scholarly journals Restrictive measures - sanctions compliance, implementation and judicial review challenges in the common foreign and security policy of the European Union

ERA Forum ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 159-181
Author(s):  
Nadia Zelyova
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Security Policy ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Comprehensive Overview ◽  
Legal Evolution ◽  
Foreign And Security Policy ◽  
The Common ◽  
Restrictive Measures ◽  
The Eu

AbstractThis article provides a comprehensive overview of EU restrictive measures applicable within the EU, the competences and legal evolution which lead to the implementation of Common Foreign and Security Policy restrictive measures (CFSP sanctions), and considers procedural issues, developments in the latest case law, and the challenges of securing compliance with EU sanctions, which reach beyond the territory of the EU.

Judicial review of Common Foreign and Security Policy by the ECtHR and the (re)negotiation on the accession of the EU to the ECHR

2021 ◽  
pp. 1023263X2198824
Author(s):  
Maria José Rangel de Mesquita
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Security Policy ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Regional Level ◽  
Judicial Control ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Foreign And Security Policy ◽  
Conclusion Section ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Eu

The article addresses the issue of judicial control of the implementation of Common Foreign and Security Policy at international regional level within the framework of the relaunching of the negotiation in view of the accession of the EU to the ECHR. Considering the extent of jurisdiction of the CJEU in respect of Common Foreign and Security Policy field in the light of its case law (sections 1 and 2), it analyses the question of judicial review of Common Foreign and Security Policy within international regional justice by the ECtHR in the light of the ongoing negotiations (section 3), in the perspective of the relationship between non-national courts (section 3.A), having as background the (2013) Draft Agreement of accession (section 3.B.1). After addressing the relaunching of the negotiation procedure (section 3.B.2) and the issue of CFSP control by the ECtHR according to the recent (re)negotiation meetings (section 3.B.3), some concrete proposals, including for the redrafting of the accession agreement, will be put forward (section 3.B.4), as well as a conclusion (section 4).

Judicial review of Common Foreign and Security Policy by the ECtHR and the (re)negotiation on the accession of the EU to the ECHR

2021 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 356-370
Author(s):  
Maria José Rangel de Mesquita
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Security Policy ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Regional Level ◽  
Judicial Control ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Foreign And Security Policy ◽  
Conclusion Section ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Eu

The article addresses the issue of judicial control of the implementation of Common Foreign and Security Policy at international regional level within the framework of the relaunching of the negotiation in view of the accession of the EU to the ECHR. Considering the extent of jurisdiction of the CJEU in respect of Common Foreign and Security Policy field in the light of its case law (sections 1 and 2), it analyses the question of judicial review of Common Foreign and Security Policy within international regional justice by the ECtHR in the light of the ongoing negotiations (section 3), in the perspective of the relationship between non-national courts (section 3.A), having as background the (2013) Draft Agreement of accession (section 3.B.1). After addressing the relaunching of the negotiation procedure (section 3.B.2) and the issue of CFSP control by the ECtHR according to the recent (re)negotiation meetings (section 3.B.3), some concrete proposals, including for the redrafting of the accession agreement, will be put forward (section 3.B.4), as well as a conclusion (section 4).

1. An Overview

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen Wallace ◽  
Mark A. Pollack ◽  
Alasdair R. Young
Keyword(s):  
Policy Making ◽  
Security Policy ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Sixth Edition ◽  
Eu Policy ◽  
Foreign And Security Policy ◽  
The Common ◽  
Analytical Approaches ◽  
The Eu

This text examines the processes that produce policies in the European Union — that is, the decisions (or non-decisions) by EU public authorities facing choices between alternative courses of public action. It considers the broad contours of the EU policy-making process and relevant analytical approaches for understanding that process. It includes case studies dealing with the main policy domains in which the EU dimension is significant, including competition policy, the common agricultural policy (CAP), the economic and monetary union (EMU), enlargement, common foreign and security policy (CFSP), justice and home affairs (JHA), and energy and social policy. This chapter discusses the significant developments that have impacted EU policy-making since the sixth edition, summarizes the text’s collective approach to understanding policy-making in the EU, and provides an overview of the chapters that follow.

Parlamentarische Kontrolle durch Vernetzung? Eine kritische Analyse der Rolle der Interparlamentarischen Konferenz für die GASP/GSVP

IG ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 118-133
Author(s):  
Daniel Schade
Keyword(s):  
Policy Making ◽  
Security Policy ◽  
Value Added ◽  
The European Union ◽  
National Parliaments ◽  
Defence Policy ◽  
Foreign And Security Policy ◽  
The Common ◽  
Set Up ◽  
The Eu

The Interparliamentary Conference for the Common Foreign and Security Policy and the Common Security and Defence Policy (IPC) is a new parliamentary body set up after the Treaty of Lisbon which allows to create interlinkages between parliaments in the European Union (EU). It is part of an ongoing process which aims to challenge the executive dominance in EU policy-making in general and in the EU’s foreign and security policy in particular. Considering its sessions and the experiences of members of parliaments partaking in the Interparliamentary Conference to date, this article analyses its value-added to this overarching goal. The experiences so far suggest that the IPC faces significant practical challenges in contributing to the parliamentary scrutiny of the policy areas concerned despite the fact that the format of interparliamentary gatherings is a significant innovation in its own right. These challenges arise primarily out of a conflict between the European Parliament and national parliaments in the EU, the diversity of national parliamentarism, as well as the differing moti⁠v­a⁠tions and skills of the participating members of parliaments.

scholarly journals Made in Luxembourg: The fabrication of the law on jurisdiction of the court of justice of the European Union in the field of the Common Foreign and Security Policy

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joni Heliskoski
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Security Policy ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Foreign And Security Policy ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Common

The article provides an analysis of the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the interpretation of Articles 24 TEU, first paragraph, second subparagraph, and 275 TFEU governing the question of the Court’s jurisdiction in the field of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). The article first describes the background of those provisions as they resulted from the Convention on the Future of Europe and the 2003-4 and 2007 Intergovernmental Conferences and then compares the Court’s understanding of its jurisdiction to the drafting history of the provisions concerned. The main conclusion of the study of the case law suggests that the Court views its jurisdiction over the CFSP more broadly than the jurisdiction envisaged by the drafters of the Treaties. In particular, the Court both interprets the exclusion from its jurisdiction of acts based on the Treaty’s CFSP provisions in a narrow fashion and is prepared to review the legality of CFSP acts not only through direct actions but also through references for a preliminary ruling. However, the article argues that the provision of adequate legal protection in the field of the CFSP necessarily requires both the Court of Justice and domestic courts of the Member States to play their respective roles.

scholarly journals The Court of Justice of the European Union and the autonomous restrictive measures against natural and legal persons and non-state entities within the EU common foreign and security policy

2021 ◽  
Vol 60 (91) ◽  
pp. 117-139
Author(s):  
Boris Tučić
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Security Policy ◽  
General Relation ◽  
Supporting Evidence ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Foreign And Security Policy ◽  
The One ◽  
Restrictive Measures ◽  
The Eu

As a part of its specific policies, the EU creates and implements numerous restrictive measures against different subjects. In recent years, the most interesting ones, especially from the perspective of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), have been the autonomous restrictive measures against natural and legal persons and other non-state entities within the Union`s Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). After years of legal wandering in this regard, the Lisbon Treaty finally offered an explicit legal basis for this kind of measures, envisaging, as well, for the first time, the CJEU`s jurisdiction in the field of CFSP in some cases, including the one related to reviewing the legality of decisions providing for restrictive measures against natural or legal persons adopted by the Council of the EU on the basis of Chapter 2 of Title V of the Treaty of the European Union. In this regard, the subject matter of this paper are the activities of the EU courts related to the autonomous restrictive measures against individual subjects, analyzed at several relevant although inseparable levels. The first one considers the intention of the CJEU to "use" the situation regarding the autonomous restrictive measures in order to strengthen its position and competences within the CFSP. The second one is oriented to the efforts of the courts to secure the balance between the effectiveness of the CFSP instruments, on the one hand, and the protection of some of the major principles and values of the EU legal order, on the other hand, such as the rule of law, legal certainty, effective judicial protection or the protection of human rights as guaranteed by the EU Law in general. Thirdly, a very important step in this context has been the jurisprudential identification of the key procedural requirements that the Council`s decisions providing for restrictive measures must fulfill as well (aka the designation criteria, statements of reasons criteria and supporting evidence criteria). By constantly insisting on the fulfillment of these criteria, the EU courts exerted a pressure on the Council to improve its decisions providing restrictive measures in a qualitative manner. Recent jurisprudence, such as the Rosneft or Bank Refah Kargaran cases, shows that there is still enough space for the Court`s interventions in this field, and that some interesting Court`s decisions, related to its position within the CFSP or the general relation between the CFSP and other forms of Union`s external activities, could be expected in the years to come.

scholarly journals The Common Foreign and Security Policy

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hylke Dijkstra ◽  
Sophie Vanhoonacker
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Security Policy ◽  
Policy Outcomes ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Foreign Policy ◽  
Area Of Interest ◽  
Foreign And Security Policy ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Eu

The member states of the European Union (EU) coordinate, define, and implement foreign policy in the context of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). This policy area, often referred to as EU foreign policy, has a broad scope covering all areas of foreign policy and all questions relating to security and defense. The CFSP is supported by a unique institutional framework, in which member states diplomats and officials from the EU institutions jointly make policy. It is led by the High Representative, who is the “face and voice” of EU foreign policy, and supported by the substantial European External Action Service and 140 EU delegations in other countries and international organizations. Because foreign policy is normally the business of sovereign states, the exceptional nature of the CFSP has long been a subject of inquiry. The CFSP has particularly puzzled advocates of the traditional theories of European integration and international relations, who have failed to appreciate what the EU does in the field of high politics. Given the absence of formal diplomatic recognition and a strong reliance on the resources of the member states, the EU is still not a full-fledged actor, yet it has a strong international presence nonetheless. Its presence and the gradual increase in “actorness” have also raised questions about whether the EU presents a different type of actor, a civilian or normative power, which derives its influence from non-traditional sources of power. Under the assumption that the EU has some actorness, the Europeanization of foreign policy has become an area of interest. Member states can act through the EU structure to achieve more impact internationally, can adjust national foreign policy on the basis of EU positions, and are socialized into greater European coordination. The relationship between national and EU foreign policy is thus a significant topic of debate. Finally, governance perspectives increasingly provide insight into the organization of the CFSP. How the member states and the EU institutions collectively coordinate, define, and implement EU foreign policy is not only an important question in itself but also matters for policy outcomes.

scholarly journals The evolution of the common foreign and security policy of the European Union

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (5) ◽  
pp. 36-41
Author(s):  
Liudmyla Adashys ◽  
Polina Trostianska
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Security Policy ◽  
General Idea ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Negative Consequences ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Security Issues ◽  
Foreign And Security Policy ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Eu

The article analyzes the stages of formation of the common foreign and security policy of the Eu-ropean Union. The main events and decisions of world leaders that influenced the formation of the general idea of the world community about the common foreign and security policy are considered. The paper focuses on the constant desire of the European community to agree on the creation of a single effective mechanism for a common foreign and security policy of the EU. Although, in the initial stages of integration, the countries of the «European six» failed to initiate integration in the defense and political spheres. Integration continued to develop in other areas, and European countries and their leaders took new steps to converge in the regulation of the common security policy. The positive and negative consequences of each step of the evolution and formation of the common foreign and security policy of the European Union, as well as the reaction of EU member states and other leading countries to them are highlighted. The current global events that have a significant impact on the mechanism of implementation of EU security policy are analyzed. The opinions of scientists and practitioners, European and world leaders on the implementation of common foreign and security policy are studied. It has been proved that Ukraine, as the leader of the Eastern Partnership, needs to improve its status, use security issues to work out joint decisions on a closer military partnership between it and the EU countries.

scholarly journals JUDICIAL REVIEW IN THE EU'S COMMON FOREIGN AND SECURITY POLICY

2017 ◽  
Vol 67 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-35 ◽  
Author(s):  
Panos Koutrakos
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Security Policy ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Recent Case ◽  
The European Union ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Foreign And Security Policy

AbstractThe EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) was conceived of as an area ill-suited for full judicial review by the Court of Justice of the European Union. The Lisbon Treaty confers on the Court limited jurisdiction which the recent case law has interpreted in broad terms. This article will place this case law in the broader constitutional setting of the EU legal order and will provide a critical analysis of its implications for both the EU's and domestic courts. The analysis is structured on the basis of three main themes. The first is about the position of CFSP in the EU's constitutional architecture: the article will analyse the constitutional ambivalence that characterizes this position and how it is conveyed by the provisions of the Treaty on the European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union governing the Court's jurisdiction. The second theme is about the recent case law, and the integrationist approach that the Court of Justice has adopted to the scope of its jurisdiction. The third theme is about national courts: the article will argue that recent case law has been too quick to dismiss them, and that primary law renders them an essential part of the judicial review system governing CFSP.

The European Union's Common Foreign and Security Policy and Human Rights

1997 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 291-324 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martine Fouwels
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Security Policy ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Human Rights Abuses ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Foreign And Security Policy ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Eu

The dispute between the European Union (EU) Member States which broke out over the EU resolution on human rights abuses in China during the 1997 session of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) in Geneva focused attention on the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). The present article offers a comprehensive review of the functioning of this institution in the field of the promotion and protection of human rights since the coming into force of the Treaty on European Union in November 1993. 1

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document