Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Decisions on Operational Action and Union Positions: Back to the Future?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The European Union after Lisbon

Abstract

The Treaty of Lisbon, which was signed on 13 December 2007 and entered into force on 1 December 2009, has made extensive changes to the legal framework governing the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). In fact, not a single provision of Title V of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) dealing with the CFSP has remained unaffected by the most recent round of treaty revision. In addition to making numerous substantive and institutional amendments, the Lisbon Treaty has also recast the legal instruments available for the conduct of the CFSP. In the past, the Union could rely on three specific instruments in this area: common positions, joint actions and common strategies. In an attempt to simplify this line-up, the Lisbon Treaty has now replaced these three instruments with a single legal act: Union decisions.

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 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
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.

    Treaty of Lisbon Amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty Establishing the European Community, 13 December 2007, O.J. C 306/1 (2007).

  2. 2.

    A consolidated version of the TEU can be found at O.J. C 83/13 (2010).

  3. 3.

    However, as is evident from Art. 12 TEU-Nice, these were not the only instruments available under the CFSP. See Denza (2002), pp. 134–135; Eeckhout (2005), pp. 407–408.

  4. 4.

    Laeken Declaration on the Future of the European Union, Annex I to Presidency Conclusions, European Council Meeting in Laeken, 14 and 15 December 2001.

  5. 5.

    Among the considerable body of literature on the European Defence Community, see in particular Fursdon (1980); Ruane (2000); Legaret and Martin-Dumesnil (1953). On the European Political Community, see Griffiths (2000); Berthold (2003). Generally, see Duke (2000).

  6. 6.

    See Smith (2001).

  7. 7.

    On the EPC generally, see Nuttall (1992).

  8. 8.

    First Report of the Foreign Ministers to the Heads of State or Government of the Member States of the European Community (Luxembourg Report), 27 October 1970, in Hill and Smith (2000), p. 77.

  9. 9.

    In addition to the Luxembourg Report of 1970, see in particular the Second Report of the Foreign Ministers to the Heads of State or Government of the Member States of the European Community (Copenhagen Report), 23 July 1973 and the Report Issued by the Foreign Ministers of the Ten on European Political Co-operation (London Report), 13 October 1981, both in Hill and Smith (2000), p. 84 and p. 115. See Allen and Wallace (1982).

  10. 10.

    For instance, when the European Council resolved in 1983 ‘to strengthen and develop European Political Cooperation through the elaboration and adoption of joint positions and joint actions’, what it had in mind was to increase collective action by the Member States. See Solemn Declaration on European Union by the European Council (Stuttgart Declaration), 19 June 1983, in Hill and Smith (2000), p. 131.

  11. 11.

    On sanctions and the relationship between EPC and the EC, see Nuttall (1987); Holland (1991a, b); Koutrakos (2001), pp. 49–66. On the diverse output of the EPC more generally, see Rummel (1988).

  12. 12.

    Stein (1990), p. 184.

  13. 13.

    Gröne (1993), pp. 60–62. For a detailed discussion of the legal nature of these decisions, see Jürgens (1994), pp. 128–181.

  14. 14.

    On Art. 30 SEA, see Nuttall (1985); Perrakis (1988); Murphy (1989).

  15. 15.

    Art. 30.2(a) SEA.

  16. 16.

    See Art. 30.2 SEA.

  17. 17.

    For a useful overview of the negotiating history, see Laursen and Vanhoonacker (1992); de Schoutheete de Tervarent (1997). For a comparison of the CFSP with the EPC, see Edwards and Nuttall (1994).

  18. 18.

    Rather than endow the European Community with legal competences in the field of foreign and security policy, the Member States decided to maintain the separation between the Community legal order and their cooperation in foreign policy and security matters in the form of the EU’s pillar structure. See Curtin (1993).

  19. 19.

    Article J.2.1 TEU-Maastricht.

  20. 20.

    Cf. Jürgens (1994), p. 341.

  21. 21.

    Notably, Art. J.1 TEU-Maastricht declared that the CFSP should be defined and implemented by the newly created ‘Union and its Member States’. However, this formulation was apparently intended to stress the intergovernmental nature of the second pillar. See Fink-Hooijer (1994), p. 177.

  22. 22.

    Thus, in Art. 30.1 SEA they undertook to ‘endeavour jointly to formulate and implement a European foreign policy’ in their capacity as ‘High Contracting Parties’, rather than as Member States of the EEC.

  23. 23.

    Article J.1.4 TEU-Maastricht.

  24. 24.

    Article J.2.2 TEU-Maastricht.

  25. 25.

    Article J.3.1 TEU-Maastricht.

  26. 26.

    See also Jürgens (1994), p. 353.

  27. 27.

    Denza (2002), p. 55.

  28. 28.

    See also MacLeod et al. (1996), p. 418.

  29. 29.

    Article J.8.2 TEU-Maastricht.

  30. 30.

    Emphasis added.

  31. 31.

    Council Decision 93/603/CFSP concerning the joint action on support for the convoying of humanitarian aid in Bosnia and Herzegovina, O.J. L 286/1 (1993).

  32. 32.

    Council Decision 93/614/CFSP on the common position with regard to the reduction of economic relations with Libya, O.J. L 295/7 (1993).

  33. 33.

    Council Common Position 94/779/CFSP on the objectives and priorities of the European Union towards Ukraine, O.J. L 313/1 (1994).

  34. 34.

    Council Joint Action 95/545/CFSP with regard to the participation of the Union in the implementing structures of the peace plan for Bosnia-Herzegovina, O.J. L 309/2 (1995).

  35. 35.

    Report to the European Council in Lisbon on the likely development of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) with a view to identifying areas open to joint action vis-à-vis particular countries or groups of countries, Annex I to Lisbon European Council Conclusions, 26 and 27 June 1992, SN 3321/1/92, p. 29.

  36. 36.

    Strengthened External Action Capability, 24 May 1996, CONF 3850/96, p. 5. Indeed, the need to distinguish more carefully between common positions and joint actions in order to strengthen the consistency of the Union’s external action was already noted by members of the Reflection Group established in preparation of the intergovernmental conference and by commentators. See Reflection Group’s Report, 5 December 1995, SN 520/95 (Reflex 21), para 150; Regelsberger (1997), pp. 79–80.

  37. 37.

    Adapting the European Union for the Benefit of Its Peoples and Preparing it for the Future: A General Outline for a Draft Revision of the Treaties (Dublin II), 5 December 1996, CONF 2500/96.

  38. 38.

    Dublin II, 5 December 1996, CONF 2500/96, p. 82.

  39. 39.

    Dublin II, 5 December 1996, CONF 2500/96, pp. 82–84.

  40. 40.

    Dublin II, 5 December 1996, CONF 2500/96, pp. 85–86.

  41. 41.

    Given the uncertainty surrounding the international legal personality of the EU, a lively debate has ensued in the literature as to whether international agreements concluded by the Council under Art. 24 TEU-Amsterdam were instruments of the Member States acting collectively or instruments of the Union. For an overview of this issue and the relevant literature, see Sari (2008), pp. 69–82.

  42. 42.

    Monar (1997), pp. 425–426; Mahncke (2001), pp. 236–240.

  43. 43.

    Wessel (1999), p. 156; Denza (2002), p. 147.

  44. 44.

    Dashwood (1998), p. 1032.

  45. 45.

    For an assessment of these changes, see Duke (2001); Österdahl (2001); Wessel (2003).

  46. 46.

    Draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, 18 July 2003, CONV 850/03. See Cremona (2003), pp. 1352–1361; Howorth (2004); Thym (2004).

  47. 47.

    Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe, 29 October 2004, O.J. C 310/1 (2004). See Naert (2005); Trybus (2006); Koutrakos (2006), pp. 481–506.

  48. 48.

    Laeken Declaration on the Future of the European Union, Annex I to Presidency Conclusions, European Council Meeting in Laeken, 14 and 15 December 2001, p. 5.

  49. 49.

    Mandate of Working Group IX on the Simplification of Legislative Procedures and Instruments, 17 September 2002, CONV 271/02, p. 6.

  50. 50.

    See e.g. Simplifying Legislative Procedures and Instruments – Paper by Mr. M. Michel Petite, 31 October 2002, WG IX – WD 08; How to simplify the instruments of the Union? – Paper by Prof. Koen Lenaerts, 6 November 2002, WG IX – WD 07.

  51. 51.

    See The Legal Instruments: Present System, 13 June 2002, CONV 162/02, pp. 7–8; EU External Action, 3 July 2002, CONV 161/02, pp. 6–10.

  52. 52.

    Article 12 TEU-Nice.

  53. 53.

    Article 13.1 TEU-Nice.

  54. 54.

    Article 13.2 TEU-Nice.

  55. 55.

    Article 14 TEU-Nice.

  56. 56.

    Article 15 TEU-Nice.

  57. 57.

    Article 16 TEU-Nice.

  58. 58.

    Article 24 TEU-Nice.

  59. 59.

    For example, European Union Code of Conduct on Arms Exports, 5 June 1998, 8675/2/98 REV2.

  60. 60.

    For example, Common Position 2003/805/CFSP on the universalisation and reinforcement of multilateral agreements in the field of non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and means of delivery, O.J. L 302/34 (2003).

  61. 61.

    Simplification of legislative procedures and instruments – Paper by Mr Jean-Claude Piris, 6 November 2002, WG IX – WD 06.

  62. 62.

    Simplification of legislative procedures and instruments – Paper by Mr Jean-Claude Piris, 6 November 2002, WG IX – WD 06, pp. 9–11.

  63. 63.

    Simplification of legislative procedures and instruments – Paper by Mr Jean-Claude Piris, 6 November 2002, WG IX – WD 06, pp. 12.

  64. 64.

    Simplification of legislative procedures and instruments – Paper by Mr Jean-Claude Piris, 6 November 2002, WG IX – WD 06, pp. 13.

  65. 65.

    Simplification of legislative procedures and instruments – Paper by Mr Jean-Claude Piris, 6 November 2002, WG IX – WD 06, pp. 13.

  66. 66.

    Draft of Arts. 24–33 of the Constitutional Treaty, 26 February 2003, CONV 571/03, p. 10.

  67. 67.

    Draft Articles on External Action in the Constitutional Treaty, 23 April 2003, CONV 685/03, pp. 26–27.

  68. 68.

    Final report of Working Group VII on External Action, 16 December 2002, CONV 459/02, pp. 3–4.

  69. 69.

    In addition, Art. III-194 expressly directed the European Council to adopt such European decisions across all areas of the external action of the Union, not just in the context of the CFSP.

  70. 70.

    Article 24.1 TEU.

  71. 71.

    de Witte (2008), p. 90.

  72. 72.

    Article 1 TEU.

  73. 73.

    Article 24.1 TEU thus declares that the CFSP is ‘subject to specific rules and procedures’.

  74. 74.

    Mandate of Working Group IX on the Simplification of Legislative Procedures and Instruments, 17 September 2002, CONV 271/02, p. 7.

  75. 75.

    See also Cremona (2003), pp. 1357–1358.

References

  • Allen D, Wallace W (1982) European political cooperation: the historical and contemporary background. In: Allen D, Rummel R, Wessels W (eds) European Political Cooperation: towards a foreign policy for Western Europe. Butterworth Scientific, London, pp 21–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Berthold C (2003) Die Europäische Politische Gemeinschaft (EPG) 1953 und die Europäische Union (EU) 2001: Eine rechtsvergleichende Betrachtung. Frankfurt am Main, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Cremona M (2003) The Draft Constitutional Treaty: external relations and external action. Common Market Law Rev 40:1347–1366

    Google Scholar 

  • Curtin D (1993) The Constitutional Structure of the Union: A Europe of bits and pieces. Common Market Law Rev 30:17–69

    Google Scholar 

  • Dashwood A (1998) External relations provisions of the Amsterdam Treaty. Common Market Law Rev 35:1019–1045

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Schoutheete de Tervarent P (1997). The creation of the common foreign and security policy. In: Regelsberger E, de Schoutheete de Tervarent P, Wessels W (eds) Foreign policy of the European Union: from EPC to CFSP and beyond. L. Rienner, Boulder, pp 41–63

    Google Scholar 

  • de Witte B (2008) Legal instruments and law-making in the Lisbon Treaty. In: Griller S, Ziller J (eds) The Lisbon Treaty: EU constitutionalism without a constitutional treaty? Springer, Wien, pp 79–108

    Google Scholar 

  • Denza E (2002) The intergovernmental pillars of the European Union. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Duke S (2000) The elusive quest for European Security: from EDC to CFSP. Palgrave, Basingstoke

    Google Scholar 

  • Duke S (2001) CESDP: Nice’s overtrumped success? Eur Foreign Aff Rev 6:155–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards G, Nuttall S (1994) Common foreign and security policy. In: Duff A, Pinder J, Pryce R (eds) Maastricht and beyond: building the European Union. Routledge, London, pp 84–103

    Google Scholar 

  • Eeckhout P (2005) External relations of the European Union: legal and constitutional foundations. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Fink-Hooijer F (1994) The common foreign and security policy of the European Union. Eur J Int Law 5:173–198

    Google Scholar 

  • Fursdon E (1980) The European Defence Community: a history. Macmillan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths RT (2000) Europe’s first constitution: the European Political Community, 1952–1954. Federal Trust, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Gröne D (1993) Die Europäische Politische Zusammenarbeit (1970–1991): Entwicklung, Struktur und Rechtswirkung. Schäuble Verlag, Rheinfelden

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill C, Smith KE (2000) European foreign policy: key documents. Routledge, London; New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Holland M (1991a) Sanctions as an EPC instrument. In: Holland M (ed) The future of European political cooperation: essays on theory and practice. St. Martin's Press, New York, pp 180–198

    Google Scholar 

  • Holland M (1991b) The European Community and South Africa: European political cooperation under strain. Pinter, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Howorth J (2004) The European Draft Constitutional Treaty and the future of the European defence initiative: a question of flexibility. Eur Foreign Aff Rev 9:483–508

    Google Scholar 

  • Jürgens T (1994) Die gemeinsame europäische Aussen- und Sicherheitspolitik. Heymann, Köln

    Google Scholar 

  • Koutrakos P (2001) Trade, foreign policy and defence in EU Constitutional Law: the legal regulation of sanctions, exports of dual-use goods and armaments. Hart, Portland

    Google Scholar 

  • Koutrakos P (2006) EU international relations law. Hart, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Laursen F, Vanhoonacker S (1992) The intergovernmental conference on political union: institutional reforms, new policies and international identity of the European Community. M. Nijhoff, Dordrecht, Sold and distributed in the U.S.A. and Canada by Kluwer Academic Publishers

    Google Scholar 

  • Legaret J, Martin-Dumesnil E (1953) La Communauté Européenne de Défense: Étude Analytique du Traité du 27 Mai 1952. Librairie J. Vrin, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • MacLeod I, Hendry ID, Hyett S (1996) The external relations of the European Communities: a manual of law and practice. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahncke D (2001) Reform of the CFSP: from Maastricht to Amsterdam. In: Monar J, Wessels W (eds) The European Union after the Treaty of Amsterdam. Continuum, New York, pp 227–248

    Google Scholar 

  • Monar J (1997) The European Union’s foreign affairs system after the Treaty of Amsterdam: a “strengthened capacity for external action”? Eur Foreign Aff Rev 2:413–436

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy DT (1989) european political cooperation after the Single European Act: the future of foreign affairs in the European Communities. Boston Coll Int Comp Law Rev 12:335–355

    Google Scholar 

  • Naert F (2005) European security and defence in the EU Constitutional Treaty. J Confl Secur Law 10:187–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nuttall S (1985) European political co-operation and the Single European Act. Yearb Eur Law 5:203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nuttall S (1987) Interaction between European political co-operation and the European Community. Yearb Eur Law 7:211–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nuttall SJ (1992) European political co-operation. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Österdahl I (2001) The EU and its member states, other states, and international organizations – the common European security and defence policy after Nice. Nord J Int Law 70:341–372

    Google Scholar 

  • Perrakis S (1988) L’incidence de l’Acte européen sur la coopération des douze en matière de politique étrangère. Annuaire Fr Droit Int 34:807–822

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Regelsberger E (1997) The institutional setup and functioning of EPC/CFSP. In: Regelsberger E, de Schoutheete de Tervarent P, Wessels W (eds) Foreign policy of the European Union: from EPC to CFSP and beyond. L. Rienner, Boulder, pp 67–84

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruane K (2000) The rise and fall of the European Defence Community: Anglo-American relations and the crisis of European Defence, 1950–55. Macmillan, Basingstoke

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rummel R (1988) Speaking with one voice – and beyond. In: Pijpers AE, Regelsberger E, Wessels W (eds) European political cooperation in the 1980s: a common foreign policy for Western Europe? Nijhoff, Dordrecht, pp 118–142

    Google Scholar 

  • Sari A (2008) The conclusion of international agreements by the European Union in the context of the ESDP. Int Comp Law Q 56:53–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith ME (2001) Diplomacy by decree: the legalization of EU Foreign Policy. J Common Market Stud 39:79–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stein E (1990) External relations of the European Community: structure and process. Coll Courses Acad Eur Law 1:115–188

    Google Scholar 

  • Thym D (2004) Reforming Europe's common foreign and security policy. Eur Law J 10:5–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trybus M (2006) With or without the EU Constitutional Treaty: towards a common security and defence policy. Eur Law Rev 31:145–166

    Google Scholar 

  • Wessel RA (1999) The European Union’s Foreign and Security Policy: a legal institutional perspective. Kluwer Law International, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Wessel RA (2003) The state of affairs in EU security and defence policy: the breakthrough in the Treaty of Nice. J Confl Secur Law 8:265–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law, University of Exeter, Cornwall Campus, Penryn, Cornwall, TR10 9EZ, UK

    Aurel Sari

Authors
  1. Aurel Sari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aurel Sari .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Faculty for Economics, Law and Social Sc, University of Erfurt, Nordhäuser Straße 63, Erfurt, 99089, Germany

    Hermann-Josef Blanke

  2. Regionalism, Federalism and Self-Governm, National Research Council - Institute fo, Via dei Taurini 19, Rome, 00185, Italy

    Stelio Mangiameli

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Sari, A. (2012). Decisions on Operational Action and Union Positions: Back to the Future?. In: Blanke, HJ., Mangiameli, S. (eds) The European Union after Lisbon. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19507-5_22

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation