Article 24 [Union Competence in CFSP]

(ex-Article 11 TEU)
  • Hermann-Josef Blanke
  • Stelio Mangiameli
Chapter

Abstract

Prior to the Treaty of Lisbon, Art. 11 TEU-Nice was the first article dedicated to CFSP in the Treaty on European Union. It identified three main points: (1) the scope of CFSP, (2) its objectives and (3) the commitments of the MS in the field of CFSP. Now, Art. 24 TEU replaces ex-Art. 11 TEU-Nice, and comes after Art. 23 TEU, which is a totally new provision explaining how CFSP takes place within the Union’s comprehensive external action (→ Art. 23 para 1–6).

Keywords

Foreign Policy External Action Security Policy European Council Common Policy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Barav, A., & Philip, C. (1993). Politiques communes. In A. Barav & C. Philip (Eds.), Dictionnaire juridique des Communautés européennes (pp. 831–833). Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
  2. Buchet de Neuilly, Y. (2002). L’irrésistible ascension du Haut représentant pour la PESC. Politique européenne, 4(8), 13–31.Google Scholar
  3. Cameron, F. (1997). Where the European Commission comes in: From the Single European Act to Maastricht. In E. Regelsberger, P. De Schoutheete de Tervarent, & W. Wessels (Eds.), Foreign Policy of the European Union: From EPC to CFSP and beyond (pp. 99–108). Boulder: Lynne Riener Publishers.Google Scholar
  4. Cannizzaro, E. (Ed.). (2002). The European Union as an actor in international relations. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
  5. Cremona, M., & de Witte, B. (Eds.). (2008). EU foreign relations law: Constitutional fundamentals. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  6. Dashwood, A., & Hillion, C. (Eds.). (2000). The general law of E.C. external relations. London: Sweet & Maxwell.Google Scholar
  7. Dekker, I. F., & Wessel, R. A. (2001). The European Union and the concept of flexibility. Proliferation of legal systems within international organizations. In N. M. Blokker & H. G. Schermers (Eds.), Proliferation of international organizations (pp. 381–414). The Hague: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
  8. Diedrichs, U. (2004). The European parliament in CFSP: More than a marginal player? The International Spectator, 39(2), 31–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Duke S. (1999). Consistency as an issue in EU external activities. Working Paper. 99/W/06, European Institute of Public Administration.Google Scholar
  10. Eaton, M. R. (1994). Common Foreign and Security Policy. In D. O’Keefe & P. Twomey (Eds.), Legal issues of the Maastricht treaty (pp. 215–226). London: Wiley Chancery Law.Google Scholar
  11. Eeckhout, P. (2004). External relations of the European Union. Legal and constitutional foundations. New York: OUP.Google Scholar
  12. Fenet, A. (Ed.). (2006). Droit des relations extérieures de l’Union européenne. Paris: Litec.Google Scholar
  13. Fink-Hooijer, F. (1994). The Common Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union. European Journal of International Law, 42(3), 173–198.Google Scholar
  14. Franck, C. (2007). L’émergence d’un acteur global: expansion géographique et renforcement institutionnel de l’action extérieure de l’Union européenne. Politique européenne, 22, 15–34.Google Scholar
  15. Gauttier, P. (2004). Horizontal coherence and the external competences of the European Union. European Law Journal, 10(1), 23–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gueldry, M. (2005). Les Etats-Unis et l’Europe face à la guerre d’Irak. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
  17. Jaeger, T. (2002). Enhanced cooperation in the treaty of Nice and flexibility in Common Security and Defence Policy. European Foreign Affairs Review, 7(3), 297–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Koutrakos, P. (2007). Security and Defence Policy within the context of EU external relations: Issues of coherence, consistency and effectiveness. In M. Trybus & N. D. White (Eds.), European Security Law (pp. 249–269). Oxford: OUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Krieger, H. (2007). Common European Defence: Competition or compatibility with NATO? In M. Trybus & N. D. White (Eds.), European Security Law (pp. 174–197). Oxford: OUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Marauhn, T. (1996). Building a European Security and Defence Identity: The evolving relationship between the Western European Union and the European Union. Bochum: Universitätsverlag N Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
  21. Missiroli, A. (2000). CFSP, flexibility and defence. Chaillot Paper, No. 38. http://www.iss.europa.eu/uploads/media/cp038e.pdf. Accessed 5 Aug 2012.
  22. Neframi, E. (2011). L’action extérieure de l’Union européenne. Fondements, moyens, principes. Paris: LGDJ, Lextenso éditions.Google Scholar
  23. Pagani, F. (1998). A new gear in the CFSP machinery: Integration of the Petersberg tasks in the Treaty on European Union. European Journal of International Law, 9(4), 737–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Petiteville, F. (2011). Les mirages de la politique étrangère européenne. Critique internationale, 51(2), 95–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Petiteville, F., & Terpan, F. (2008). L’avenir de la politique étrangère européenne. Questions internationales, 31, 64–70.Google Scholar
  26. Quinlan, M. (2001). European defence cooperation. Asset or threat to NATO. Washington: Woodrow Wilson Center Press.Google Scholar
  27. Schwarze, J. (Ed.). (2000). EU-Kommentar. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  28. Smith, M. E. (2001a). Diplomacy by Decree: The legalization of EU Foreign Policy. Journal of Common Market Studies, 39(1), 79–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Smith, M. E. (2001b). The quest for coherence. Institutional dilemmas of external action from Maastricht to Amsterdam. In A. Stone Sweet, W. Sandholtz, & N. Fligstein (Eds.), The institutionalization of Europe (pp. 171–235). Oxford: OUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Smith, M. E. (2003). Europe’s Foreign and Security Policy: The institutionalization of cooperation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stavridis, S. (1997). The democratic control of the CFSP. In M. Holland (Ed.), Common Foreign and Security Policy: The record and reforms (pp. 136–147). London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  32. Terpan, F. (2003). La politique étrangère et de sécurité commune de l’Union européenne. Brussels: Bruylant.Google Scholar
  33. Terpan, F. (Ed.). (2004). La politique européenne de sécurité et de défense. L’Union européenne peut-elle gérer les crises? Toulouse: Presses de l’Institut d’études politiques de Toulouse.Google Scholar
  34. Terpan, F. (2007). EU-NATO relations: Consistency as a strategic consideration and a legal requirement. In M. Trybus & N. D. White (Eds.), European Security Law (pp. 270–294). Oxford: OUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Terpan, F. (2008). La politique extérieure de l’Union européenne. In J. Ziller (Ed.), L’Union européenne (pp. 180–185). Paris: La documentation française.Google Scholar
  36. Terpan, F. (2010). La politique étrangère, de sécurité et de défense de l’Union européenne. Paris: La documentation française.Google Scholar
  37. Terpan, F. (2011). La prise de décision dans la PESC: un mode de fonctionnement intergouvernemental controversé. In M. Blanquet (Ed.), La prise de décision dans le système de l’Union européenne (pp. 157–176). Brussels: Bruylant.Google Scholar
  38. Trybus, M. (2005). European Union law and defence integration. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  39. Trybus, M. (2007). On the Common Security and Defence Policy of the EU constitutional treaty. In M. Trybus & N. D. White (Eds.), European Security Law (pp. 43–55). Oxford: OUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tsagourias, N. (2007). EU peacekeeping operations: Legal and theoretical issues. In M. Trybus & N. D. White (Eds.), European security law (pp. 112–133). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  41. Wessel, R. A. (2000). The inside looking out: Consistency and delimitation in EU external relations. Common Market Law Review, 37(5), 1135–1171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hermann-Josef Blanke
    • 1
  • Stelio Mangiameli
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty for Economics, Law and Social ScienceUniversity of ErfurtErfurtGermany
  2. 2.National Research Council Institute for Regionalism, Federalism and Self-GovernmentRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations