Article 28 [Council Decisions on Operational Action]

(ex-Article 14 TEU)
  • Hermann-Josef Blanke
  • Stelio Mangiameli


During the EPC period, joint action represented the most advanced form of collaboration between the MS in the implementation of agreed policies. Since the EPC never developed its own dedicated legal instruments, joint action was put into effect through informal decisions made collectively by the MS and as such is best described as the practical output of their intergovernmental cooperation.


Joint Action Operational Action Security Council Judicial Review Union Action 
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.

Table of Cases


  1. ECJ 24.11.1992, C-286/90, Anklagemyndigheden v Peter Michael Poulsen and Diva Navigation Corp., ECR I-6019 [cit. in para 17]Google Scholar
  2. ECJ 28.03.1996, Opinion 2/94, Accession of the Community to the European Human Rights Convention, ECR I-1759 [cit. in para 12]Google Scholar
  3. ECJ 12.05.1998, C-170/96, Commission v Council (Airport Transit Visas), ECR I-2763 [cit. in para 20, 23]Google Scholar
  4. ECJ 16.06.1998, C-162/96, A. Racke GmbH & Co. v Hauptzollamt Mainz, ECR I-3655 [cit. in para 6, 17, 20]Google Scholar
  5. ECJ 13.09.2005, C-176/03, Commission v Council (Environmental Penalties), ECR I-7879 [cit. in para 23]Google Scholar
  6. ECJ 23.10.2007, C-440/05, Commission v Council (Ship-source Pollution), ECR I-9097 [cit. in para 23]Google Scholar
  7. ECJ 20.05.2008, C-91/05, Commission v Council (Small Arms), ECR I-3651 [cit. in para 15]Google Scholar
  8. ECJ 03.06.2008, C-308/06, International Association of Independent Tanker Owners (Intertanko) and Others v. Secretary of State for Transport, ECR I-4057 [cit. in para 17, 20]Google Scholar
  9. ECJ 03.09.2008, C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P, Kadi and Al Barakaat v Council and Commission, ECR I-6351 [cit. in para 15, 17]Google Scholar


  1. ECtHR 30.06.2005, 45036/98, Bosphorus v Ireland [cit. in para 23]Google Scholar


  1. ICJ 28.05.1948, Advisory Opinion, Admission of a State to the United Nations (Charter, Art. 4), ICJ Rep. 57, p. 64 [cit. in para 12]Google Scholar
  2. ICJ 20.07.1962, Advisory Opinion, Certain Expenses of the United Nations (Article 17, paragraph 2, of the Charter), ICJ Rep. 151 [cit. in para 13, 14, 20]Google Scholar
  3. ICJ 20.12.1980, Advisory Opinion, Interpretation of the Agreement of 25 March 1951 between the WHO and Egypt, ICJ Rep. 73 [cit. in para 17]Google Scholar
  4. ICJ 08.07.1996, Advisory Opinion, Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict, ICJ Rep. 66 [cit. in para 12]Google Scholar


  1. Allen, D. (1982). Political cooperation and the Euro-Arab dialogue. In D. Allen, R. Rummel, & W. Wessels (Eds.), European political cooperation: Towards a foreign policy for Western Europe (pp. 69–82). London: Butterworth Scientific.Google Scholar
  2. Alvarez, J. E. (1996). Nuremberg revisited: The Tadic case. European Journal of International Law, 7(2), 245–264.Google Scholar
  3. Amerasinghe, C. F. (2005). Principles of the institutional law of international organizations (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Blockmans, S. (Ed.). (2008). The European Union and crisis management: Policy and legal aspects. The Hague: T.M.C. Asser.Google Scholar
  5. Bonvicini, G. (1998). Making European foreign policy work. In M. Westlake (Ed.), The European Union beyond Amsterdam: New concepts of European integration (pp. 55–67). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Calliess, C., & Ruffert, M. (Eds.). (2010). EUV/AUEV Kommentar: Das Verfassungsrecht der Europäischen Union mit Europäischer Grundrechtecharta (4th ed.). Munich: Beck.Google Scholar
  7. Cloos, J., Reinesch, G., Vignes, D., & Weyland, J. (1993). Le Traité de Maastricht: Genése, Analyse, Commentaires. Bruxelles: Bruylants.Google Scholar
  8. Coignez, V. (1992). The test case of consistency: The San José dialogue. In R. Rummel (Ed.), Toward political union: Planning a Common Foreign and Security Policy in the European Community (pp. 99–114). Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  9. Corbett, R. (1993). The treaty of Maastricht from conception to ratification: A comprehensive reference guide. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
  10. Cremona, M. (1994). The Common Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union and the external relations powers of the European Community. In D. O’Keeffe & P. M. Twomey (Eds.), Legal issues of the Maastricht treaty (pp. 247–258). London: Chancery Law Publishing.Google Scholar
  11. Cremona, M. (2003). The draft constitutional treaty: External relations and external action. Common Market Law Review, 40(6), 1347–1366.Google Scholar
  12. Dashwood, A. (1998). External relations provisions of the Amsterdam treaty. Common Market Law Review, 35(5), 1019–1045.Google Scholar
  13. Dashwood, A. (2008). The law and practice of CFSP joint actions. In M. Cremona & B. de Witte (Eds.), EU foreign relations law: Constitutional fundamentals (pp. 53–77). Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
  14. de Schoutheete, P. (1988). The presidency and the management of political cooperation. In A. E. Pijpers, E. Regelsberger, & W. Wessels (Eds.), European political cooperation in the 1980s: A common foreign policy for Western Europe? (pp. 71–83). Dordrecht: Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  15. de Wet, E. (2004). The chapter VII powers of the United Nations Security Council. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
  16. de Wet, E. (2009). The role of European Courts in the development of a hierarchy of norms within international law: Evidence of constitutionalisation? European Constitutional Law Review, 5(2), 284 et seqq.Google Scholar
  17. de Witte, B. (2008). Legal instruments and law-making in the Lisbon treaty. In S. Griller & J. Ziller (Eds.), The Lisbon treaty: EU constitutionalism without a constitutional treaty? (pp. 79–108). Vienna: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. de Witte, B. (2010). European Union law: How autonomous is its legal order? Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht, 65(1), 141–155.Google Scholar
  19. Denza, E. (2002). The intergovernmental pillars of the European Union. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  20. Denza, E. (2004). Lines in the sand: Between common foreign policy and single foreign policy. In T. Tridimas & P. Nebbia (Eds.), European Union law for the twenty-first century: Rethinking the new legal order (pp. 259–272). Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
  21. Duke, S. (2008). Peculiarities in the institutionalisation of CFSP and ESDP. In S. Blockmans (Ed.), The European Union and crisis management: Policy and legal aspects (pp. 75–105). The Hague: T.M.C. Asser.Google Scholar
  22. Eaton, M. R. (1994). Common Foreign and Security Policy. In D. O’Keeffe & P. M. Twomey (Eds.), Legal issues of the Maastricht treaty (pp. 215–225). London: Chancery Law Publishing.Google Scholar
  23. Edwards, G., & Nuttall, S. (1994). Common Foreign and Security Policy. In A. Duff, J. Pinder, & R. Pryce (Eds.), Maastricht and beyond: Building the European Union (pp. 84–103). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Eeckhout, P. (2005). External relations of the European Union: Legal and constitutional foundations. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  25. Everling, U. (1992). Reflections on the structure of the European Union. Common Market Law Review, 29(6), 1053–1077.Google Scholar
  26. Fink-Hooijer, F. (1994). The Common Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union. European Journal of International Law, 5(1), 173–198.Google Scholar
  27. Fremuth, M., & Griebel. J. (2007). On the Security Council as a legislator: A blessing or a curse for the International Community? Nordic Journal of International Law, 76(4), 339 et seqq.Google Scholar
  28. Frowein, J., & Kirsch, N. (2002). Introduction to chapter VII. In B. Simma, A. Paulus, & H. Chaitidou (Eds.), The charter of the United Nations: A commentary (2nd ed., pp. 701–716). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  29. Gordley, J. (2004). Impossibility and changed and unforeseen circumstances. American Journal of Comparative Law, 52(3), 513–530.Google Scholar
  30. Gosalbo Bono, R. (2006). Some reflections on the CFSP legal order. Common Market Law Review, 43(2), 337–394.Google Scholar
  31. Grabitz, E., Hilfand, M., & Nettesheim, M. (2010). Das Recht der Europäischen Union. Loose leaf. Munich: Beck.Google Scholar
  32. Graf von Kielmansegg, S. (2005). Die Verteidingungspolitik der Europäischen Union: Eine Rechtliche Analyse. Stuttgart: Boorberg Verlag.Google Scholar
  33. Graf von Kielmansegg, S. (2007). The European Union’s competence in defence policy – Scope and limits. European Law Review, 32, 213–231.Google Scholar
  34. Greig, D. W. (1991). Self-defence and the Security Council: What does article 51 require? International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 40, 366–402.Google Scholar
  35. Gröne, D. (1993). Die Europäische Politische Zusammenarbeit (1970-1991). Rheinfelden: Schäuble.Google Scholar
  36. Heliskoski, J. (2008). Small arms and light weapons within the Union’s pillar structure: An analysis of article 47 of the EU treaty. European Law Review, 33, 898–912.Google Scholar
  37. Herlin-Karnell, E. (2008). “Light weapons” and the dynamics of art 47 EU – The EC’s armoury of ever expanding competences. Modern Law Review, 71, 987–1014.Google Scholar
  38. Hillion, C., & Wessel, R. A. (2009). Competence distribution in EU external relations after ECOWAS: Clarification or continued fuzziness? Common Market Law Review, 46(2), 551–586.Google Scholar
  39. Hinarejos, A. (2007). Judicial control of CFSP in the constitutional treaty: A cherry worth picking? 2006 Yearbook of European Law. Yearbook of European Law, 25, 363–394.Google Scholar
  40. Hinojosa Martínez, L. M. (2008). Bad law for good reasons: The contradictions of the Kadi judgment. International Organizations Law Review, 5(2), 339–35.7.Google Scholar
  41. Holland, M. (1991a). The European community and South Africa: European political cooperation under strain. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  42. Holland, M. (1991b). Sanctions as an EPC instrument. In M. Holland (Ed.), The future of European political cooperation: Essays on theory and practice (pp. 180–198). New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  43. Howorth, J. (2007). Security and defence policy in the European Union. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  44. Hulsroj, P. (2002). The legal function of the Security Council. Chinese Journal of International Law, 1(1), 59–93.Google Scholar
  45. Juncos, A. E., & Reynolds, C. (2007). The Political and Security Committee: Governing in the shadow. European Foreign Affairs Review, 12(2), 127–147.Google Scholar
  46. Jürgens, T. (1994). Die gemeinsame europäische Aussen- und Sicherheitspolitik. Köln: Heymann.Google Scholar
  47. Kavanagh, J. J. (1997). Attempting to run before learning to walk: Problems of the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy. Boston College International and Comparative Law Review, 20, 353–368.Google Scholar
  48. Ketvel, M.-G. G. (2006). The jurisdiction of the European court of justice in respect of the Common Foreign and Security Policy. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 55, 77–120.Google Scholar
  49. Klabbers, J. (2009). An introduction to international institutional law (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Koskenniemi, M. (1998). International law aspects of the Common Foreign and Security Policy. In M. Koskenniemi (Ed.), International Law aspects of the European Union (pp. 27–44). The Hague: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
  51. Koutrakos, P. (2001). Trade, foreign policy and defence in EU constitutional law: The legal regulation of sanctions, exports of dual-use goods and armaments. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
  52. Koutrakos, P. (2006). EU international relations law. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
  53. Koutrakos, P. (2008). Development and foreign policy: Where to draw the line between the pillars? European Law Review, 33, 289–290.Google Scholar
  54. Lak, M. W. J. (1989). Interaction between European political cooperation and the European Community (external) – Existing rules and challenges. Common Market Law Review, 26(2), 281–299.Google Scholar
  55. Laursen, F., & Vanhoonacker, S. (Eds.). (1992). The intergovernmental conference on political union: Institutional reforms, new policies and international identity of the European Community. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  56. Lauterpacht, H. (1933). The function of law in the International Community. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  57. Lauterpacht, E. (1965). The legal effect of illegal acts of international organisations. In R. Y. Jennings (Ed.), Cambridge essays in international law: Essays in honour of Lord McNair (pp. 88–121). London: Stevens and Sons.Google Scholar
  58. Ličková, M. (2008). European exceptionalism in international law. European Journal of International Law, 19(3), 463–490.Google Scholar
  59. MacLeod, I., Hendry, I. D., & Hyett, S. (1996). The external relations of the European communities: A manual of law and practice. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  60. McGoldrick, D. (1997). International relations law of the European Union. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  61. Monar, J. (1997). Mostar: Three lessons for the European Union. European Foreign Affairs Review, 2(1), 1–5.Google Scholar
  62. Münch, L. (1997). Die gemeinsame Aktion als Mittel der Gemeinsamen Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
  63. Murphy, D. T. (1998). The European Union’s Common Foreign and Security Policy: It is not far from Maastricht to Amsterdam. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 31, 871–913.Google Scholar
  64. Naert, F. (2005). European security and defence in the EU constitutional treaty. Journal of Conflict and Security Law, 10(2), 187–207.Google Scholar
  65. Naert, F. (2008). Accountability for violations of human rights law by EU forces. In S. Blockmans (Ed.), The European Union and crisis management: Policy and legal aspects (pp. 375–393). The Hague: T.M.C. Asser.Google Scholar
  66. Naert, F. (2010). International law aspects of the EU’s security and defence policy, with a particular focus on the law of armed conflict and human rights. Antwerp: Intersentia.Google Scholar
  67. Neuwahl, N. (1994). Foreign and security policy and the implementation of the requirement of “consistency” under the treaty on European Union. In D. O’Keeffe & P. M. Twomey (Eds.), Legal issues of the Maastricht treaty (pp. 227–246). London: Chancery Law Publishing.Google Scholar
  68. Nuttall, S. (1987). Interaction between European political co-operation and the European community. Yearbook of European Law, 7, 211–249.Google Scholar
  69. Nuttall, S. (2000). European foreign policy. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  70. Pagani, F. (1996). L’Administration de Mostar par l’Union Européenne. Annuaire Français de Droit International, 42, 234–254.Google Scholar
  71. Pechstein, M., & Koenig, C. (2000). Die Europäische Union. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
  72. Piris, J.-C. (2010). The Lisbon treaty: A legal and political analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Puelinckx, A. H. (1986). Frustration, hardship, force majeure, imprevision, Wegfall der Geschäftsgrundlage, Unmöglichkeit, changed circumstances – A comparative study in English, French, German and Japanese law. Journal of International Arbitration, 3, 47–66.Google Scholar
  74. Regelsberger, E. (1991). The twelve’s dialogue with third countries – Progress towards a communauté d’action? In M. Holland (Ed.), The future of European political cooperation: essays on theory and practice (pp. 161–179). New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  75. Rummel, R. (1988). Speaking with one voice – And beyond. In A. E. Pijpers, E. Regelsberger, & W. Wessels (Eds.), European political cooperation in the 1980s: A common foreign policy for Western Europe? (pp. 118–142). Dordrecht: Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  76. Sands, P., & Klein, P. (2009). Bowett’s Law of international institutions (6th ed.). London: Sweet & Maxwell.Google Scholar
  77. Sari, A. (2012a). Decisions on operational action and union positions: Back to the future? In H.-J. Blanke & S. Mangiameli (Eds.), The European Union after Lisbon: Constitutional basis, economic order and external action (pp. 533–550). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  78. Sari, A. (2012b). Between legalization and organizational development: Explaining the evolution of EU competence in the field of foreign policy. In P. J. Cardwell (Ed.), EU external relations law and policy in the post-Lisbon era (pp. 59–95). The Hague: TMC Asser Press.Google Scholar
  79. Sari, A., & Wessel R. A. (2013). International responsibility for EU military operations: finding the EU’s Place in the global accountability regime. In S. Blockmans, B. van Vooren, & J. Wouters (Eds.), The legal dimension of global governance: What role for the EU? (pp. 126–141). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  80. Sarooshi, D. (1996). The legal framework governing United Nations subsidiary organs. British Yearbook of International Law, 67, 413–478.Google Scholar
  81. Sarooshi, D. (1999). The United Nations and the development of collective security: The delegation by the UN Security Council of its chapter VII powers. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  82. Scannell, D. (2004). Financing ESDP military operations. European Foreign Affairs Review, 9(4), 529–549.Google Scholar
  83. Schermers, H. G., & Blokker, N. (2003). International institutional law: Unity within diversity (4th ed.). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  84. Schneider, H. (1997). The twelve/fifteen’s conference diplomacy: Has the CSCE/OSCE remained a successful platform? In E. Regelsberger, P. de Schoutheete de Tervarent, & W. Wessels (Eds.), Foreign policy of the European Union: From EPC to CFSP and beyond (pp. 237–261). Boulder: L. Rienner.Google Scholar
  85. Schöllhorn, H. (1996). Der sicherheitspolitische Handlungsrahmen der Europäischen Union: Eine Darstellung der rechtlichen und tatsächlichen Möglichkeiten für operative Maßnahmen der Krisenbewältigung. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  86. Schweisfurth, T. (2002). Article 34. In B. Simma, A. Paulus, & H. Chaitidou (Eds.), The charter of the United Nations: A Commentary (2nd ed., pp. 594–608). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  87. Smith, M. E. (2004). Europe’s Foreign and Security Policy: The institutionalism of governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  88. Sohn, L. B., & Yegorov, S. A. (1991). Prevention and peaceful resolution of international conflicts, crises, and diputes. In P. B. Stephan & B. M. Klimenko (Eds.), International law and international security: Military and political dimensions (pp. 262–275). London: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
  89. Stein, E. (1983). European Political Cooperation (EPC) as a component of the European foreign affairs system. Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht, 43(1), 49–69.Google Scholar
  90. Stein, E. (1990). External relations of the European community: Structure and process. Collected Courses of the Academy of European Law, 1, 115–188.Google Scholar
  91. Talmon, S. (2005). The Security Council as world legislature. American Journal of International Law, 99(1), 175–193.Google Scholar
  92. Talmon, S. A. G. (2009). Security Council Treaty action. Revue Hellénique de Droit International, 62, 65–116.Google Scholar
  93. Thirlway, H. (2002). Concepts, principles, rules and analogies: International and municipal legal reasoning. Recueil des Cours, 294, 265–405.Google Scholar
  94. Thym, D. (2009). Foreign affairs. In A. von Bogdandy & J. Bast (Eds.), Principles of European constitutional law (2nd ed., pp. 309–343). Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
  95. Timmermans, C. W. A. (1996). The uneasy relationship between the communities and the Second Union Pillar: Back to the “Plan Fouchet”? Legal Issues of European Integration, 1, 61–70.Google Scholar
  96. Tomuschat, C. (2002). The international responsibility of the European Union. In E. Cannizzaro (Ed.), The European Union as an actor in international relations (pp. 177–191). The Hague: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
  97. Torres Bernárdez, S. (1998). Subsidiary organs. In R.-J. Dupuy (Ed.), Manuel sur les organisations internationales: A handbook on international organizations (2nd ed., pp. 109–153). Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  98. Trybus, M. (2005). European Union law and defence integration. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
  99. Trybus, M. (2006). The New European Defence Agency: A Contribution to a Common European Security and Defence Policy and a Challenge to the Community Acquis? Common Market Law Review, 43(3), 667–703.Google Scholar
  100. van Vooren, B. (2009a). The small arms judgment in an age of constitutional turmoil. European Foreign Affairs Review, 14(1), 231–248.Google Scholar
  101. van Vooren, B. (2009b). EU-EC external competences after the small arms judgment. European Foreign Affairs Review, 14(2), 7–24.Google Scholar
  102. von der Groeben, H., Thiesing, J., & Ehlermann, C.-D. (Eds.). (1997). Kommentar zum EU-/EG-Vertrag (5th ed., Vol. 5). Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  103. von Goll, G. (1982). The nine at the conference on security and cooperation in Europe. In D. Allen, R. Rummel, & W. Wessels (Eds.), European political cooperation: Towards a foreign policy for Western Europe (pp. 60–68). London: Butterworth Scientific.Google Scholar
  104. Warnken, M. (2002). Der Handlungsrahmen der Europäischen Union im Bereich der Sicherheits- und Verteidigungspolitik. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  105. Wessel, R. A. (1996). Procedural priming of an EU Common Foreign and Security Policy. In J. de Wilde & H. Wiberg (Eds.), Organized anarchy in Europe: The role of states and intergovernmental organizations (pp. 267–280). London: Tauris.Google Scholar
  106. Wessel, R. A. (1999). The European Union’s Foreign and Security Policy: A legal institutional perspective. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
  107. Wessel, R. A. (2009). The dynamics of the European Union legal order: An increasingly coherent framework of action and interpretation. European Constitutional Law Review, 5(1), 117–142.Google Scholar
  108. Wessels, W. (1982). European Political Cooperation: A new approach to foreign policy. In D. Allen, R. Rummel, & W. Wessels (Eds.), European Political Cooperation: Towards a foreign policy for Western Europe (pp. 1–20). London: Butterworth Scientific.Google Scholar
  109. Ziegler, K. S. (2009). Strengthening the rule of law, but fragmenting international law: The Kadi decision of the ECJ from the perspective of human rights. Human Rights Law Review, 9(2), 288–305.Google 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