¹ Mar. 25, 1957, as amended by Treaty on European Union, Feb. 7, 1992, 1992 O.J. (C 224) 1.

² Außenwirtschaftsgesetz, AWG, 1961 Bundesgesetzblatt [BGB1], Teil 1, at 481, 495 and 1555, last amended by law of Dec. 21, 1992, 1992 BGB1. I 2150; the goods and the country of destination for which a license is required are specified in a bylaw, AuBenwirtschaftsverordnung, AVW, 1984 BGB1. I 1080.

³ AWG §34, para. 2.

⁴ 1969 O.J. 590 (Eng. spec. ed. II), as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) 3918/91, 1991 O.J. (L 372) 31. Article 11 reads:

Without prejudice to other Community provisions, this Regulation shall not preclude the adoption or application by a Member State of quantitative restrictions on exports on grounds of public morality, public policy or public security; the protection of health and life of humans, animals or plants; the protection of national treasures possessing artistic, historic or archaeological value, or the protection of industrial and commercial property.

⁵ Article 1 reads: “The exportation of products from the European Economic Community to third countries shall be free, that is to say, they shall not be subject to any quantitative restriction, with the exception of those restrictions which are applied in conformity with the provisions of this Regulation.”

⁶ See Case C–367/89, Aime Richardt, 1991 ECR I–4601, para. 22.

⁷ May 18, 1995 (not yet reported).

⁸ See the enumeration of embargoes in the Court's opinion on the WTO Agreement, Opinion 1/94, 1994 ECR I–5276, para. 512; Christoph Vedder, Commentary to Article 113, in Kommentar zur Europäischen Union, No. 58 (Eberhard Grabitz & Meinhard Hilf eds., May 1995, loose-leaf). See, as the most recent example, Council Regulation (EC) 3381/94, setting up a Community regime for the control of exports of dual-use goods, 1994 O.J. (L 367) 1, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) 837/95, 1995 O.J. (L 90) 1.

⁹ See Anne Peters, Case note, 89 AJIL 376, 379 (1995).

¹⁰ The Court referred to Case 292/82, Merck v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas, 1983 ECR 3781, para. 12; and Case 337/82, St. Nikolaus Brennerei v. Hauptzollamt Krefeld, 1984 ECR 1051, para. 10. However, in the latter case, the provision was silent as to the question before the Court. See id., para. 11.

¹¹ Case C–367/89, 1991 ECR 4601, para. 22. For a critique, see Inge Govaere & Piet Eeckhout, On Dual Use Goods and Dualist Case Law: The Aimé Richardt/udgmenf on Dual Use Goods, 29 C.M.L. Rev. 941 (1992).

¹² Richardt had tried to export dual-use goods to the USSR in 1985.

¹³ See generally Thomas M. Franck, Political Questions/Judicial Answers: Does the Rule of Law Applyto Foreign Affairs? (1992); Ernst Benda, Deutsche Auβienpolitik vor Gericht, 50 Internationale Politik 39 (1995).

¹⁴ Decision concerning the Maastricht Treaty, of Oct. 12, 1993, 1993 Europäische Grundrechte Zeitschrift 429, translated in 33 ILM 388, 396, 412 (1994).

¹⁵ As the German Federal Constitutional Court had in mind in Maastricht, id. That the case did not concern the delimitation of jurisdiction in the strict sense was underlined by Advocate General Jacobs in his opinion of May 18, 1995, in these two cases, para. 35. See otoThilo Marauhn, Strategische Ausfuhrbeschränkungen gegenüber Drittstaaten im Lichte des Gemeinschafisrechts, 54 Zeitschrift für ausländisches offentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 779, 802 (1994).

¹⁶ 1992 O.J. (C 224) 1 (tide V).

¹⁷ See note 8 supra. The goods covered by these regulations are listed in Council Decisions 94/942/CFSP, 1994 O.J. (L 367) 8; and 95/127/CFSP and 95/128/CFSP, 1995 O.J. (L 90) 2 and 3.