Advertisement

Member States’ Interests and the Common Commercial Policy

  • Balázs HorváthyEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

The importance of the Common Commercial Policy (CCP) within the EU is considerable not only in economic and trade policy terms but also in terms of the role it played in the evolution of the EU legal order. It provided an early example for what is essentially supranational policy-making and it also served, as driven by the debates surrounding the Court of Justice’s case law in the 1970s, as a “laboratory” for determining the allocation of competences between the Community and the Member States. The exclusive EU competence established for the CCP in that process had major implications for Member State trade interests as well as their trade policy autonomy. These developments in the real world were, however, largely ignored by legal scholarship just as the question of how the emerging legal framework had shaped the role of the Member States in designing and delivering the CCP. The primary aim of this chapter is to explore this analytical perspective and determine on that basis the limits of the discretion that is still available in this policy domain for the Member States. We will investigate, in particular, the ability of the Member States to promote and represent their trade interests in the current legal framework and the concrete restrictions that follow from the relevant provisions on EU law, those regulating CCP objectives and principles, the nature and scope and competences, the exceptions from the CCP and some of the procedural rules.

References

  1. Adriaensen, J. (2016). National administrations in EU trade policy. Maintaining the capacity to control. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  2. Bartha, I. (2014). Hungary’s international agreements in the light of its EU membership. In M. Varju & E. Várnay (Eds.), The law of the European Union in Hungary: Institutions, processes and the law (pp. 320–360). Budapest: HVG-ORAC.Google Scholar
  3. Bartha, I. (2017). The external side of parliamentary democracy – comment on the Case C-658/11 European Parliament v. Council of the European Union. Hungarian Yearbook of International and European Law, 4, 449–473.Google Scholar
  4. Bollen, Y., De Ville, F., & Orbie, J. (2016). EU trade policy: Persistent liberalisation, contentious protectionism. Journal of European Integration, 38(3), 279–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bungenberg, M., & Herrmann, C. (Eds.). (2013). Common Commercial Policy after Lisbon. Heidelberg: Springer European Yearbook of International Economic Law, Special Issue.Google Scholar
  6. Cremona, M. (2010). Balancing Union and Member State interests: Opinion 1/2008, choice of legal base and the Common Commercial Policy under the Treaty of Lisbon. European Law Review, 35(5), 678–694.Google Scholar
  7. Cremona, M. (2018). Shaping EU trade policy post-Lisbon: Opinion 2/15 of 16 May 2017. European Constitutional Law Review, 14(1), 231–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dimopoulos, A. (2008). The Common Commercial Policy after Lisbon: Establishing parallelism between internal and external economic relations? Croatian Yearbook of European Law and Policy, 4, 101–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dimopoulos, A. (2010). The effects of the Lisbon Treaty on the principles and objectives of the Common Commercial Policy. European Foreign Affairs Review, 15(2), 153–170.Google Scholar
  10. European Commission. (2015a). Trade for all – Towards a more responsible trade and investment policy. Retrieved January 22, 2018, from http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2015/october/tradoc_153846.pdf
  11. European Commission. (2015b). Commission asks Member States to terminate their intra-EU bilateral investment treaties. Press release IP/15/5198.Google Scholar
  12. Grabitz, E., Hilf, M., & Nettesheim, M. (2011). Das Recht der Europäischen Union. München: C.H. Beck.Google Scholar
  13. Hallstein, W. (1979). Die EWG – eine Rechtsgemeinschaft. In T. Oppermann (Ed.), Europäische Reden (pp. 343–344). Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt.Google Scholar
  14. Herrmann, C. (2010). Die Zukunft der mitgliedstaatlichen Investitionspolitik nach dem Vertrag von Lissabon. Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht, 31(6), 207–212.Google Scholar
  15. Hindelang, S., & Maydell, N. (2010). Die gemeinsame Europäische Investitionspolitik – alter Wein in neuen Schläuchen? In M. Bungenberg, J. Griebel, & S. Hindelang (Eds.), Internationaler Investitionsschutz und Europarecht (pp. 11–80). Baden-Baden: Nomos.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hoffmeister, F. (2011). The European Union’s Common Commercial Policy a year after Lisbon – sea change or business as usual?. In P. Koutrakos (Ed.), The European Union’s external relations a year after Lisbon (CLEER Working Papers, 2011/3).Google Scholar
  17. Holdgaard, R. (2008). External relations law of the European Community. Legal reasoning and legal discourses. Austin: Wolters Kluwer.Google Scholar
  18. Horváthy, B., & Nyírcsák, A. (2014). EU-Russia sanctions war. Part II: Consequences of restrictive measures for Hungary – national interests and questions of loyalty. Retrieved January 15, 2018, from https://hpops.tk.mta.hu/en/blog/2014/10/eu-russia-sanctions-war-part-ii-consequences-for-hungary
  19. Ilie, L. (2018). What is the future of Intra-EU BITs? Retrieved January 15, 2018, from http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2018/01/21/future-intra-eu-bits/
  20. Kleimann, D. (2011). Taking stock: EU Common Commercial Policy in the Lisbon era (CEPS Working Document No. 345).Google Scholar
  21. Koutrakos, P. (2006). EU international relations law. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  22. Krajewski, M. (2005). External trade law and the Constitution Treaty: Towards a federal and more democratic Common Commercial Policy? Common Market Law Review, 42(1), 91–127.Google Scholar
  23. Krajewski, M. (2012). The reform of the Common Commercial Policy. In A. Biondi, P. Eeckhout, & S. Ripley (Eds.), EU law after Lisbon (pp. 292–311). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lavranos, N. (2018). A rollercoaster: The first half of the year r018 for BITs and ISDS. Retrieved June 8, 2018, from http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2018/07/09/rollercoaster-first-half-year-2018-bits-isds/
  25. Leas-Arcas, R. (2010). The European Union’s trade and investment policy after the Treaty of Lisbon. Journal of World Investment and Trade, 11(4), 463–514.Google Scholar
  26. Leczykiewicz, D. (2005). Common Commercial Policy: The expanding competence of the European Union in the area of international trade. German Law Journal, 6(11), 1673–1685.Google Scholar
  27. Nicolaides, P., & Geilmann, M. (2012). What is effective implementation of EU law? Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 19(3), 383–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nuechterlein, D. E. (1976). National interests and foreign policy: A conceptual framework for analysis and decision-making. British Journal of International Studies, 2(3), 246–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rensmann, T. (2005). Grundwerte im Prozeß der europäischen Konstitutionalisierung. Anmerkungen zur Europäischen Union als Wertegemeinschaft aus juristischer Perspektive. In D. Blumenwitz, G. H. Gornig, & D. Murswiek (Eds.), Die Europaäische Union als Wertegemeinschaft (pp. 49–71). Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
  30. Rosenau, J. N. (1968). National interest. In D. L. Sills (Ed.), International encyclopaedia of the social sciences (Vol. 11, pp. 34–40). New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  31. Shan, W., & Zhang, S. (2010). The Treaty of Lisbon: Half way toward a Common Investment Policy. The European Journal of International Law, 21(4), 1049–1073.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tietje, C. (2009). Die Außenwirtschaftsverfassung der EU nach dem Vertrag von Lissabon. Beiträge zum transnationalen Wirtschaftsrecht. Halle: Universität Halle-Wittenberg.Google Scholar
  33. Trybus, M. (2014). Buying defence and security in Europe. The EU defence and security procurement directive in context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Van Elsuwege, P. (2015). The duty of sincere cooperation (Art. 4 (3) TEU) and its implications for the national interest of EU Member States in the field of external relations. Budapest: HPOPS Research Group. Available at: https://hpops.tk.mta.hu/uploads/files/UACES_Bilbao_PVE_(2).pdf
  35. von Bogdandy, A. (2009). Grundprinzipien. In A. von Bogdandy & J. Bast (Eds.), Europäisches Verfassungsrecht: theoretische und dogmatische Grundzüge (pp. 13–71). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. von Danwitz, T. (2014). The rule of law in the recent jurisprudence of the ECJ. Fordham International Law Journal, 37(5), 1311–1377.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Centre for Social Sciences, Institute of Legal StudiesBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations