Going Global? The EU Common Commercial Policy After Lisbon

Bungenberg, Marc

doi:10.1007/978-3-540-78883-6_6

Marc Bungenberg³

Part of the book series: European Yearbook of International Economic Law ((EUROYEAR,volume 1))

1171 Accesses
25 Citations

Abstract

The EU is competing with the other economic superpowers for the biggest influence in world economic affairs; the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China) are challenging the existing economic order, and add with their own interests a further complication of matters. A multilateral approach seems most unlikely. A coalition between the USA and the EU to influence the world economic order in a democratic and western market economy driven way — even if this model is envisaged by political scientists and economists — is wishful thinking. Such an EU–USA economic cooperation is not mentioned in the 2006 Commission Communication on “Global Europe, Competing in the World.” Bergsten recently proposed that China and the USA should as a new “G2” work together on and be responsible for the new world order, putting the EU — still an economic superpower but without a clear voice — aside.¹ Thus, in political reality the USA and the EU, even though economically highly interdependent, are both acting independently from each other. By more and more favoring preferential trade agreements (PTAs²) they set up their trade agreement networks in a manner comparable to superhubs in air transport.³ A competition between the EU, the USA, China and the other emerging markets for their position in the new economic order of the twenty-first century therefore is the challenge the actors have to adapt to. With the Treaty of Lisbon,⁴ the EU is seeking — once again — to become a major player in this arena, since before as well as after the entry into force of the Treaty the Common Commercial Policy (CCP) determines the legal basis for Europe’s place in its global economic relations.

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)

eBook: USD 129.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 169.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 169.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
Bergsten, A Partnership of Equals, Foreign Affairs 87 (2008) 4, p. 57.
2.
See, on the general usage of the term PTA instead of FTA (free-trade agreement) and RTA (regional trade agreement), Bhagwati, Termites in the Trading System, 2008, p. XI.
3.
On the USA and the EU as superhubs, see Lloyd/MacLaren, The EU’s New Trade Strategy and Regionalisation in the World Economy, Aussenwirtschaft 61 (2006) 4, p. 423.
4.
O.J. 2007 C 306/1 et seq.
5.
For an overview, see Chaisse, Adapting the European Community Legal Structures to the International Trade, EBLR (2006), p. 1615 et seq.; Krenzler/Pitschas, Die Gemeinsame Handelspolitik im Verfassungsvertrag — ein Schritt in die richtige Richtung, in: Herrmann/Krenzler/Streinz (eds.), Die Außenhandelspolitik im Vertrag über eine Verfassung für Europa, 2005, p. 5 sec.
6.
For an overview, see Cremona, The External Dimension of the Single Market, in: Bernard/Scott (eds.), The Law of the Single European Market — Unpacking the Premises, 2002, p. 351 et seq.
7.
See on this, for example, Sally, The End of the Road for the WTO? A snapshot of international trade policy after Cancun, World Economics 5 (2004) 1, p. 1 et seq; see also Cremona, p. 2, in this volume.
8.
Especially on this, see for example Bhagwati, Don’t Cry for Cancún, Foreign Affairs (2004), p. 52 et seq.; Hauser, Die WTO nach Cancun, Aussenwirtschaft 58 (2003), p. 459 et seq.
9.
Sally, The End of the Road for the WTO? A snapshot of international trade policy after Cancun, World Economics 5 (2004) 1, p. 1 et seq. (6).
10.
On this, see Communication from the Commission, Global Europe: Competing in the World, COM (2006) 567 final.
11.
Elaborating on this, see Khanna, The Second World, Empires and Influence of the New Global Order, 2008; Huliaras/Magliveras, In Search of a Policy: EU and US Reactions to Growing Chinese Presence in Africa, EFA Rev. 13 (2008) pp. 399–420.
12.
Meessen, Economic Law in Globalizing Markets, 2004, pp. 8 et seq.
13.
See on this Meessen/Bungenberg/Puttler (eds.), Economic Law as an Economic Good, 2009.
14.
Communication from the Commission, Global Europe: Competing in the World, COM (2006) 567 final.
15.
Conclusions, European Council (Laeken) 14/15 March 2001.
16.
European Council, Presidency Conclusions — Annex on “EU Declaration on Globalisation,” 14 December 2007.
17.
See on this question also Wouters/Coppens/De Meester, External Relations after the Lisbon Treaty, in: Griller/Ziller (eds.), The Lisbon Treaty, 2009, p. 143 et seq.
18.
Eeckhout, The European Internal Market and International Trade, 1994, p. 344; see also Herrmann, Die Außenhandelsdimension des Binnenmarktes im Verfassungsentwurf, in Hatje/Terhechte (eds.), Das Binnenmarktziel in der europäischen Verfassung, EuR Beiheft 3/2004, pp. 175 et seq.
19.
See on this Tietje, Die Außenwirtschaftsverfassung der EU nach dem Vertrag von Lissabon, Beiträge zum Transnationalen Wirtschaftsrecht 83 (2009), p. 5, http://www.wirtschaftsrecht.uni-halle.de/InstitutWirtschaftsrecht/html/publikationen.html.
20.
ECJ, Opinion 1/78, (1979) ECR, 2871, para. 45.
21.
ECJ, Opinion 1/94, (1994) ECR I, p. 5267.
22.
Tietje, Die Außenwirtschaftsverfassung der EU nach dem Vertrag von Lissabon, Beiträge zum Transnationalen Wirtschaftsrecht 83 (2009), p. 5, http://www.wirtschaftsrecht.uni-halle.de/InstitutWirtschaftsrecht/html/publikationen.html.
23.
On this, see Herrmann, Common Commercial Policy after Nice: Sisyphus would have done a better job, CMLRev. 39 (2002) 1, p. 7 et seq.
24.
Maresceau, The Concept “Common Commercial Policy” and the difficult Road to Maastricht, in: Maresceau (ed.), The European Community’s Commercial Policy after 1992: The Legal Dimension, 1993, pp. 3–19.
25.
ECJ, Opinion 1/94, WTO-Opinion, (1994) ECR I, p. 5267.
26.
For a critical analysis of Opinion 1/94, see: Bourgeois, The EC in the WTO and Advisory Opinion 1/94: An Echternach Procession, CMLRev. 32 (1995), p. 763; Hilf, The ECJ’s Opinion 1/94 on the WTO, No surprise but Wise? EJIL 6 (1995), p. 245; Pescatore, Opinion 1/94 on Conclusion of the WTO Agreement: Is There an Escape from a Programmed Disaster? CMLRev. 36 (1999), p. 401 et seq.
27.
Articles 23–46 EU Treaty.
28.
Article 47 EU Treaty.
29.
Article 3 TFEU.
30.
Articles 205 and 207 TFEU.
31.
Cremona, A Constitutional Basis for Effective External Action? An Assessment of the Provisions on EU External Action in the Constitutional Treaty, EUI Working Papers Law No. 2006/30, p. 30, para. 52.
32.
Tietje, Die Außenwirtschaftsverfassung der EU nach dem Vertrag von Lissabon, Beiträge zum Transnationalen Wirtschaftsrecht 83, (2009), p. 19, http://www.wirtschaftsrecht.uni-halle.de/InstitutWirtschaftsrecht/html/publikationen.html.
33.
Vedder, Ziele der Gemeinsamen Handelspolitik und Ziele des auswärtigen Handelns, in: Herrmann/Krenzler/Streinz (eds.), Die Außenwirtschaftspolitik der Europäischen Union nach dem Verfassungsvertrag, 2005, p. 43 et seq. (47).
34.
Krajewski, External Trade Law and the Constitution Treaty: Towards a Federal and More Democratic Common Commercial Policy? CMLRev. (2005), p. 91 et seq.
35.
Wouters/Coppens/De Meester, External Relations after the Lisbon Treaty, in: Griller/Ziller (eds.), The Lisbon Treaty, 2009, p. 143 (p. 183 and 185).
36.
Cremona, The Draft Constitutional Treaty: External Relations and External Actions, CMLRev. (2003), p. 1347 et seq. (1364).
37.
See Article 218 par. 6 TFEU; see on this European Parliament, Opinion of the Committee on International Trade of 14 January 2008, Doc.-No. 2007/2286 (INI), pt. 3 f); on the similar provision in the Constitutional Treaty see for example Monar, Die Gemeinsame Handelspolitik der Europäischen Union im EU-Verfassungsentwurf, Aussenwirtschaft 60 (2005), p. 99 et seq. (111).
38.
European Parliament, Opinion of the Committee on International Trade of 14 January 2008, Doc.-No. 2007/2286 (INI), point 6 et seq.
39.
See Woolcock, The potential impact of the Lisbon Treaty on EU External Trade policy, SIEPS – European Policy Analysis 3/2008, p. 5; European Parliament 2008/2063(INI) of 27 May 2008.
40.
Resolution of the European Parliament of 14 December 2006, EP-Doc. A 6–4/2006. On this topic in general, see Bartels, Human Rights Conditionality in the EU’s International Agreements, 2005.
41.
Negotiations started in 1991, see OJ 1990 C 231/216.
42.
See Resolution of 24 April 2008.
43.
See on this also Woolcock, The potential impact of the Lisbon Treaty on EU External Trade policy, SIEPS – European Policy Analysis 3/2008, p. 1.
44.
See Cremona, The External Dimension of the Single Market, in: Bernard/Scott (eds.), The Law of the Single European Market – Unpacking the Premises, 2002, p. 354 seq. (359).
45.
ECJ, Opinion 1/75, (1975) ECR, p. 1355.
46.
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, OJ 1994 L 336/11.
47.
General Agreement on Trade in Services, OJ 1994 L 336/190.
48.
Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, OJ 1994 L336/213.
49.
ECJ Opinion 1/94, WTO-Opinion, (1994) ECR I, p. 5267.
50.
ECJ, Opinion 1/78, (1979) ECR, p. 2871, para. 45.
51.
ECJ, Opinion 1/94, WTO, (1994) ECR I, p. 5267, paras. 36–105.
52.
Dimopoulus, The Common Commercial Policy after Lisbon: Establishing Parallelism between Internal and External Economic Relations? Croatian Yearbook of European Law and Policy 4 (2008), p. 101 et seq. [at pt. 2 (a) (i)].
53.
Eeckhout, External Relations of the European Union – Legal and Constitutional Foundations, 2004, p. 57.
54.
For a discussion of the Amsterdam amendments of Article 133 EC Treaty see: Cremona, External economic relations and the Amsterdam Treaty, in: O’Keefe/Twomey, Legal Issues of the Amsterdam Treaty, 1999, pp. 225–247; Krenzler/de Fonseca-Wollheim, Die Reichweite der Gemeinsamen Handelspolitik nach dem Vertrag von Amsterdam, EuR 1998, p. 226.
55.
See on this Herrmann, Vom misslungenen Versuch der Neufassung der gemeinsamen Handelspolitik durch den Vertrag von Nizza, EuZW (2001), p. 269.
56.
See AG Kokott, Opinion delivered on 26 March 2009, C-13/07, Commission vs Council, point 1.
57.
On the difficulties in interpreting Art. 133(5) and 133(6) EC Treaty see AG Kokott, Opinion delivered on 26 March 2009, C-13/07, Commission vs Council.
58.
See Part III Title VI TFEU.
59.
See Woolcock, The potential impact of the Lisbon Treaty on EU External Trade policy, SIEPS — European Policy Analysis 3/2008, p. 3.
60.
Herrmann, Vom misslungenen Versuch der Neufassung der gemeinsamen Handelspolitik durch den Vertrag von Nizza, EuZW (2001), p. 269 (272).
61.
On the complexity of mixed agreements, see Bungenberg, Mixed Agreements im Gemeinschaftsrecht und nationalen Recht, in: Zehetner (ed.), FS H.-E. Folz, 2003, p. 13 et seq.; Rosas, The European Union and Mixed Agreements, in: Dashwood/Hillion (eds.), The General Law of the E.C. External Relations, 2000, p. 200 et seq.; Leal-Arcas, The European Community and Mixed Agreements, EFAR 6 (2001) p. 483 et seq.
62.
Woolcock, The potential impact of the Lisbon Treaty on EU External Trade policy, SIEPS — European Policy Analysis 3/2008, p. 3 et seq.
63.
Wouters/Coppens/De Meester, External Relations after the Lisbon Treaty, in: Griller/Ziller (eds.), The Lisbon Treaty, 2009, p. 143 et seq. (at p. 170).
64.
Wouters/Coppens/De Meester, External Relations after the Lisbon Treaty, in: Griller/Ziller (eds.), The Lisbon Treaty, 2009, p. 143 et seq. (at p. 171).
65.
See also Wouters/Coppens/De Meester, External Relations after the Lisbon Treaty, in: Griller/Ziller (eds.), The Lisbon Treaty, 2009, p. 143 et seq. (at p. 180).
66.
On this in general see Woolcock, European Union Policy towards Free Trade Agreements, ECIPE Working Paper 3/2007.
67.
Negotiations started on 28 June 2007.
68.
Negotiating directive for an association agreement 13 September 1999; negotiations ongoing.
69.
Negotiating Directive for the negotiation of a Free Trade Agreement with the Republic of South Korea adopted by the Council on 23 April 2007. FTA: Negotiations launched on 6 May 2007 in Seoul, concluded October 2009. 1st Round 7–11 May 2007 in Seoul, 7th Round 13–15 May 2008 in Brussels. Negotiation directive for the negotiation of the update of the existing 2001 Framework Agreement adopted by the Council in May 2008. Framework Agreement: 1st Round 17–18 June 2008 in Brussels.
70.
See Article XI WTO Agreement; elaborating in detail on the problems of parallel membership, see Herrmann, Rechtsprobleme der parallelen Mitgliedschaft von Völkerrechtssubjekten in Internationalen Organisationen: Eine Untersuchung am Beispiel der Mitgliedschaft der EG und ihrer Mitgliedstaaten in der WTO, in: Bauschke (ed.), Pluralität des Rechts, 2003, p. 139 et seq.
71.
On this point, see Herrmann, Das Auswärtige Handeln der EU, in: Streinz/Ohler/Herrmann (eds.), Der Vertrag von Lissabon zur Reform der EU, 2008, p. 128; Leal-Arcas, Will EU Member States Play Any Role at the WTO after the EU Reform Treaty? http://www.icl-law-journal.com, 1 (2007) 2, p. 75 et seq.
72.
On this, see Press Release Commission, 7 July 2008; also see for example NZZ of 2 July 2008 (“Streit zwischen Sarkozy und EU-Kommissar Mandelson”).
73.
At the moment, an action for annulment of the Council and Member States decision establishing the Community’ and Member States’ position within the WTO General Council on the accession of Vietnam is pending at the ECJ, C-13/07, OJ EU 2007 C-56, p. 22.
74.
Article X:3 and 4 WTO Agreement. On future problems relating to Article X WTO-Agreement, see also Herrmann, Die Außenhandelsdimension des Binnenmarktes im Verfassungsentwurf, in: Hatje/Terhechte (eds.), Das Binnenmarktziel in der europäischen Verfassung, EuR Beiheft 3/2004, p. 175 et seq. (198).
75.
Article XV WTO Agreement.
76.
Kokott, Article 302, in: Streinz (ed.), EU-/EGV Kommentar, 2003, Article 302 EC Treaty, para. 34.
77.
See for example McNamara, The EU Reform Treaty: A Threat to the Transatlantic Alliance, The Heritage Foundation, Backgrounder No. 2109, 20 February 2008, http://www.heritage.org/Research/Europe/bg2109.cfm.
78.
Karl, The Competence for Foreign Direct Investment — New Powers for the European Union? JWT&I 5 (2006) 3, p. 413 et seq. (415).
79.
On this, Maydell, The European Community’s Minimum Platform on Investment or the Trojan Horse of Investment Competence, in: Reinisch/Knahr (eds.), International Investment Law in Context, 2007, p. 73 et seq.
80.
Lesher/Miroudot, The Economic Impact on Investment Provisions in Regional Trade Agreements, OECD Trade Policy Working Paper No. 36/2006; Dolzer, Auslandsinvestitionen, Wachstum und Armutsbekämpfung: Zur Ordnung des Völkerrechts, in: Dolzer/Herdegen/Vogel, Auslandsinvestitionen, 2006, p. 13 et seq. (18); questioning this Salacuse/Sullivan, Do BITs really work?: An Evaluation of Bilateral Investment Treaties and Their Grand Bargain, Harvard International Law Journal 46 (2005), p. 67 et seq.; Neumayer/Spess, Do Bilateral Investment Treaties Increase Foreign Direct Investment to Developing Countries? World Development 33 (2005), p. 1567 et seq.
81.
McGuire/Smith, The European Union and the United States – Competition and Convergence in the Global Arena, 2008, p. 142.
82.
See on this UNCTAD, World Investment Report, 2005, p. 6 et seq.
83.
See Chapter III Art. 1 MAI Negotiating Text, http://www1.oecd.org/daf/mai/pdf/ng/ng987r1e.pdf.
84.
Gugler/Tomsik, The North American and European Approaches in the International Investment Agreements, NCCR Working Paper No. 2006/04, p. 4.
85.
WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1 of 20 November 2001, point 20.
86.
McGuire/Smith, The European Union and the United States – Competition and Convergence in the Global Arena, 2008, p. 121.
87.
Bora, Investment Issues in the WTO, in: Hocking/McGuire (eds.), Trade Politics, (2nd ed.) 2004, p. 208 et seq.
88.
Gugler/Tomsik, The North American and European Approaches in the International Investment Agreements, NCCR Working Paper No. 2006/04, p. 12; WTO Doc. WT/WTGTI/W121, Concept Paper on Modalities of Pre-Establishment (Communication from the EC and its Members).
89.
See for example Baghwati, Don’t Cry for Cancún, Foreign Affairs 83 (2004), p. 52 et seq.
90.
“July package” of 31 July 2005, WT/L/579.
91.
See Woolcock, European Union Policy towards Free Trade Agreements, ECIPE Working Paper No. 03/2007.
92.
See on this Communication from the Commission, Global Europe: Competing in the World, COM (2006) 567 final.
93.
Commission, Upgrading the EU Investment Policy, Note for the attention of the 133 Committee, Brussels, 30 May 2006.
94.
O.J. 2002 L-352, signed on 18 November 2002.
95.
Note of the Commission from November 2006, Internal Market and Services DG, sent to the Economic and Financial Committee; excerpts of this note in Eastern Sugar vs Czech Republic, Partial Award, 27 March 2007 (UNCITRAL Arbitration, Stockholm Chamber of Commerce) (Netherlands/Czech Republic BIT), p. 27.
96.
Van Aaken, Fragmentation of International Law: The Case of International Investment Protection, Finnish Yearbook of Int’l Law (2008), p. 93, at p. 121.
97.
ECJ, C-524/04 — Test Claimants, (2007) ECR I, p. 2107; ECJ, C-196/04 — Cadbury Schweppes, (2006), ECR I, p. 7995.
98.
ECJ, 4/73 — Nold, (1974) ECR, p. 491; ECJ C-84/95 — Bosphorus, (1996) ECR I, p. 3953.
99.
Söderlund, Intra-EU Investment Protection and the EC Treaty, JIA 24 (2007), p. 455.
100.
Van Aaken, Fragmentation of International Law: The Case of International Investment Protection, Finnish Yearbook of Int’l Law (2008), p. 93, at p. 123.
101.
See Letter of 13 January 2006, from Schaub, Internal Market and Services, to Zelinka, Czech Deputy Minister of Finance, excerpts of this letter in Eastern Sugar vs Czech Republic, Partial Award, 27 March 2007 (UNCITRAL Arbitration, Stockholm Chamber of Commerce) (Netherlands/Czech Republic BIT), p. 24 et seq.
102.
See on this, for example, Eastern Sugar vs Czech Republic, Partial Award, 27 March 2007 (UNCITRAL Arbitration, Stockholm Chamber of Commerce) (Netherlands/Czech Republic BIT).
103.
Söderlund, Intra-EU Investment Protection and the EC Treaty, JIA 24 (2007), p. 455 (456 et seq.).
104.
Report of the ILA 2008, Committee on Foreign Investment; for ECJ Jurisdiction on state-to-state dispute settlement, see Case C-459/03 – MOX Plant decision (Commission v. Ireland), (2006) ECR I, p. 4635.
105.
See ILA, Committee on Foreign Investment, Conference Report 2008; Burgstaller, European Law and Investment Treaties, JIA 26 (2009), p. 181, at p. 193.
106.
See on this Abbott, EU Trade Policy — Approaching a Crossroads, Chatham House briefing paper, June 2008; Woolcock, European Union policy towards Free trade Agreements, ECIPE Working Paper No. 3/2007.
107.
See the Joint Declaration of the Paris Summit for the Mediterranean of 13 July 2008.
108.
On this for example Bhagwati, Termites in the Trading System, 2008; Sally, Trade Policy, New Century: The WTO, FTAs and Asia Rising, 2008.
109.
Maydell, The European Community’s Minimum Platform on Investment or the Trojan Horse of Investment Competence, in: Reinisch/Knahr (eds.), International Investment Law in Context, 2007, p. 73 et seq.; see on this Ceyssens, Towards a Common Foreign Investment Policy? – Foreign Investment in the European Constitution, Legal Issues of Economic Integration (2005), p. 259 et seq.; Karl, The Competence for Foreign Direct Investment — New Powers for the European Union? JWT&I 5 (2006) 3, p. 413 et seq.; Mola, Which Role for the EU in the Development of International Investment Law? Society of International Economic Law, Online Proceedings Working Paper No. 26/08 http://www.ssrn.com/link/SIEL-Inaugural-Conference.html.
110.
ILA, Committee on Foreign Investment, Conference Report 2008, p. 8; for further details, see Eeckhout, External Relations of the European Union, 2004, p. 58 et seq.
111.
ECJ, 22/70 — ERTA (Commission vs Council), (1971) ECR, 263; on this doctrine see for example Emiliou, Competence between the EC and its Member States, in: Emiliou/O’Keeffe (eds.), The European Union and World Trade Law, 1996, p. 38 et seq.
112.
ECJ, Opinion 2/92 — OECD National Treatment Instruments, (1994) ECR I, p. 5267; see on this Ceyssens, Towards a Common Foreign Investment Policy?, Legal Issues of Economic Integration (2005), p. 259, at p. 260.
113.
Maydell, The European Community’s Minimum Platform on Investment or the Trojan Horse of Investment Competence, in: Reinisch/Knahr (eds.), International Investment Law in Context, 2007, p. 73 et seq., and p. 81 et seq.
114.
O.J. 2002 L-352, signed on 18 November 2002.
115.
See Woolcock, European Union policy towards Free Trade Agreements, ECIPE Working Paper No. 3/2007, p. 8 et seq.
116.
See EU Commission, September 2007, on EU–India FTA http://www.euindiachambers.com/Events/euindiafta.pdf.
117.
EU Commission, Upgrading the EU Investment Policy, Note of 30 May 2006 for the attention of the 133 Committee, Brussels.
118.
Council of the European Union, 15375/06 of 27 November 2006.
119.
Maydell, The European Community’s Minimum Platform on Investment or the Trojan Horse of Investment Competence, in: Reinisch/Knahr (eds.), International Investment Law in Context, 2007, p. 73 et seq. (75).
120.
Eriksson, Financial Times of 12 March 2008.
121.
See on this Ceyssens, Towards a Common Foreign Investment Policy? – Foreign Investment in the European Constitution, Legal Issues of Economic Integration (2005), p. 259 seq.
122.
On the application of Article 307 EC Treaty analog to these constellations in general see Terhechte, Art. 307, in: Schwarze (ed.), EU-Kommentar, 2008, pt. 15.
123.
Case C-205/06, Commission vs Austria.
124.
Case C-249/06, Commission vs Sweden.
125.
Case C-118/07, Commission vs Finland.
126.
Case 812/79, Attorney General vs Burgoa, 1980 E.C.R. 2787, at para. 6.
127.
See the Opinion of Advocate General Tizzano in Case C-216/01 — Budvar, (2003) ECR I, p. 13617, point 150; Opinion of AG Maduro, Case C-402/05 — Kadi, point 32; Opinion of Advocate General Maduro delivered on 10 July 2008, Case C-205/06 — Commission vs Austria and Case C-249/06 – Commission vs Sweden, point 33.
128.
ECJ, C-249/06, Dec. of 3 March 2009 – Commission vs Sweden, pt. 45.
129.
Opinion of AG Maduro in Case C-205/06, Commission vs Austria, point 33.
130.
ECJ, Judgments of 3 March 2009, C-249/06 Commission vs Sweden; C-205/06 Commission vs Austria.
131.
See Annual EFC Report 2007, point 18.
132.
European Commission, Draft Articles Concerning External Action, CONV 685/03, 23 April 2003.
133.
Karl, The Competence for Foreign Direct Investment — New Powers for the European Union? JWT&I 5 (2006) 3, p. 413 et seq. (425); see on the effectiveness of the EU Member States as members of the EU, the latter with a collective weight behind it Mandelson, The European Union in the Global Age, 2007, p. 15 et seq., http://www.policy-network.net.
134.
See on this Woolcock, The potential impact of the Lisbon Treaty on EU External Trade policy, SIEPS — European Policy Analysis 3/2008, p. 8 et seq.
135.
European Commission Staff Working Document SEC (2006) 1230, p. 18.
136.
See ILA Report (footnote 104).
137.
See Article 2 EU Treaty. According to the definition given to “exclusive competence” by Article 2 EU Treaty (Lisbon version) “only the Union may legislate and adopt legally binding acts, the Member States being able to do so themselves only if so empowered by the Union or for the implementation of Union acts.”
138.
Karl, The Competence for Foreign Direct Investment – New Powers for the European Union? JWT&I 5 (2006), p. 413 et seq. (420).
139.
IMF Balance of Payments Manual, 1993.
140.
Directive 88/361/EEC, 1988 O.J. L-187/5.
141.
See for example Leczeykiewicz, German Law Journal 6 (2005), p. 1675 (1677); Krajewski, External Trade Law and the Constitution Treaty: Towards a Federal and More Democratic Common Commercial Policy? CMLRev. (2005), p. 91 et seq. (112).
142.
See also Tietje, Die Außenwirtschaftsverfassung der EU nach dem Vertrag von Lissabon, Beiträge zum Transnationalen Wirtschaftsrecht 83, (2009), p. 14, http://www.wirtschaftsrecht.uni-halle.de/InstitutWirtschaftsrecht/html/publikationen.html.
143.
ECJ, 4/73 — Nold, (1974) ECR, 491; ECJ, C-84/95 — Bosphorus, (1996) ECR I, 3953.
144.
Karl, The Competence for Foreign Direct Investment — New Powers for the European Union? JWT&I 5(2006) 3, p. 413 et seq. (p. 422).
145.
Dimopoulus, The Common Commercial Policy after Lisbon: Establishing Parallelism between Internal and External Economic Relations? Croatian Yearbook of European Law and Policy 4 (2008), p. 101 et seq. (text at footnote 46); see also Karl, The Competence for Foreign Direct Investment — New Powers for the European Union? JWT&I 5(2006) 3, p. 413 et seq. (421); Ceyssens, Towards a Common Foreign Investment Policy? — Foreign Investment in the European Constitution, Legal Issues of Economic Integration (2005), p. 259 seq. (278).
146.
ICJ, Case 182/83 – Fearon, (1984) ECR, p. 3677.
147.
Dimopoulus, The Common Commercial Policy after Lisbon: Establishing Parallelism between Internal and External Economic Relations? Croatian Yearbook of European Law and Policy 4 (2008), p. 101 et seq. (text at footnote 47).
148.
See on this The Economist of 25 Oct. 2008, p. 16 (The State as Owner — Re bonjour, Monsieur Colbert), p. 33 (Nicolas Sarkozy — The President who Loved Summits), p. 34 (France tests a Different Type of National Champion).
149.
See below p. 147.
150.
See the overview under http://www.worldbank.org/icsid.
151.
Ceyssens, Towards a Common Foreign Investment Policy? — Foreign Investment in the European Constitution, Legal Issues of Economic Integration (2005), p. 259 seq. at p. 287; Pitschas/Krenzler, Die Gemeinsame Handelspolitik im Verfassungsvertrag — ein Schritt in die richtige Richtung, in: Herrmann/Krenzler/Streinz (eds.), Die Außenwirtschaftspolitik der Europäischen Union nach dem Verfassungsvertrag, 2005, p. 11 et seq. (31).
152.
See on this Ceyssens, Towards a Common Foreign Investment Policy? — Foreign Investment in the European Constitution, Legal Issues of Economic Integration (2005), p. 259 seq.
153.
ILA, Committee on Foreign Investment, Conference Report 2008.
154.
Opinion of Advocate General Maduro delivered on 10 July 2008 in Case C-205/06 — Commission vs Austria and Case C-249/06 – Commission vs Sweden, point 33.
155.
On the application of Article 307 EC Treaty analogically to these constellations in general, see Terhechte, Art. 307, in: Schwarze (ed.), EU-Kommentar, 2008, pt. 15.
156.
ECJ, C-249/06, Commission vs Sweden, Dec. of 3 March 2009, C-205/06, Commission vs Austria, Dec. of 3 March 2009.
157.
Cf. the Opinion of Advocate General Tizzano in Case C-216/01 – Budvar, (2003) ECR I, 3617, para. 150; Opinion of Advocate General Maduro in Case C-402/05 – Kadi, para. 32; Opinion of Advocate General Maduro in Case C-205/06, delivered on 10 July 2008, Commission vs Austria and Case C-249/06, Commission vs Sweden, para. 33.
158.
ECJ, C-249/06, Commission vs Sweden, Dec. of 3 March 2009, para. 33.
159.
Tietje, Die Außenwirtschaftsverfassung der EU nach dem Vertrag von Lissabon, Beiträge zum Transnationalen Wirtschaftsrecht 83 (2009), p. 17 http://www.wirtschaftsrecht.uni-halle.de/InstitutWirtschaftsrecht/html/publikationen.html.
160.
See on this for possibility ECJ, 41/76 — Donckerwolcke, (1976) ECR 1921, at p. 1937.
161.
See on this Tietje, Die Außenwirtschaftsverfassung der EU nach dem Vertrag von Lissabon, Beiträge zum Transnationalen Wirtschaftsrecht 83 (2009) http://www.wirtschaftsrecht.uni-halle.de/InstitutWirtschaftsrecht/html/publikationen.html, p. 17; see on this practice also Vedder/Lorenzmeier, Art. 133 EG, in: Grabitz/Hilf (eds.), EG-/EU-Vertrag, pt. 23.
162.
See on this Ceyssens, Towards a Common Foreign Investment Policy? — Foreign Investment in the European Constitution, Legal Issues of Economic Integration (2005), p. 259 seq.
163.
Article 63 TFEU.
164.
Article 217 TFEU.
165.
Article 211 TFEU.
166.
Karl, The Competence for Foreign Direct Investment — New Powers for the European Union? JWT&I 5(2006) 3, p. 413 et seq. (425).
167.
See on this Ceyssens, Towards a Common Foreign Investment Policy? — Foreign Investment in the European Constitution, Legal Issues of Economic Integration (2005), p. 259 et seq. (282).
168.
ECJ, Opinion 2/00 — Cartagena Protocol, at para. 43–47.
169.
Krajewski, External Trade Law and the Constitution Treaty: Towards a Federal and More Democratic Common Commercial Policy? CMLRev. (2005), p. 91 et seq. (112).
170.
ECJ, 22/70 – ERTA (Commission vs Council), (1971) ECR, 263.
171.
See on this for example Comeaux/Kinsella, Protecting Foreign Investment Under International Law, 1997; Sornarajah, The International Law of Foreign Investment, 1994.
172.
Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency, ILM 24 (1985), p. 1598; in Germany the Government appointed a consortium formed by PricewaterhouseCoopers Aktiengesellschaft Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft (PwC AG), as lead partner, and Euler Hermes Kreditversicherungs-AG (Euler Hermes) to manage the investment guarantee scheme, see http://www.agaportal.de/en/dia/index.html.
173.
OECD, Decision of the Council on National Treatment, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/32/21/1954854.pdf.
174.
Regulation (EC) 3286/94, O.J. 1994 L-349/71.
175.
Revised version of 6 March 2009, see above.
176.
On the extent of this, Burgstaller, Nationality of Corporate Investors and International Claims against the Investor’s Own State, JWI&T 7 (2006), p. 857 et seq.; Krajewski/Ceyssens, Internationaler Investitionsschutz und innerstaatliche Regulierung, AVR 45 (2007) p. 180 et seq. (190).
177.
See Article 25 ICSID Convention.
178.
Article 67 ICSID Convention.
179.
Article II Worldbank Statute.
180.
On this, see Hoffmeister, Outsider or Frontrunner? Recent Developments under International and European Law on the Status of the European Union in International Organizations and Treaty Bodies, CMLRev. 44 (2007) p. 41 et seq.; Govaere/Capiau/Vermeersch, In-Between Seats: The Participation of the European Union in International Organizations, EFARev. 9 (2004) p. 155 et seq.
181.
See above.
182.
European Commission, Note of 30 May 2006 for the attention of the 133 Committee, p. 2.
183.
See for example Johnson, Rights obstacle to EU–India trade pact, Financial Times of 4 March 2007.
184.
Critical on these developments, also Tietje, Die Außenwirtschaftsverfassung der EU nach dem Vertrag von Lissabon, Beiträge zum Transnationalen Wirtschaftsrecht 83 (2009), p. 19, http://www.wirtschaftsrecht.uni-halle.de/InstitutWirtschaftsrecht/html/publikationen.html.
185.
OECD, Working Papers Vol. V: The OECD Declaration and Decisions on International Investment and Multinational Enterprises Basic Texts, 1997.
186.
http://www.unglobalcompact.org.
187.
See on “EU Diplomatic Protection” Bungenberg, Diplomatischer Schutz, in Heselhaus/Nowak (eds.), Handbuch der Europäischen Grundrechte, 2006, § 48, point 37–41.
188.
See Article 23 EU Treaty.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Friedrich Schiller University, Jena, England
Marc Bungenberg

Authors

Marc Bungenberg
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marc Bungenberg .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Chair for Constitutional and Administrative Law European Law, European and International Economic Law, Passau University, D-94030, Passau, Germany
Christoph Herrmann LL.M
Department of European Law, Hamburg University, Schlüterstraβe 28, 20146, Hamburg, Germany
Jörg Philipp Terhechte (Assistant Professor of Law, Faculty of Law) (Assistant Professor of Law, Faculty of Law)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Bungenberg, M. (2010). Going Global? The EU Common Commercial Policy After Lisbon. In: Herrmann, C., Terhechte, J.P. (eds) European Yearbook of International Economic Law 2010. European Yearbook of International Economic Law, vol 1. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78883-6_6

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78883-6_6
Published: 13 October 2009
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-78882-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-78883-6
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics