Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Introduction

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Participation of the EU in International Dispute Settlement

  • 428 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter will introduce the topic of the book and the broader implications that it has on the understanding of some current issues of contemporary international and EU law.

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 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
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.

    See Rosas 2017, p. 2.

  2. 2.

    See the summary provided by James Crawford in the entry ‘State Responsibility’ on the online Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, paras 3–5.

  3. 3.

    See Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ASR) , and on the Responsibility of International Organizations (ARIO) , of which the UN General Assembly has taken note. See, respectively, Resolution 56/83 adopted by the General Assembly on 12 December 2001, A/RES/56/83, and Resolution 66/100 adopted by the General Assembly on 9 December 2011, A/RES/66/100.

  4. 4.

    This debate will be more thoroughly analysed below, see Sect. 5.2.

  5. 5.

    See, among others, UN doc. A/CN.4/556, where the views of the EU are expressed in full details. See, in particular, pp. 31–32, where the Commission gave the following example: “[t]he European Community is the bearer of many international obligations (especially because it has concluded many treaties). However, sometimes not only the behaviour of its own organs, but also organs of its member States, may breach such obligations. Such behaviour would therefore be prima facie attributable to those member States. This is an example of this situation: the European Community has contracted a certain tariff treatment with third States through an agreement or within the framework of WTO . The third States concerned find that this agreement is being breached, but by whom? Not by the European Community’s organs, but by the member States’ customs authorities that are charged with implementing Community law. Hence their natural reaction is to blame the member States concerned. In short, there is separation between responsibility and attribution: the responsibility trail leads to the European Community, but the attribution trail leads to one or more member States. This example illustrates why the European Commission feels that there is a need to address the special situation of the Community within the framework of the draft articles” (emphasis in the original).

  6. 6.

    According to this doctrine, the Member States of the EU should not be held responsible as a matter of international law when they act under the normative control of the EU. While this doctrine has not been endorsed by the ILC , the existence—better: the emergence—of a special rule of international law concerning normative control has been maintained by Delgado Casteleiro in his leading study in the field. See Delgado Casteleiro 2016, as well as the considerations made in Chap. 5 of the present book.

  7. 7.

    Needless to say, this is clearly a fictional scenario loosely based on a real WTO case brought by the US against the EU. See, in particular, European Communities—Certain Measures Affecting Poultry Meat and Poultry Meat Products from the United States (case suspended) WT/DS389. The WTO dispute settlement system will be comprehensively examined in Chap. 2.

  8. 8.

    Throughout this book, the abbreviation CJEU, which stands for ‘Court of Justice of the European Union’, will not be used. Such abbreviation refers in fact to the whole institution consisting of both the Court of Justice (ECJ) and the General Court. Since reference is made exclusively to the ECJ’s case law, the use of the acronym CJEU would be misleading.

  9. 9.

    Court of Justice, Draft Agreement on the Accession of the European Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Opinion of 18 December 2014, Opinion 2/13 , ECLI:EU:C:2014:2454, para 230.

  10. 10.

    See Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2002, vol. II (Part Two), p. 96, para 486.

  11. 11.

    See Wood 2016.

  12. 12.

    See Brölmann 2007, p. 1.

  13. 13.

    See Govaere 2010, p. 190.

  14. 14.

    See Reinisch 2018, pp. 6–7.

  15. 15.

    See the relevant webpage on the Commission’s website: http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ceta/ceta-chapter-by-chapter/ (accessed on 28 May 2018).

  16. 16.

    See the relevant webpage on the Commission’s website http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1437 (accessed on 28 May 2018).

  17. 17.

    See the relevant webpage on the Commission’s website http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=961 (accessed on 28 May 2018).

References

  • Brölmann C (2007) The Institutional Veil in Public International Law: International Organisations and the Law of Treaties. Hart Publishing, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delgado Casteleiro A (2016) The International Responsibility of the European Union. From Competence to Normative Control. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Govaere I (2010) Beware of the Trojan Horse: Dispute Settlement in (Mixed) Agreements and the Autonomy of the EU Legal Order. In: Hillion C, Koutrakos P (eds) Mixed Agreements Revisited. The EU and its Member States in the World. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp. 187–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinisch A (2018) International Organizations and Dispute Settlement: A New Topic for the International Law Commission. International Organizations Law Review 15:1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosas A (2017) The EU and International Dispute Settlement. Europe and the World: A Law Review, available at https://www.scienceopen.com/document_file/7935ce61-a969-48a4-9c1d-ec6c388121df/ScienceOpen/Article3.pdf.

  • Wood M (2016) The settlement of international disputes to which international organizations are parties. ii(2) Yearbook of the International Law Commission 387, annex A.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. BRV [Public Management, Law & Safety], The Hague University of Applied Sciences, The Hague, The Netherlands

    Luca Pantaleo

Authors
  1. Luca Pantaleo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luca Pantaleo .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 T.M.C. Asser Press and the author

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Pantaleo, L. (2019). Introduction. In: The Participation of the EU in International Dispute Settlement. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-270-5_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-270-5_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-269-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-270-5

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation