The European Union in international environmental negotiations: a legal perspective on the internal decision-making process

  • Tom DelreuxEmail author


From an EU point of view, most international environmental agreements are mixed. This means that both the European Community (EC) and its member states are party to the agreement. As the participation of the EC in international negotiations and agreements is properly arranged by the Treaty establishing the European Community, but the EU member states’ participation is not legally organized on the EU level, the internal decision-making process regarding mixed agreements is rather complicated. Insights into this process are needed to understand the representation and the role of the European Union in international environmental negotiations. This article clarifies the legal framework of the EU decision-making process regarding such negotiations.


EU decision-making EU member states European Commission Mixed agreements 



European Agreement concerning the Work of Crews of Vehicles Engaged in International Road Transport


Common Foreign and Security Policy


Comité des Représentants Permanents


European Community


European Court of Justice


European Economic Community


European Parliament


European Union


International Atomic Energy Agency


International Labour Organization


Justice and Home Affairs


Member of European Parliament


Qualified Majority Voting


Single European Act


Treaty establishing the European Community


Treaty of the European Union


United Nations Conference on Trade and Development


Working Party on International Environmental Issues


World Trade Organization


  1. Bail, C., Decaestecker, J., & Jørgensen, M. (2002). European Union. In C. Bail, R. Falkner, & H. Marquard (Eds.), The Cartagena protocol on biosafety. Reconciling trade in biotechnology with environment & development? (pp. 166–185). London: Royal Institute of International Affairs.Google Scholar
  2. Bossuyt, M., & Wouters, J. (2005) Grondlijnen van internationaal recht. Antwerpen, Intersentia, 1114 pp.Google Scholar
  3. Bretherton, C., & Vogler, J. (2003). The European Union as a global actor. London: Routledge, 316 pp.Google Scholar
  4. Coleman, W., & Tangermann, S. (1999). The 1992 CAP reform, the Uruguay round and the commission: Conceptualizing linked policy games. Journal of Common Market Studies, 37(3), 385–404.Google Scholar
  5. Collinson, S. (1999). «Issue-systems», «multi-level games» and the analysis of the EU’s external commercial and associated policies: A research agenda. Journal of European Public Policy, 6(2), 206–224.Google Scholar
  6. Dashwood, A., & Heliskoski, J. (2000). The classic authorities revisited. In A. Dashwood, & C. Hillion (Eds.), The general law of E.C. external relations (pp. 3–19). London: Sweet & Maxwell.Google Scholar
  7. Dutzler, B. (2002) The representation of the EU and the member states in international organisations – general aspects. In S. Griller, & B. Weidel (Eds.), External economic relations and foreign policy in the European Union (pp. 151–189). Wien: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  8. Eeckhout, P. (2004). External relations of the European Union. New York: Oxford University Press. 490 pp.Google Scholar
  9. Ehlermann, C. D. (1983). Mixed agreements. A list of problems. In D. O’Keeffe, & H. Schermers (Eds.), Mixed agreements (pp. 3–21). Deventer: Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers.Google Scholar
  10. Emiliou, N. (1996). The allocation of competence between the EC and its member states in the sphere of external relations. In N. Emiliou, & D. O’Keefe (Eds.), The European Union and world trade law (pp. 31–45). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  11. Frieden, J. (2004). One Europe, one vote? European Union Politics, 5 (2), 261–276.Google Scholar
  12. Groenleer, M., & van Schaik, L. (2005). The EU as an «Intergovernmental» actor in foreign affairs. Case studies of the international criminal court and the Kyoto protocol. Brussels, CEPS Working Document 228, 20 pp.Google Scholar
  13. Groux, J. (1983). Mixed negotiations. In D. O’Keeffe, & H. Schermers (Eds.), Mixed agreements (pp. 87–96). Deventer: Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers.Google Scholar
  14. Heliskoski, J. (2000). Internal struggle for international presence: The exercise of voting rights within the FAO. In A. Dashwood, & C. Hillion (Eds.), The general law of E.C. external relations. (pp. 79–99). London: Sweet & Maxwell.Google Scholar
  15. Heliskoski, J. (2001). Mixed agreements as a technique for organizing the international relations of the European Community and its member states. Den Haag: Kluwer Law International, 321 pp.Google Scholar
  16. Johnson, M. (1998). European Community trade policy and the article 133 committee. London: Royal Institute for International Affairs, 69.Google Scholar
  17. Jupille, J., & Caporaso, J. (1998). States, agency, and rules: The European Union in global environmental politics. In C. Rhodes (Ed.), The European Union in the world community (pp. 213–229). London: Lynne Rienner Publishers.Google Scholar
  18. Kerremans, B., (2004). What went wrong in Cancun? A principal-agent view on the EU’s rationale towards the Doha development round. European Foreign Affairs Review, 9(3), 363–393.Google Scholar
  19. Keukeleire, S. (1998). Het buitenlands beleid van de Europese Unie. Deventer: Kluwer, 521 pp.Google Scholar
  20. Leal-Arcas, R. (2001). The European Community and mixed agreements. European Foreign Affairs Review, 6(4), 483–513.Google Scholar
  21. Leefmans, P. J. (1998). Externe milieubevoegdheden. Communautairrechtelijke grenzen aan externe milieubevoegdheden van de EG-lidstaten. Deventer: Kluwer, 524 pp.Google Scholar
  22. Lenaerts, K., Van Nuffel, P., & Bray, R. (2005). Constitutional law of the European Union. London: Sweet & Maxwell, 969 pp.Google Scholar
  23. Macleod, I., Hendry, I., & Hyett, S. (1998). The external relations of the European Communities. A manual of law and practice. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 432 pp.Google Scholar
  24. Macrory, R., & Hession, M. (1996). The European Community and climate change. The role of law and legal competence. In T. O’Riordan, & J. Jäger (Eds.), Politics of climate change. A European perspective (pp. 106–154). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Maurer, A., Kietz, D., & Völkel, C. (2005). Interinstitutional agreements in the CFSP: Parliamentarization through the back door? European Foreign Affairs Review, 10(4), 175–195.Google Scholar
  26. Mcgoldrick, D. (1997). International relations law of the European Union. London: Longman, 249 pp.Google Scholar
  27. Meunier, S. (1998). Divided but united: European trade policy integration and US-U.S. agricultural negotiations in the Uruguay round. In C. Rhodes (Ed.), The European Union in the world community (pp. 193–211). London: Lynne Rienner Publishers.Google Scholar
  28. Meunier, S. (2000). What single voice? European institutions and EU-U.S. trade negotiations. International Organization, 54(1), 103–135.Google Scholar
  29. Murphy, A. (2000). In the maelstrom of change. The Article 133 Committee in the governance of external economic policy. In T. Christiansen, & E. Kirchner (Eds.), Committee governance in the European Union (pp. 98–114). Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Nicolaïdis, K. (1999). Minimizing agency costs in two-level games. Lessons from the trade authority controversies in the United States and the European Union. In R. Mnookin, & L. Susskind (Eds.), Negotiating on behalf of others (pp. 87–126). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  31. Pattersson, L. A. (1997). Agricultural policy reform in the European Community: A three-level-game analysis. International Organization, 51(1), 135–165.Google Scholar
  32. Peterson, J., & Bomberg, E. (1999). Decision-making in the European Union. London: MacMillan Press, 336 pp.Google Scholar
  33. Pocar, F. (2002). The decision-making process of the European Community in external relations. In E. Cannizzaro (Ed.), The European Union as an actor in international relations (pp. 3–16). Den Haag: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
  34. Pollack, M. (2003). The engines of European integration. Delegation, agency, and agenda setting in the EU. New York: Oxford University Press, 496 pp.Google Scholar
  35. Reiter, J. (2005). The European Union as actor in international relations. The role of the external environment for EU institutional design. In O. Elgström, & C. Jönsson (Eds.), European Union negotiations. Processes, networks and institutions (pp. 148–163). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Rhinard, M., & Kaeding, M. (2005). The international bargaining power of the European Union in «Mixed» competence negotiations. The case of the 2000 Cartagena protocol on biosafety. Paper presented at EUSA Biennial Conference, Austin Texas, 30 pp.Google Scholar
  37. Rosas, A. (2000). The European Union and mixed agreements. In A. Dashwood, & C. Hillion (Eds.), The general law of E.C. external relations (pp. 200–220). London: Sweet & Maxwell.Google Scholar
  38. Sbragia, A. (1998). Institution-building from below and above: The European Community in global environmental politics. In W. Sandholz, & A. Stone Sweet (Eds.), European integration and supranational governance (pp. 283–303). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Thieme, D. (2001). European Community external relations in the field of the environment. European Environmental Law Review, 11(8–9), 252–264.Google Scholar
  40. Timmermans, C. (2000). Organising joint participation of EC and member states. In A. Dashwood, & C. Hillion (Eds.), The general law of E.C. external relations (pp. 239–247). London: Sweet & Maxwell.Google Scholar
  41. Van Schaik, L., & Egenhofer, C. (2005). Improving the climate. Will the new Constitution strenghten the EU’s performance in international climate negotiations? Brussel, CEPS Policy Brief 63, 11 pp.Google Scholar
  42. Verwey, D. (2004). The European Community, the European Union and the international law of treaties. Den Haag: TMC Asser Press, 323 pp.Google Scholar
  43. Vogler, J. (1999). The European Union as an actor in international environmental politics. Environmental Politics, 8(3), 24–48.Google Scholar
  44. Young, A. (2003). What game? By which rules? Adapting and flexibility in the EC’s foreign economic policy. In M. Knodt, & S. Princen (Eds.), Understanding the European Union’s external relations (pp. 54–71). London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for International and European Policy, ResearchUniversity of LeuvenLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations