¹ Malcolm N. Shaw, International Law 103 (2008).Google Scholar

² For example, in Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mex. v. U.S.), 2004 I.C.J. 16 (Mar. 31), the U.S. was found to have violated its international obligations on consular relations by failing to allow Mexican prisoners to access consular assistance, irrespective of whether the domestic law on due process had been followed. An exception to this general rule exists under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, art. 46, May 23, 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331 [hereinafter VCLT]. This provision allows a state to argue that its consent to be bound has been taken in violation of its internal law to conclude treaties.Google Scholar

³ For consistency, the term “loyalty” will be used predominantly, but “duty of cooperation” and “sincere cooperation” will be used where appropriate.Google Scholar

⁴ Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union, art. 4(3), Feb. 7, 1992, 2012 O.J. (C 326) 13 [hereinafter TEU].Google Scholar

⁵ For a recent, in-depth overview of loyalty in the EU legal order, see Klamert, Marcus, The Principle of Loyalty in EU Law (2014).Google Scholar

⁶ Although these terms overlap, for present purposes, a supranational system is one characterized by law-making institutions placed “above” the organization's constituent states, which integrate with the state legal systems and produce continuous restrictions upon state sovereignty. A transnational system is one that exists across state borders, irrespective of whether its constituent actors are public or private in nature.Google Scholar

⁷ James Crawford, Brownlie's Principles of International Law 450 (2013).Google Scholar

⁸ Gott, Virginia L., The National Socialist Theory of International Law, 32 Am. J. Int'l L. 701, 713 (1938).Google Scholar

⁹ Hyland, Richard, Pacta Sunt Servanda: A Meditation, 34 Va. J. Int'l L. 405, 424 (1994).Google Scholar

¹⁰ Spiermann, Ole, Twentieth Century Internationalism in Law, 18 Eur. J. Int'l L. 785, 789 (2007).Google Scholar

¹¹ Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v. Slovakia), 1997 I.C.J. 7 (Sept. 25).Google Scholar

¹² D'Amato, Anthony, Good Faith, in Encyclopedia of Public International Law 599 (Rudolf Bernhardt ed., 1992).Google Scholar

¹³ VCLT art. 60.Google Scholar

¹⁴ VCLT art. 61.Google Scholar

¹⁵ VCLT art. 62.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Border and Transborder Armed Actions, Jurisdiction and Admissibility (Nicar. v. Hond.), 1988 I.C.J. 105 (Dec. 20).Google Scholar

¹⁷ Land and Maritime Boundary Between Cameroon and Nigeria, Preliminary Objections (Cameroon v. Nigeria), 1998 I.C.J. 275 (June 11), available at http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/94/7473.pdf.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Nicar. v. Hond., 1998 I.C.J. ¶ 94; Cameroon v. Nigeria, 1998 I.C.J. ¶ 39.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Nuclear Tests (Austl. v. Fr.), 1974 I.C.J. 253 (Dec. 20); Nuclear Tests (N.Z. v. Fr.), 1974 I.C.J. 457 (Dec. 20).Google Scholar

²⁰ The relevant extracts from these statements are included and discussed in N.Z. v. Fr., 1974 I.C.J. ¶¶ 35–44.Google Scholar

²¹ Austl. v. Fr., 1974 I.C.J. ¶ 46.Google Scholar

²² D'Amato, supra note 12, at 601.Google Scholar

²³ Thirlway, Hugh, Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice 1960–89, Part One, 60 British Yearbook Int'l L. 1, 10 (1989).Google Scholar

²⁴ Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, G.A. Res. 2625 (XXV), U.N. Doc. A/RES/25/2625, ¶ 1 (Oct. 24, 1970).Google Scholar

²⁵ Rubin, Alfred P., The International Legal Effects of Unilateral Declarations, 71 Am. J. Int'l L. 1, 10–11 (1977).Google Scholar

²⁶ North Sea Continental Shelf (Ger. v. Den. & Neth.), 1969 I.C.J. 3, ¶ 30 (Feb. 20); Land and Maritime Boundary Between Cameroon and Nigeria, Preliminary Objections (Cameroon v. Nigeria), 1998 I.C.J. 275, ¶ 57 (June 11).Google Scholar

²⁷ D'Amato, supra note 12, at 601.Google Scholar

²⁸ Case 6/64, Costa v. E.N.E.L., 1964 E.C.R. 588.Google Scholar

²⁹ Case 26/62, NV Algemene Transport—en Expeditie Onderneming van Gend en Loos v. Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen, 1963 E.C.R. 105.Google Scholar

³⁰ Costa, Case 6/64 at 588.Google Scholar

³¹ Van Gend en Loos, Case 26/62 at 129.Google Scholar

³² Costa, Case 6/64 at 455.Google Scholar

³³ Id. Google Scholar

³⁴ Id. Google Scholar

³⁵ For some of the many examples, see Prinssen, J.M. & Schrauwen, A., Direct Effect: Rethinking a Classic of EC Legal Doctrine (2002); Witte, Bruno de, Direct Effect, Supremacy and the Nature of the Legal Order, in The Evolution of EU Law 323 (Craig, Paul & Gráinne de Burca eds., 2011); Alter, Karen J., Establishing the Supremacy of European Law: The Making of an International Rule of Law in Europe (2001); MacCormick, Neil, Questioning Sovereignty: Law, State and Nation in the European Commonwealth (1999).Google Scholar

³⁶ Nicol, Danny, Democracy, Supremacy and the “Intergovernmental” Pillars of the European Union, Pub. L. 218, 221 (2009).Google Scholar

³⁷ Spiermann, supra note 10, at 807.Google Scholar

³⁸ Puder, Markus G., Supremacy of the Law and Judicial Review in the European Union: Celebrating Marbury v. Madison with Costa v. ENEL, 36 Geo. Wash. Int'l L. Rev. 567, 577 (2004).Google Scholar

³⁹ Madison, Marbury v., 5 U.S. 137 (1803).Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Junker, Kirk W., Conference Conclusions “… And Beyond”: Judicial Review in the European Union, 45 Duq L. Rev. 599, 611 (2007).Google Scholar

⁴¹ Case 106/77, Amminstrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v. Simmenthal, 1978 E.C.R. 629, para. 26.Google Scholar

⁴² Puder, suora note 38, at 579.Google Scholar

⁴³ Nuclear Tests (Austl. v. Fr.), 1974 I.C.J. 253 (Dec. 20); Nuclear Tests (N.Z. v. Fr.), 1974 I.C.J. 457 (Dec. 20).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Andres Delgado Casteleiro & Joris Larik, The Duty to Remain Silent: Limitless Loyalty in EU External Relations?, 36 Eur. L. Rev. 524, 526 (2011).Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Case 26/62, NV Algemene Transport—en Expeditie Onderneming van Gend en Loos v. Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen, 1963 E.C.R. 105, 129.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Id. at 129–30. The prohibition in question was “perfectly suited by its nature to produce direct effects in the legal relations between the member-States and their citizens.” Id. at 130.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Id.; Case 8/81, Ursula Becker v. Finanzamt Münster-Innenstadt, 1982 E.C.R. 53, para. 25.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, art. 288, Oct. 26, 2012, 2012 O.J. (C 326) 47 [hereinafter TFEU].Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Case 152/84, Marshall v. Southampton & South West Hampshire AHA, 1986 E.C.R. 723, para. 48; Case 91/92, Faccini Dori v. Recreb Srl, 1994 E.C.R. I-3325, para. 20.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Case 14/83, Von Colson v. Land Nordrhein-Westfahlen, 1984 E.C.R. 1891.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Case C-194/94, CIA Sec. Int'l SA v. Signalson SA, 1996 E.C.R. 172.Google Scholar

⁵² Id. at paras. 48–55.Google Scholar

⁵³ By “EU primary law,” the author means the highest sources of EU law, as opposed to EU secondary law, which must derive from and comply with these sources. The Treaties are examples of EU primary law, whereas Regulations are examples of EU secondary law.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Case C-144/04, Mangold v. Helm, 1 C.M.L.R. 43 (2006).Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Id. The Directive in question was Council Directive 2000/78, 2000 O.J. (L 303) 16.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Gesetz über Teilzeitarbeit und befristete Arbeitsverträge und zur Änderung und Aufhebung arbeitsrechtlicher Bestimmungen [Law on Part-Time Working and Fixed-Term Contracts Amending and Repealing Provisions of Employment Law], Dec. 21, 2000, BGBl. 1 at 1966, para. 14(3) [hereinafter the TzBfG]. This provision had been amended by The First Law for the Provision of Modern Services on the Labour Market, Dec. 23, 2002, BGBl. 1 at 14607 [hereinafter the Law of 2002].Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Case 148/78, Pubblico Ministero v. Ratti, 1 C.M.L.R. 96, paras. 39–47 (1980).Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Mangold, Case C-144/04 at 43.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Id. at 75–78.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Duke v. GEC Reliance Ltd. [1988] A.C. 618 (HL) (appeal taken from Eng.).Google Scholar

⁶¹ Fontanelli, Filippo, General Principles of the EU and a Glimpse of Solidarity in the Aftermath of Mangold and Kücükdeveci, 17 Eur. Public L. 225, 229-30 (2011).Google Scholar

⁶² For a more recent application of Mangold, see Case C-555/07, Kücükdeveci v. Swedex GmbH & Co. KG, 2010 E.C.R. I-365.Google Scholar

⁶³ Case C-6/90, Francovich v. Italy, 1991 E.C.R. I-5357.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Id. Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Council Directive 80/987, 1980 O.J. (L 283) 23 (EC).Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Francovich, Case C-6/90 at paras. 26–27.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Id. at para. 40.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Id. at para. 36.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Int'l Law Comm'n, Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, in Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of its Fifty-Third Session, UN GAOR, 56th Sess., Supp. No. 10, ch. IV.E.1, art. 4(1), U.N. Doc. A/56/10 (2001) [hereinafter ILC Articles].Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Joined Cases C-46/93, Brasserie du Pecheur SA v. Germany & C-48/93, R v. Secretary of State for Transport Ex parte Factortame Ltd., 1996 E.C.R. I-1029, para. 51 (emphasis added).Google Scholar

⁷¹ Id. at para. 56.Google Scholar

⁷² ILC Articles, supra note 69, art. 12.Google Scholar

⁷³ VCLT art. 62.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ ILC Articles, supra note 69, art. 23.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ ILC Articles, supra note 69, art. 24.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ ILC Articles, supra note 69, art. 25.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Crawford, supra note 7, at 590–91.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Binder, Christina, Stability and Change in Times of Fragmentation: The Limits of Pacta Sunt Servanda Revisited, 25 Leiden J. Int'l L. 909, 912 (2012).Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Fisheries Jurisdiction (U.K. v. Ice.), 1973 I.C.J. 7, 65 (July 12).Google Scholar

⁸⁰ New Zealand v. France, 82 I.L.R. 500 (U.N. Secretary-General Arbitration) (1990).Google Scholar

⁸¹ Id. at para. 77.Google Scholar

⁸² New Zealand, 82 I.L.R. at ¶ 79.Google Scholar

⁸³ Case C-494/01, Comm'n v. Ireland, 2005 E.C.R. I-3331, para. 174.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Case C-7/68, Comm'n v. Italy, 1969 C.M.L.R. 1.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Case C-236/99, Comm'n v. Belgium, 2000 E.C.R. I-5657.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ TEU art.4(3).Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Joined Cases C-46/93, Brasserie du Pecheur SA v. Germany & C-48/93, R v. Secretary of State for Transport Ex parte Factortame Ltd., 1996 E.C.R. I-1029, paras. 51–57. The CJEU lists factors for courts to consider at paragraph 56.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Case C-392/93, R v. HM Treasury Ex p British Telecommunications Plc, 1996 E.C.R. I-1631.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Id. at para. 43.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Case C-224/01, Köbler v. Austria, 2003 E.C.R. I-10239, paras. 53–59. These requirements have since been confirmed in Case C-173/03, Traghetti del Mediterraneo SpA (In Liquidation) v. Italy, 2006 E.C.R. I-5177.Google Scholar

⁹¹ Scott, Helen & Barber, N.W., State Liability Under Francovich for Decisions of National Courts, 120 L. Quarterly Rev. 403, 406 (2004).Google Scholar

⁹² Davis, Roy W., Liability in Damages for a Breach of Community Law: Some Reflections on the Question of Who to Sue and the Concept of “the State”, 31 Eur. L. Rev. 69, 77–78 (2006).Google Scholar

⁹³ Case C-22/70, Comm'n v. Council, 1971 E.C.R. 263, para. 17.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Id. at paras. 21–22.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ TFEU art. 3(2).Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Case C-266/03, Comm'n v. Luxembourg, 2005 E.C.R. I-4805; Case C-459/03, Comm'n v. Germany, 2005 E.C.R. I-6985.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ Luxembourg, Case C-266/03; Germany, Case C-459/03.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ Luxembourg, Case C-266/03 at para. 60; Germany, Case C-459/03 at para. 66.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Id. Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Casteleiro & Larik, supra note 44, at 531–32.Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ Case C-46/93, Brasserie du Pecheur SA v. Germany, 1996 E.C.R. I-1029, para. 51.Google Scholar

¹⁰² Case C-224/01, Köbler v. Austria, 2003 E.C.R. I-10239Google Scholar

¹⁰³ Case C-459/03, Comm'n v. Ireland, 2006 E.C.R. I-4635.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ The principal areas of shared competence between the EU and Member States are listed under TFEU art. 4(2). A mixed agreement is an agreement “to which both the EU and the Member States are contracting parties on the basis that their joint participation is required, because not all matters covered by the agreement fall exclusively within” EU or Member State competence. Paul Craig & Gráinne de Burca, EU Law: Text, Cases, and Materials 334 (5th ed. 2011).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ Ireland, Case C-459/03 at para. 169.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ Id. at paras. 179–82.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ Case C-45/07, Comm'n v. Greece, 2009 E.C.R. I-701.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ Id. The legal basis for this was the EU's objective of setting common transport policy. Under the current TFEU, arts. 90–91 & 100.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ Greece, Case C-45/07.Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ Id. at paras. 25–26.Google Scholar

¹¹¹ Case C-246/07, Comm'n v. Sweden, 2010 E.C.R. I-3317.Google Scholar

¹¹² Id. Google Scholar

¹¹³ Id. at paras. 72–73; TFEU art. 4(1) & (2).Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ Sweden, Case C-246/07 at para. 76.Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ Id. at para. 105.Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ Id. at para. 89Google Scholar

¹¹⁷ Id. at paras. 103–05.Google Scholar

¹¹⁸ Case C-459/03, Comm'n v. Germany, 2005 E.C.R. I-6985.Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ Baere, Geert De, “O, Where is Faith? O, Where is Loyalty?” Some Thoughts on the Duty of Loyal Co-Operation and the Union's External Environmental Competences in the Light of the PFOS Case, 36 Eur. L. Rev. 405 (2011).Google Scholar

¹²⁰ Id. at 417.Google Scholar

¹²¹ Case C-45/07, Comm'n v. Greece, 2009 E.C.R. I-701.Google Scholar

¹²² VCLT art. 31(1).Google Scholar

¹²³ In determining whether a provision has been breached, the treaty should be interpreted by reference to the circumstances prevailing at the time of its conclusion. Cameroon v. Nigeria, 2002 I.C.J. 303, 346 (Oct. 10).Google Scholar

¹²⁴ For one official acknowledgement of the EU's aim to strengthen its position as a global actor, see Presidency Conclusions, Laeken Council of the European Union, Laeken Declaration on the Future of the European Union, SN 300/1 ADD 1, Annex I, at 2 (Dec. 14, 2001), available at http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_DOC-01-18_en.htm [hereinafter Laeken Declaration]. In particular, see the section headed “Europe's New Role in a Globalised World.” Id. at 3.Google Scholar

¹²⁵ Smith, Karen E., Speaking with One Voice? European Union Co-ordination on Human Rights Issues at the United Nations, 44 J. Common Mkt. Studs. 113, 116 (2006).Google Scholar

¹²⁶ For an extensive analysis of EU coordination at the UN, see Degrand-Guillaud, Anne, Actors and Mechanisms of EU Coordination at the UN, 14 Eur. Foreign Aff. Rev. 405 (2009); Degrand-Guillard, Anne, Characteristics of and Recommendations for EU Coordination at the UN, 14 Eur. Foreign Aff. Rev. 607 (2009).Google Scholar

¹²⁷ Laeken Declaration, supra note 124; Smith, supra note 125.Google Scholar

¹²⁸ Casteleiro & Larik, supra note 44, at 541.Google Scholar

¹²⁹ Case C-6/90, Francovich v. Italy, 1991 E.C.R. I-5357.Google Scholar

¹³⁰ Case C-46/93, Brasserie du Pecheur SA v. Germany, 1996 E.C.R. I-1029; Köbler v. Austria, 2003 E.C.R. I-10239.Google Scholar

¹³¹ For an extensive analysis of such legal orders and the general debate over whether they are truly “self-contained” subsystems within international law, see Simma, Bruno & Pulkowski, Dirk, Of Planets and the Universe: Self-Contained Regimes in International Law, 17 Eur. J. Int'l L. 483 (2006).Google Scholar

¹³² An early and prominent debate in this area occurred in the 1970s between scholars who supported a “state-centered” view of global politics and those who supported a “society-dominated” view. For examples of works that contributed to this debate, see Transnational Relations and World Politics (Nye, Joseph S., Jr. & Robert O. Keohane eds., 1972); Mansbach, Richard W., Yale H. Ferguson & Donald E. Lampert, The Web of World Politics: Non-State Actors in the Global System (1976).Google Scholar

¹³³ D'Amato, supra note 12, at 599.Google Scholar

¹³⁴ Sartori, Giovanni, Concept Misformation in Comparative Politics, 64 Am. Pol. Sci. Rev. 1040 (1970).Google Scholar

¹³⁵ Id. at 1046.Google Scholar

¹³⁶ Case C-162/96, A Racke GmbH & Co v. Hauptzollamt Mainz, 1998 E.C.R. I-3655, para. 49.Google Scholar

¹³⁷ Case T-115/94, Opel Austria GmbH v. Council, 1997 E.C.R. I-39, para. 90.Google Scholar

¹³⁸ Konstadinides, Theodore, When in Europe: Customary International Law and EU Competence in the Sphere of External Action, 13 German L.J. 1177, 1179 (2012).Google Scholar

¹³⁹ The General Assembly of the OAS was established under the Protocol of Amendment to the Charter of the Organization of American States, art. XIII, Feb. 27, 1967, 119 U.N.T.S. 3. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights was established under G.A. Res. 448, Statute of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (Oct. 1, 1979).Google Scholar

¹⁴⁰ For some recent examples, see Murray, Philomena, Comparative Regional Integration in the EU and East Asia: Moving Beyond Integration Snobbery, 47 Int'l Pol. 308 (2010); Acharya, Armitav, Comparative Regionalism: A Field Whose Time Has Come?, 47 Int'l Spectator 3 (2012).Google Scholar

¹⁴¹ Haas, E.B., International Integration: The European and Universal Process, 15 Int'l Org. 366, 378 (1961).Google Scholar

¹⁴² Archarya, supra note 140, at 11.Google Scholar

¹⁴³ Murray, supra note 140, at 309.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁴ This connection between coherence in the sense of constructing an integrated whole that is consistent with itself and legitimacy is inspired by Dworkin's interpretivist concept of “law as integrity.” Ronald Dworkin, Law's Empire 225 (1986).Google Scholar

¹⁴⁵ TEU art. 3(5).Google Scholar

¹⁴⁶ This quotation, which provided the title for this article, is from Alfred, Lord Tennyson's The Ancient Sage, line 39 (1885).Google Scholar