ed. 2010, p. 133; Bungenberg, Going Global? The EU Commercial Policy After Lisbon, in: Herrmann/Terhechte (eds.), European Yearbook of International Economic Law, 2010, p. 123 (128); Dimopoulos, The Effects of the Lisbon Treaty on the Principles and Objectives of the Common Commercial Policy, EFAR 15 (2010) 2, p. 153 (166 f).

  106. 106.

    Vedder, Art. 131 EC-Treaty, para. 15, in: Grabitz/Hilf (eds.), Das Recht der Europäischen Union, 40th suppl. 2009; Kahn, Art. 206 TFEU, para. 4, in: Geiger/Khan/Kotzur, EUV/AEUV, Kommentar, 5th ed. 2010.

  107. 107.

    See above “Free and fair trade, Art. 3 para. 5 TEU”.

  108. 108.

    Bungenberg, Going Global? The EU Commercial Policy After Lisbon, in: Herrmann/Terhechte (eds.), European Yearbook of International Economic Law, 2010, p. 123 (128); Bungenberg, Außenbeziehungen und Außenpolitik, in: Schwarze/Hatje (eds.) Der Reformvertrag von Lissabon, EuR-Beiheft (2009) 1, p. 195 (212); Boysen/Oeter, Außenwirtschaftspolitik, in: Schulze/Zuleeg/Kadelbach (eds.), Europarecht. Handbuch für die deutsche Rechtspraxis, 2nd edition, 2010, § 32, para. 124; with criticism: Nettesheim/Duvigneau, Art. 206 TFEU, para. 39 et seqq., in: Streinz (ed.), EUV/AEUV, 2nd ed. 2012

  109. 109.

    Streinz/Ohler/Herrmann, Der Vertrag von Lissabon zur Reform der EU, 3rd ed. 2010, p. 149: termination of the single status of the CCP; Nettesheim/Duvigneau, Art. 206 TFEU, para. 38, in: Streinz (ed.), EUV/AEUV, 2nd ed. 2012

  110. 110.

    On this subject see the contribution of Dederer, The Common Commercial Policy under the influence of Commission, Council, High Representative and European External Action Service, within this volume.

  111. 111.

    Nowak, Binnenmarktziel und Wirtschaftsverfassung der Europäischen Union vor und nach dem Reformvertrag von Lissabon, in: Schwarze/Hatje (eds.) Der Reformvertrag von Lissabon, EuR-Beiheft (2009) 1, p. 129.

  112. 112.

    German Bundesanzeiger No. 241 of 24 Dezember 1966.

  113. 113.

    Ipsen, Außenwirtschaftsrecht und Außenpolitik. Rechtsgutachten zum Rhodesien-Embargo, 1967.

  114. 114.

    Cf. above “Introduction: European external relations in a globalized world”.

  115. 115.

    Bungenberg, Going Global? The EU Commercial Policy After Lisbon, in: Herrmann/Terhechte (eds.), European Yearbook of International Economic Law, 2010, p. 123 (128); approves this determination that had been made in 2005: Vedder, Ziele der Gemeinsamen Handelspolitik und Ziele des auswärtigen Handelns, in: Herrmann/Krenzler/Streinz (eds.), Die Außenwirtschaftspolitik der Europäischen Union nach dem Verfassungsvertrag, 2006, p. 43 (47).

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my severe thanks to Manuel Indlekofer, LL.M. (Chicago-Kent) for his support to revise this article into English and to him and Klaus Schwichtenberg for their additional helpful comments and suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Augsburg, Universitätsstr. 24, 86159, Augsburg, Germany

    Christoph Vedder

Authors
  1. Christoph Vedder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christoph Vedder .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Business Economics and Business Law, University of Siegen, Hölderlinstr. 3, Siegen, 57068, Germany

    Marc Bungenberg

  2. Chair for Constitutional and Administrat, European Law, European and, University of Passau, Innstraße 39, Passau, 94032, Germany

    Christoph Herrmann

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Vedder, C. (2013). Linkage of the Common Commercial Policy to the General Objectives for the Union’s External Action. In: Bungenberg, M., Herrmann, C. (eds) Common Commercial Policy after Lisbon. European Yearbook of International Economic Law(). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34255-4_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation