No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 October 2017
The aim of this chapter is to analyse whether the EU order has the potential to exert a beneficial influence on the future development of international law. While the work strongly argues in favour of this aim, it is nevertheless sensitive to the difficulties in the relationship between these two legal orders and examines these issues in some detail. The article accordingly pursues its aim by exploring the history of that relationship, as one that has not always been easy, but, which, in the future, may prove fruitful.
1 It was rightly highlighted by Philip Allott that taking the constitutional standpoint could still allow two basically different approaches. Some may describe the relationship between national and Community law as a constitutional unity, while others may regard it as a constitutional duality. Allott, P, ‘European Foreign policy: After-life of an Illusion’ in Koskenniemi, M (ed), International Law Aspects of the European Union (The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1997) 218 Google Scholar.
2 T Kerikmäe, ‘Supranational Law as International Law and Vice Versa’ (1998) Juridica International 1, 43.
3 Hartley, T, ‘International Law and the Law of the European Union—a Reassessment’ (2001) 72 British Yearbook of International Law 1, 17CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
4 Case 26/62, NV Algemene Transport- en Expeditie Onderneming van Gend & Loos v Nederlandse administratie der belastingen [1963] ECR 1.
5 Case 294/83, Parti écologiste ‘Les Verts’ v European Parliament [1986] ECR 1339.
6 Case 6/64, Flamino Costa v ENEL [1964] ECR 585, 593.
7 Pellet, A, ‘Les fondements juridiques internationaux du droit communautaire’ in Academy of European Law (ed), Collected Courses of the Academy of European Law (Netherlands, Kluwer, 1997) 193 & 229Google Scholar.
8 Allain, J, ‘The European Court of Justice is an International Court’ (1999) 68 Nordic Journal of International Law 249, 261CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
9 D Bethlehem, ‘International law, European Community Law, National Law: Three Systems in Search of a Framework’ in Koskenniemi (ed), above n 1, 173.
10 According to the definition of Gerard Conway, ‘a distinct system or subsystem of international law whose secondary rules (the rules of change or the rules governing the implementation, operation and amendment of the Treaties) are determined by the regime itself’: Conway, G, ‘Breaches of EC Law and the International Responsibility of Member States’ (2002) 13 EJIL 679, 681CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
11 Hartley, above n 3, 4.
12 Case C-286/90, Poulsen v Diva Navigation [1992] ECR 6019, para 9.
13 Ibid.
14 Case T-315/01, Yassin Abdullah Kadi v Council and Commission [2005] ECR II-3533, para 208.
15 Case T-306/01, Ahmed Ali Yusuf, Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission [2005] ECR II-3649.
16 Above n 14.
17 Case T-253/02, Chafiq Ayadi v Council [2006] ECR II-2139.
18 Whether this will ultimately be the position of the ECJ is presently a moot point. Yusuf and Kadi are currently on appeal to the ECJ and, while the present author argues in favour of the CFI position, he is nevertheless aware of the strength of the Opinion of Poiares Maduro in these cases where the Advocate General strongly disagrees with the CFI decisions.
19 Kadi, above n 14, paras 182–3.
20 The CFI, considering Arts 53 and 64 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and Art 1(3) of the UN Charter, concluded that the Security Council is bound by jus cogens.
21 With the exception of Germany.
22 Lenaerts, K and Desomer, M, ‘Towards a Hierarchy of Legal Acts in the European Union? Simplification of Legal Instruments and Procedures’ (2005) 99 ELJ 744, 745CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
23 Even France signed it on 4 November 1950, although the ratification did not take place until 3 May 1974.
24 Referring to the opinion of AG Toth, who proposed in 1997 that all EU Member States should withdraw from the ECHR Treaty. Uerpmann-Wittzack, R, ‘The Constitutional Role of Multilateral Treaty Systems’ in Bogdandy, A (ed), Principles of European Constitutional Law (Oxford, Hart, 2006) 171 Google Scholar.
25 Opinion 2/94, Accession by the Community to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, [1996] ECR I-1759, para 35.
26 Ibid.
27 Case C-162/96, Racke GmbH and Co v Hauptzollamt Mainz [1998] ECR I-3655, para 45; and Case C-286/90, Poulsen and Diva Navigation [1992] ECR I-6019, para 9.
28 V Lowe, ‘Can the European community Bind the Member States in Questions of Customary International Law?’ in Koskenniemi (ed), above n 1, 149.
29 Akehurst, M, ‘The Application of General Principles of Law by the Court of Justice of the European Communities’ (1981) 52 British Yearbook of International Law 29, 31CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
30 Lenaerts and Desomer, above n 22, 745; and R Upperman, ‘International Law as an Element of European Constitutional Law: International Supplementary Constitutions’, Jean Monnet Working Paper 9/03, 9, available at <http://www.jeanmonnetprogram.org/papers/03/030901-02.pdf> accessed 20 August 2008.
31 Case 181/73, Haegeman [1974] ECR 449, para 5; and Case 104/81, Kupferberg [1982] ECR 3641, paras 11–13.
32 Case C-344/04, IATA and ELFAA [2006] ECR I-403, para 36.
33 Case C-13/00, Commission v Ireland [2001] ECR I-2943.
34 Ibid, para 20.
35 Case C-239/03, Commission v France [2004] ECR I-9325, para 31.
36 ‘The primacy of an international agreement over and above the provisions of secondary Community legislation means that such provisions must, as far as possible, be interpreted in a manner consistent with those agreements’: Ott, A, ‘The ECJ and International Law’ in Kronenberger, V (ed), The European Union and the International Legal Order: Discord or Harmony? (The Hague, TMC Asser Press, 2001) 95 & 139CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
37 Arbitral Tribunal, Order No 3, Suspension of Proceedings on Jurisdiction and Merits and Request for further Provisional Measures, 24 June 2003, available at <http://www.pca-cpa.org> accessed 20 August 2008.
38 Case C-459/03, Commission v Ireland [2006] ECR I-4635, para 121.
39 Ibid, para 123.
40 Ibid, para 184.
41 Case C-431/05, Merck Genéricos-Produtos Farmacêuticos Lda v Merck & Co [2007] ECR I-8531.
42 Case C-280/93, Germany v Council [1994] ECR I-4973.
43 For this reason, Hartley rightly criticised the hollowness of this statement: Hartley, T, European Union Law in a Global Context (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2004) 246 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
44 Verzijl, JHW, International Law in Historical Perspective, Pt II, International Persons (Leyden, Sijthoff, 1969) 206 Google Scholar.
45 T Hartley, above n 43, 334.
46 T Hartley, above n 3, 20 (fn 75). However, according to Robert Schütze, the case law of the ECJ confirms the impossibility of informal treaty amendments from a Community perspective: Schütze, R, ‘EC Law and Member States’ International Agreements’ 9 (2006–07) CYELS 439 Google Scholar.
47 Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Projed (Hungary/Slovakia) (judgment) [1997] ICJ Rep 7. In this case, Hungary argued that the development of international environmental law gives it sufficient basis to terminate a treaty concluded with Czechoslovakia on the construction of a barrage system, while Slovakia was denying this possibility.
48 [1999] OJ L294/1.
49 [2001] OJ L277/25.
50 [1993] ICJ Rep 325, 440.
51 Fassbender, B, ‘Review Essay: Quis judicabit? The Security Council, Its Powers and Its Legal Control’ (2000) 11 EJIL 1, 219CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
52 Ayadi, above n 17, para 242.
53 Kadi, above n 14, para 253.
54 Art 53 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
55 Shaw, MN, International Law 5th edn (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1991) 118 Google Scholar.
56 Orakhelashvili, A, Peremptory Norms in International Law (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2006) 41 Google Scholar.
57 Shaw, above n 55, 116.
58 Draft Art 19(1) as presented by Roberto Ago in 1976.
59 Ibid, para 3.
60 Hannikainen, L, Peremptory Norms (Jus Cogens) in International Law Historical Development, Criteria, Present Status (Helsinki, Lakimiesliiton Kustannus, 1988)Google Scholar.
61 Ibid, 723.
62 Some international lawyers took a stand for regional jus cogens. See, eg Orakhelashvili, above n 56, 39.
63 Rozakis, CL, The Concept of JUS COGENS in the Law of Treaties (Amsterdam/New York/Oxford, North-Holland Publishing Company, 1976) 56 Google Scholar.
64 A/CN4/L682, ILC, 58 session, Geneva, 2006, ‘Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law, Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission’, finalised by Martti Koskenniemi, paras 40–1.
65 Ibid, ‘Addendum, Appendix, Draft Conclusions of the work of the Study Group’.
66 Ibid, para 40.
67 Case T-115/94, Opel Austria v Council [1997] ECR II-39.
68 Klabbers, J, ‘Re-inventing the Law of Treaties: Contribution of the EC Courts’ (1999) 30 Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 45 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
69 Klabbers, J, ‘How to Defeat a Treaty’s Object and Purpose Prior to its Entry into Force: Toward Manifest Intent’ (2001) 34 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 283 Google Scholar.
70 Opel Austria v Council, above n 67, para 10.
71 Byers, M, Custom, Power and the Power of Rules: International Relations and Customary International Law (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1999) 120 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
72 J Wouters and D Eeckhoutte, ‘Giving Effect to Customary International Law through European Law’, Institute for International Law, Working paper No 25, June 2002, 28, available at <http://www.law.kuleuven.ac.be/iir/nl/wp/WP/WP109e.pdf> accessed 20 August 2008.
73 Case 41/74, Van Duyn [1974] ECR 1337.
74 Ibid, para 22.
75 Meessen, KM, ‘The application of rules of public international law within community law’ (1976) 13 CML Rev 485 Google Scholar.
76 Ibid.
77 Elias, O, ‘General International Law in the European Court of Justice: from hypothesis to reality?’ (2000) 31 Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 3, 9CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
78 Lawand, K, ‘The Right to Return of Palestinians in International Law’ (1996) 8(4) International Journal of Refugee Law 532 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
79 Sen, S, ‘Stateless Refugees and the Right to Return: The Bihari Refugees of South Asia’ (2000) 12 International Journal of Refugee Law 41 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Helton, AC and Münker, J, ‘Religion and persecution: should the United States provide refuge to German Scientologists?’ (1999) 11 International Journal of Refugee Law 310 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Groenendijk, CA, ‘The Competence of the EC Court of Justice with respect to inter-governmental Treaties on Immigration and Asylum’ (1992) 4 International Journal of Refugee Law 531 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
80 Above n 27.
81 Fisheries Jurisdiction (Germany v Iceland) [1974] ICJ Rep 175.
82 Ibid, para 36.
83 Gabcčíkovo-Nagymaros, above n 47.
84 Ibid, para 104.
85 Ibid.
86 Racke, above n 27, para 19.
87 Ibid, para 55.
88 Ibid, para 54.
89 Draft Articles on the Law of Treaties with commentaries, text adopted by the International Law Commission in 1966 and submitted to the General Assembly: Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1966, vol II.
90 Racke, above n 27, para 52.
91 Case C-327/98, Commission v France [2000] ECR I-1851.
92 Aust, A, Modern Treaty Law and Practice 2nd edn (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2007) 299 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
93 Racke, above n 27, para 39.
94 Case Concerning the Factory at Chorzów (Germany v Poland) (Merits) PCIJ Rep Series A No 17, 29.
95 Ibid, 47.
96 Crawford, J and Olleson, S, ‘The nature and forms of international responsibility’ in Evans, MD (ed), International Law (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2003) 470 Google Scholar.
97 Ibid, 472.
98 Case T-572/93, Odigitria AAE v Council and Commission [1995] ECR II-2025.
99 Text adopted by the International Law Commission at its 58th session, in 2006, and submitted to the General Assembly as part of the Commission’s report covering the work of that session (A/61/10).
100 Ibid, 23.
101 Brownlie, I, Principles of Public International Law 6th edn (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1998) 391 Google Scholar.
102 Shaw, above n 55, 722.
103 Ibid, 723.
104 Art 19 provides that ‘the Member State of which he is a national and is not represented, be entitled to protection by the diplomatic or consular authorities of any Member State, on the same conditions as the nationals of that State. Member States shall establish the necessary rules among themselves and start the international negotiations required to secure this protection’.
105 Currently, in accordance with the Commentary of the International Law Commission attached to Art 16 of the Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection, a state may also protect a non-national in procedures against the state of nationality of an injured individual under different international agreements, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, but this sort of legal action is, however, not regarded as diplomatic protection.
106 Nottebohm Case (second phase) (Liechtenstein v Guatemala) [1955] ICJ Rep 4.
107 Donner, R, The Regulation of Nationality in International Law 2nd edn (New York, Transnational Publishers Inc, 1994) 61 Google Scholar.
108 Nottebohm, above n 106, 24.
109 Opinion of AG Tizziano in Case C-200/02, Man Lavette Chen and Kunquian Catherine Zhu v Secretary of State for Home Department.
110 Case C-369/90, Mario Vicente Micheletti v Delegación del Gobierno en Cantabria [1992] ECR I-4239.
111 Case C-192/99, R and Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Manjit Kaur [2001] ECR I-1237.
112 Michelettei, above n 110, para 10.
113 Ibid.
114 Yearbook of the International Law Commission, vol II (1956) 63.
115 Elferink, AG, ‘The Genuine Link Concept—Time for a Post Mortem?’ (1999) Netherlands Institute for the Law of the Sea (NILOS) in Report of and Papers Presented at the Expert Consultation on Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing, Sydney, Australia, 15–19 May 2000 (2001) FAO Fisheries Report No 666Google Scholar.
116 Art 5(1) of the Geneva Convention of 29 April 1958 on the High Seas (United Nations Treaty Series 450, No 6465).
117 Case C-221/89, Factortame II [1991] ECR I-3905.
118 This case was analysed from an international legal point of view by Brandtner, B and Folz, HP, in their study ‘A Survey of Principal Decisions of the European Court of Justice Pertaining to International Law in 1991–92’ (1993) 4 EJIL 430 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
119 Joint Opinions of AG Mischo delivered on 13 March 1991, Case C-246/89, [1991] ECR I-3905, para 23.
120 In Case C-286/90, Anklagemyndigheden [Public Prosecutor] and Peter Michael Poulsen, Diva Navigation Corp [1992] ECR 1-6019.
121 Ibid, para 15: ‘[T]he sole link between a vessel and the State of which it holds the nationality is the administrative formality of registration.’
122 The M/V ‘Saiga’ (No 2) (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v Guinea), judgment of 1 July 1999, available at http://www.itlos.org/case_documents/2001/document_en_68.doc.
123 See above n 115.
124 Case C-289/04 P, Showa Denko KK v Commission [2006] ECR I-5859.
125 Ibid, para 58.
126 Liu, D, ‘Should the Principle of Ne Bis in Idem also Be Taken into Consideration? A Response to Yarwood and Dodd’ (2007) 6 Chinese Journal of International Law 789 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
127 Mendelson, MH, ‘The Formation of Customary International Law’ (1998) 272 Recueil des Cours (Collected Courses of The Hague Academy of International Law) 155, 175Google Scholar.
128 Case C-334/93, Bonapharma Arzneimittel GmbH v Hauptzollamt Krefeld [1995] ECR II-319.
129 An interesting international legal analysis of the case can be found in Vedder, C and Folz, HP, ‘A Survey of Principal Decisions of the European Court of Justice Pertaining to International Law in 1995’ (1997) 8 EJIL 508, 532CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
130 Case C-405/92, Etablissements Armand Mondiet SA v Armament Islais SARL [1993] ECR I-6133.
131 Ibid, para 3.
132 Ibid.
133 An international legal analysis of the case can be found in Vedder and Folz, above n 129, 461–2.
134 Address by HE Gilbert Guillaume, President of the ICJ at the UN General Assembly, 26 October 2000, A/55/PV 41.
135 Loizidou v Turkey (App no 15318/89) (1995) 20 EHRR 99.
136 Southern Bluefin Tuna case (Australia and New Zealand v Japan) (Jurisdiction and Admissibility), Award of 4 August 2000, available at <http://www.worldbank.org/icsid/bluefintuna/award080400.pdf> accessed 20 August 2008.
137 Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Advisory Opinion) [1951] ICJ Rep 15.
138 Higgins, R, ‘The ICJ, the ECJ and the Integrity of International Law’ (2003) 52 ICLQ 1, 18CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
139 Case No IT-94-1-A, Prosecutor v Dusko Tadic, ICTY Appeals Chamber Judgment of 27 August 1999, para 3a, available at <http://www.un.org/icty/Supplement/supp6-e/tadic.htm> accessed 20 August 2008.
140 Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States of America) (Merits) [1986] ICJ Rep 14.
141 Tadic, above n 139, para 3a.
142 Above n 65, 14.
143 European Communities—Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), 13 February 1998, WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R, paras 123–5.
144 The author is grateful to Professor Alan Dashwood for having raised this particular point.
145 Report of the Study Group, above n 64, 17.
146 Blank, Y, ‘Localism in the New Global Legal Order’ (2006) 47 Harvard International Law Journal 1, 263Google Scholar.
147 Denza, E, ‘Two Legal Orders: Divergent or Convergent?’ (1999) 48 ICLQ 257, 284CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
148 De Búrca, G and Gerstenberg, O, ‘The Denationalization of Constitutional Law’ 47 Harvard International Law Journal 1, 243Google Scholar.
149 Blank, above n 146, 263.
150 Resolution 1373 (2001) on threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts, adopted by the Security Council at its 4,385th meeting on 28 September 2001, S/RES/1373 (2001); and Wyngaert, CV, International Criminal Law—A Collection of International and European Instruments (Leiden/Boston, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2004) 657 Google Scholar.
151 Resolution 1540 (2004) on the prevention of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Adopted by the Security Council at its 4,956th meeting on 28 April 2004, S/RES/1540 (2004).
152 De Búrca andGerstenberg, above n 148, 262.
153 Cass, DZ, The Constitutionalization of the World Trade Organization. Legitimacy, Democracy and Community in the International Trade System (Oxford/New York, Oxford University Press, 2005) 18 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
154 Petersmann, E-U, ‘The ‘Human Rights Approach’ and WTO Law and Policy’ (2004) 7 Journal of International Economic Law 605 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
155 Verwey, DR, The European Community, the European Union and the International Law of Treaties—A comparative legal Analysis of the community and the Union’s external treaty-making Practice (The Hague, TMC Asser Press, 2004) 233 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
156 Case C-265/95, Commission v France [1997] ECR I-6959.
157 As an illustration, it is worth quoting Ian Brownlie, who included a statement presented by the European Commission during the hearings of the Wood Pulp Case (Cases 89, 114, 116–117 & 125–129/85, A. Ahlström Osakeyhtiö v Commission, Decision of 27 September 1988). The passage referred to was the following: ‘the only two legal bases of jurisdiction in international law are the principles of nationality and territoriality’. Ian Brownlie used this quotation in the context of jurisdictional competence in his manual: Brownlie, I, Principles of Public International Law 6th edn (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1998) 301 Google Scholar.