Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

International Trade Agreements and Democratic Participation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
European Yearbook of International Economic Law 2017

Part of the book series: European Yearbook of International Economic Law ((EUROYEAR,volume 8))

Abstract

The following contribution focuses on the question whether the negotiations on the two major transatlantic free trade agreements CETA (EU-Canada) and TTIP (EU-US) have so far corresponded to the principles of democratic participation, transparency, and public accessibility. Specific attention is drawn to the citizen’s democratic participation through forms of participatory or direct democracy.

The author would like to thank Theresa Krampe for her extraordinary help in translating the original text into English. The text goes back to a presentation held in Berlin on 6 March 2015 during the conference “The EU’s Common Commercial Policy five Years after Lisbon – Quo Vadis?”. It was first published in German in Bungenberg M, Herrmann C (eds), Die gemeinsame Handelspolitik der Europäischen Union fünf Jahre nach Lissabon – Quo Vadis?, 2016, p. 92 et seqq.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 219.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 279.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 279.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Further analysis sees in Bungenberg and Hermann (2011). For the Federal Constitutional Court’s critical analysis of the common commercial policy see Herrmann (2010).

  2. 2.

    CETA negotiations have already been concluded. The agreement was signed in Brussels on 30 October 2016. The consolidated version is available under http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-10973-2016-INIT/en/pdf (last accessed 1 March 2017).

  3. 3.

    TTIP negotiations are still ongoing.

  4. 4.

    With regard to the likewise emotionally charged European constitutional debate cf. Craig (2001), p. 125.

  5. 5.

    For a discussion from the perspective of legal studies see Mayer and Ermes (2014), p. 237 et seqq.; Mayer F, Stellt das geplante Freihandelsabkommen der EU mit Kanada (Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA) ein gemischtes Abkommen dar?, legal opinion for the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy, 28 August 2014, https://www.bmwi.de/BMWi/Redaktion/PDF/C-D/ceta-gutachten-einstufung-als-gemischtes-abkommen,property=pdf,bereich=bmwi2012,sprache=de,rwb=true.pdf (last accessed 1 March 2017); Cremona (2015), p. 351 et seqq.; Treier and Wernicke (2015), p. 334 et seqq.; Hoffmeister (2015), p. 35 et seqq.

  6. 6.

    On this point of view see Streinz (2016).

  7. 7.

    Participatory Democracy is here used as an umbrella term under which forms of direct democracy can be subsumed.

  8. 8.

    Cf. Article 207(3), third subparagraph TFEU. Commission internally, this falls under the jurisdiction of the Directorate General for Trade (DG Trade). Until November 2014, Karel de Gucht acted as EU Trade Commissioner, since then the position is filled by Cecilia Malmström.

  9. 9.

    Article 207(3) second subparagraph TFEU. The TTIP mandate is available under http://www.bmwi.de/BMWi/Redaktion/PDF/S-T/ttip-mandat,property=pdf,bereich=bmwi2012,sprache=de,rwb=true.pdf (last accessed 1 March 2017).

  10. 10.

    European Commission, C(2014) 6501 final.

  11. 11.

    The individual action was brought to the General Court on 19 November 2014. The lawsuit was pending for two and a half years as case T-754/14, Efler and others v Commission. The GC finally decided on 10 May 2017 - after the final version of this contribution has been submitted. The judgment, which could only be taken into account during the process of proof reading, is in line with the argument developped here. As suggested here, the GC concluded that the Commission infringed EU law by refusing to register the ECI proposal. The plaintiff’s application can be accessed online (in German), https://stip-ttip.org/de/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2014/11/EuGH-Klageschrift_Kempen_EBI.pdf, and in English, http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=162026&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1435962 (both last accessed 21 July 2017).

  12. 12.

    Ruffert (2016a), para. 11 et seq.

  13. 13.

    Following Article 1(2) TEU.

  14. 14.

    Cf. Huber (2012a), para. 42 et seq.

  15. 15.

    More on this see Wendel (2014), p. 81 et seqq.

  16. 16.

    Article 14(3) TEU, Articles 22 and 223 TFEU, Articles 39 and 40 CFR.

  17. 17.

    Articles 24, second subparagraph and Article 227 TFEU, Article 44 CFR.

  18. 18.

    Article 11(4) TEU, Article 24, first subparagraph TFEU.

  19. 19.

    Article 41 CFR.

  20. 20.

    Article 24, fourth subparagraph TFEU, Article 41(4) CFR.

  21. 21.

    Article 15 TFEU, Article 42 CFR.

  22. 22.

    Article 228 TFEU, Article 43 CFR.

  23. 23.

    For an overview over the various theories on democratic participation see, from a political scientific perspective, Schmidt (2010), p. 236 et seqq.

  24. 24.

    For the latter cf. the classification of Ruffert (2016b), paras. 3–5.

  25. 25.

    Franzius and Preuß (2011), p. 24; Huber (1999), p. 27; Huber (2012a), para. 44, in opposition to BVerfGE 123, 267 – Treaty of Lisbon, para. 194 et seq. Which deconstructs the genuine value of this reservoir of legitimation.

  26. 26.

    See also von Bogdandy (2009), p. 13.

  27. 27.

    On terminology cf. the respective classification of Article 10(3) TEU and Article 11(4)TEU in Huber (2012a), para. 42: “Grundsatz der partizipativen Demokratie”; Huber (2012b), para. 33: “direktdemokratische Komponente”; Franzius and Preuß (2011), p. 24: “partizipative Demokratie”, with reference to Article 10(3) TEU and p. 119: “direkte Demokratie”, with reference toArticle 1(4) TEU; Ruffert (2016a), para. 10: “Teilhabe”; Ruffert (2016b), para. 14: “Element direkter Demokratie”. Additionally, the citizen’s initiative can be subsumed under participatory democracy, see for instance Kadelbach (2009), p. 611.

  28. 28.

    Specified in Article 7(1) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011, according to which the signatories of a citizens’ initiative must come from at least a quarter of the Member States. Additionally, according to Article 7(2), the signatories must in at least a quarter of the Member States reach a minimum number that differs from one Member State to the other as it is determined by multiplying the number of Members of the European Parliament “EP” elected in the respective Member State by 750 (sic).

  29. 29.

    Cf. the expositions by Meyer, member of convention and known as spiritus rector of the ECI, in Meyer (2014), Präambel, para. 34. On the history of development see also Kaufmann (2011), p. 201 et seqq.

  30. 30.

    Cf. Mayer (2013), p. 80 et seqq.

  31. 31.

    For a general overview see Tiedemann (2012), p. 80 et seqq.

  32. 32.

    In the meantime, the number of (registered) ECI’s has risen significantly, cf. the list of ECI’s at http://ec.europa.eu/citizens-initiative/public/initiatives/ongoing/details/2012/000003 (last accessed 1 March 2017).

  33. 33.

    Cf. Nettesheim (2015a), para. 41; Huber (2012b), paras. 1–5; Ruffert (2016b), para. 6.

  34. 34.

    Huber (2012b), para. 32.

  35. 35.

    Mayer (2013), p. 147.

  36. 36.

    Mayer (2013), p. 147.

  37. 37.

    Franzius and Preuß (2011), p. 120.

  38. 38.

    Cf. Article 190(1), first subparagraph TFEU: “non-legislative acts of general application”.

  39. 39.

    See, however, the opinion of the Federal Constitutional Court, BVerfGE 123, 267 – Treaty of Lisbon, para. 290.

  40. 40.

    In that sense Mader (2013), p. 358 et seq.; Epiney (2005), p. 49 et seq.; Huber (2012b), para. 42.

  41. 41.

    See also Nettesheim (2015b), para. 27. With a more cautious outcome see also Biervert (2012), para. 3.

  42. 42.

    Neither can the Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 be considered disproportionate when taking into account the open wording in Article 11(4) TEU and the legislator’s similarly wide prerogative of evaluation.

  43. 43.

    See Ruffert (2016b), para. 19; Franzius and Preuß (2011), p. 121.

  44. 44.

    Cf. Obwexer and Villotti (2010), p. 118; Guckelberger (2010) p. 753.

  45. 45.

    ECI(2012)000003, otherwise known as “Water and sanitation are a human right! Water is a public good, not a commodity”.

  46. 46.

    For more details on effects of this ECI see Sule (2014), p. 727 et seqq.

  47. 47.

    European Commission, C(2014) 6501 final.

  48. 48.

    Article 4(2) of the Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 additionally requires that the citizens’ committee has been formed and the contact persons have been designated (lit. 1), that the proposed citizens’ initiative is not manifestly abusive, frivolous or vexatious (lit. c) and that it is not manifestly contrary to the values of the Union (lit. d). However, the ECI in questions unproblematically fulfilled these requirements.

  49. 49.

    European Commission, C(2014) 6501 final, p. 2.

  50. 50.

    European Commission, C(2014) 6501 final, p. 2.

  51. 51.

    European Commission, C(2014) 6501 final, p. 2.

  52. 52.

    See now GC, judgment of 10 May 2017, case T‑754/14, Efler et al. v. Commission, paras. 35 et seq. Cf. before Rathke H, Mehr Partizipation wagen!, JuWiss-Blog, 23 September 2014, https://www.juwiss.de/114-2014/ (last accessed 1 March 2017).

  53. 53.

    Mögele (2012), para. 5.

  54. 54.

    Cf. Lorenzmeier (2011), para. 25.

  55. 55.

    Cf. again Rathke H, Mehr Partizipation wagen!, JuWiss-Blog, 23 September 2014.

  56. 56.

    See Guckelberger (2010), p. 752. Huber (2012b), para. 39 is using the same starting point but excludes an ECI aiming at Commission activities outside the area of (secondary) legislation, for instance in the EU’s external representation (para. 41).

  57. 57.

    Cf. the second recital of the Regulation (EU) No 211/2011: “The procedures and conditions required for the citizens’ initiative should be clear, simple, user-friendly and proportionate to the nature of the citizens’ initiative so as to encourage participation by citizens and to make the Union more accessible. They should strike a judicious balance between rights and obligations.”

  58. 58.

    Cf. the TTIP-mandate, http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-11103-2013-DCL-1/en/pdf (last accessed 1 March 2017).

  59. 59.

    See on that committee Weiß (2015), para. 96.

  60. 60.

    More detail see Sect. 3.2.

  61. 61.

    The document in question is a draft text preparing the EU’s position in its negotiations with the United States, see http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2015/Sept./tradoc_153807.pdf (last accessed 1 March 2017).

  62. 62.

    European Commission, C(2014) 6501 final, p. 2.

  63. 63.

    See the written observations on behalf of the applicant, published 9 November 2014, https://stop-ttip.org/de/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2014/11/EuGH-Klageschrift_Kempen_EBI.pdf (last accessed 1 March 2017), para. 43 et seq. The GC followed this line of argument in its judgment of 10 May 2017, case T‑754/14, Efler et al. v. Commission,paras. 44 et seq.

  64. 64.

    Regarding CETA the request for preliminary injunctions has been rejected in the meantime by the General Court and the Court of Justice, see GC, order of 23 May 2016, case T-754/14 R, Efler et al. v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2016:306, and CJEU, order of 29 September 2016, case C-400/16 P(R), Efler et al. v Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2016:735.

  65. 65.

    European Commission, C(2014) 6501 final, p. 2 et seq.

  66. 66.

    GC, judgment of 10 May 2017, case T‑754/14, Efler et al. v. Commission. The admissibility was not problematic with a view to Article 263(4) TFEU as the Commission’s decision not to register the ECI directly addresses the organisers of the ECI.

  67. 67.

    Cf. the Commission’s online presence regarding TTIP, which has undergone considerable expansion in recent times, including a leaflet dealing with ten TTIP-myths, https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2015/march/tradoc_153266.pdf (last accessed 1 March 2017).

  68. 68.

    See Streinz (2016).

  69. 69.

    Cf. Pernice (2015), p. 521.

  70. 70.

    In more detail on the principle of transparency see Sobotta (2001) as well as Riemann (2004), p. 29 et seqq.

  71. 71.

    See the first recital of the Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, OJ 2001 L 145/43.

  72. 72.

    Appropriately Kadelbach (2015), para. 71.

  73. 73.

    See opinion of AG Maduro to CJEU, case C-64/05 P, Kingdom of Sweden v Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2007:433, para. 41 et seqq.

  74. 74.

    On the special quality of dual legal sources see Wendel (2014), para. 34 et seqq.

  75. 75.

    Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council, and Commission documents. The regulation cannot be discussed in detail here. For further information see Meltzian (2004), p. 173 et seqq.; Marsch (2005), p. 639 et seqq.; Bartelt and Zeitler (2003), p. 489 et seqq.; Kranenborg (2008), p. 1083 et seqq.

  76. 76.

    CJEU, opinion 2/13, Accession to the ECHR II, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2454.

  77. 77.

    GC, case T-331/11, Besselink v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2013:419, para. 31. See also previously in the context of counter-terrorism CJEU, case C-266/05 P, Sison, ECLI:EU:C:2007:75, para. 63.

  78. 78.

    GC, case T-331/11, Besselink v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2013:419, paras. 32–34 and 51.

  79. 79.

    GC, case T-331/11, Besselink v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2013:419, paras. 73 and 108.

  80. 80.

    GC, case T-331/11, Besselink v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2013:419, para. 73.

  81. 81.

    See http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1230 (last accessed 1 March 2017). As regards the significance of the documents, however, this does not allow for reliable conclusions.

  82. 82.

    See Hoffmeister (2015), p. 38 et seq.

  83. 83.

    Hoffmeister (2015), p. 40.

  84. 84.

    The mandate had already been leaked by some members of the EP.

  85. 85.

    See the text of the agreement as signed on 30 October 2016, http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-10973-2016-INIT/en/pdf(last accessed 1 March 2017).

  86. 86.

    This question cannot be dealt with in detail here. For the contrary positions on whether the free trade agreements are to be seen as mixed agreements see (affirmative) Meyer (2014) and (negative) Hoffmeister (2015), p. 54 et seqq.

  87. 87.

    European Commission, C(2014) 9052 final.

  88. 88.

    European Commission, C(2014) 9052 final.

  89. 89.

    Another relevant question is in how far the Commission is entitled to publish documents from which indirect conclusions about the negotiation mandate may be drawn. This is still largely a grey area in positive law so that general duties of loyalty remain pretty much the only maxim still operable.

  90. 90.

    More details see http://trade.ec.europa.eu/consultations/index.cfm#_tab_2015 and http://trade.ec.europa.eu/consultations/index.cfm#_tab_2016 (both last accessed 1 March 2017).

  91. 91.

    Aptly put in Huber (2012b), para. 9.

  92. 92.

    Nettesheim (2015b), para. 10.

  93. 93.

    Ruffert (2016b), para. 8.

  94. 94.

    As a reply to the Commission’s notification, she submitted a catalogue of no less than ten requests on the improvement of the transparency of TTIP negotiations, http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/cases/decision.faces/en/58668/html.bookmark (last accessed 1 March 2017).

  95. 95.

    See, as mentioned above, Article 207(3), third subparagraph, second sentence TFEU and Article 218(10) TFEU.

  96. 96.

    European Parliament, resolution of 8 July 2015 containing the European Parliament’s recommendations to the European Commission on the negotiations for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), 2014/2228(INI).

  97. 97.

    For a detailed discussion of manifestations, meaning, and potential for reform see Hindelang (2014), p. 39 et seqq.

  98. 98.

    See already as well as Pernice (2014), p. 161 and (regarding the former approach) Stöbener (2015), p. 372.

References

  • Bartelt S, Zeitler H (2003) Zugang zu Dokumenten in der EU. Europarecht 38(3):487–503

    Google Scholar 

  • Biervert B (2012) Art. 11 EUV. In: Schwarze J (ed) EU-Kommentar, 3rd edn. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Bungenberg M, Hermann C (2011) Die gemeinsame Handelspolitik der Europäischen Union nach Lissabon. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Craig P (2001) Constitutions, constitutionalism and the European Union. Eur Law J 7(2):125–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cremona M (2015) Negotiating the transatlantic trade and investment partnership (TTIP). Common Mark Law Rev 52(2):351–362

    Google Scholar 

  • Epiney A (2005) Europäische Verfassung und Legitimation durch die Unionsbürger. In: Kadelbach S (ed) Europäische Verfassung und direkte Demokratie. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 33–56

    Google Scholar 

  • Franzius C, Preuß K (2011) Die Zukunft der europäischen Demokratie. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Guckelberger A (2010) Die Europäische Bürgerinitiative. Die Öffentliche Verwaltung 63(18):745–754

    Google Scholar 

  • Herrmann C (2010) Die gemeinsame Handelspolitik der Europäischen Union im Lissabon-Urteil. Europarecht Beiheft 1:193–210

    Google Scholar 

  • Hindelang S (2014) Study on Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) and Alternatives of Dispute Resolution in International Investment Law. In: European Parliament (ed) Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) Provisions in the EU’s International Investment Agreements, vol 2. Studies, pp 39–131

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmeister F (2015) Wider die German Angst – Ein Plädoyer für die transatlantische Handels- und Investitionspartnerschaft (TTIP). Archiv des Völkerrechts 53(1):35–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber P (1999) Demokratie ohne Volk oder Demokratie der Völker. In: Drexl J, Kreuzer KF, Scheuing DH (eds) Europäische Demokratie. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 27–57

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber P (2012a) Artikel 10 EUV. In: Streinz R (ed) EUV/AEUV, 2nd edn. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber P (2012b) Artikel 11 EUV. In: Streinz R (ed) EUV/AEUV, 2nd edn. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Kadelbach S (2009) Unionsbürgerschaft. In: von Bogdandy A, Bast J (eds) Europäisches Verfassungsrecht, 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin, pp 611–656

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kadelbach S (2015) Unionsbürgerrechte. In: Ehlers D (ed) Europäische Grundrechte und Grundfreiheiten, 4th edn. de Gruyter, Berlin, pp 797–838

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufmann B (2011) Direkte Demokratie auf transnationaler Ebene. Zur Entstehungsgeschichte der Europäischen Bürgerinitiative. In: Feld L, Huber PM, Jung O, Welzel C, Wittreck F (eds) Jahrbuch für direkte Demokratie 2010. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 201–222

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kranenborg H (2008) Access to documents and data protection in the European Union: on the public nature of personal data. Common Mark Law Rev 45(4):1079–1114

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorenzmeier S (2011) Art. 218 AEUV. In: Grabitz E, Hilf M, Nettesheim M (eds) Das Recht der Europäischen Union. Beck, München, loose leaf

    Google Scholar 

  • Mader O (2013) Bürgerinitiative, Petitionsrecht, Beschwerde zum Bürgerbeauftragten. Europarecht 48(3):348–371

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsch N (2005) Das Recht auf Zugang zu EU-Dokumenten. Die Öffentliche Verwaltung 58(15):639–644

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer F (2013) Direkte Demokratie und die Europäische Union. In: Efler M, Mörschel T (eds) Direkte Demokratie auf Bundesebene. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 147–160

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer F, Ermes M (2014) Rechtsfragen zu den Freihandelsabkommen CETA und TTIP. Zeitschrift für Rechtspolitik 47(8):237–240

    Google Scholar 

  • Meltzian D (2004) Das Recht der Öffentlichkeit auf Zugang zu Dokumenten der Gemeinschaftsorgane. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer J (2014) Charta der Grundrechte der Europäischen Union, 4th edn. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Mögele R (2012) Art. 218 AEUV. In: Streinz R (ed) EUV/AEUV, 2nd edn. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Nettesheim M (2015a) Art. 10 EUV. In: Grabitz E, Hilf M, Nettesheim M (eds) Das Recht der Europäischen Union. Beck, München, loose leaf

    Google Scholar 

  • Nettesheim M (2015b) Art. 11 EUV. In: Grabitz E, Hilf M, Nettesheim M (eds) Das Recht der Europäischen Union. Beck. München, loose leaf

    Google Scholar 

  • Obwexer W, Villotti J (2010) Die Europäische Bürgerinitiative. Journal für Rechtspolitik 18(3):108–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pernice I (2014) Study on International Investment Protection Agreements and EU Law. In: European Parliament (ed) Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) Provisions in the EU’s International Investment Agreements, vol 2. Studies, pp 132–166

    Google Scholar 

  • Pernice I (2015) Politisierung der EU nach der Europawahl – Politik zwischen TTIP und TTU. Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 25(14):521–522

    Google Scholar 

  • Riemann F (2004) Die Transparenz der Europäischen Union. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruffert M (2016a) Art. 10 EUV. In: Calliess C, Ruffert M (eds) EUV/AEUV, 5th edn. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruffert M (2016b) Art. 11 EUV. In: Calliess C, Ruffert M (eds) EUV/AEUV, 5th edn. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt M (2010) Demokratietheorien, 5th edn. VS Verlag, Wiesbaden

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sobotta C (2001) Transparenz in den Rechtssetzungsverfahren der Europäischen Union. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Stöbener P (2015) Investitionsschutzrecht: Neue Vorschläge der Kommission zu TTIP. Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 26(10):372

    Google Scholar 

  • Streinz R (2016) Repräsentative Demokratie und parlamentarische Kontrolle. In: Bungenberg M, Herrmann C (eds) Die gemeinsame Handelspolitik der Europäischen Union. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 71–92

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sule S (2014) “Recht auf Wasser” – Zur ersten der Europäischen Kommission vorgelegten Europäischen Bürgerinitiative nach dem Lissabonner Vertrag. Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 25(19):725–729

    Google Scholar 

  • Tiedemann M (2012) Die sekundärrechtliche Ausgestaltung der europäischen Bürgerinitiative durch die Verordnung (EU) Nr. 211/2011. Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 31(2):80–85

    Google Scholar 

  • Treier V, Wernicke S (2015) Die Transatlantische Handels- und Investitionspartnerschaft (TTIP) – Trojanisches Pferd oder steiniger Weg zum Olymp. Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 25(9):334–339

    Google Scholar 

  • von Bogdandy A (2009) Grundprinzipien. In: von Bogdandy A, Bast J (eds) Europäisches Verfassungsrecht, 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin, pp 13–71

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Weiß W (2015) Art. 207 AEUV. In: Grabitz E, Hilf M, Nettesheim M (eds) Das Recht der Europäischen Union. Beck, München, loose leaf

    Google Scholar 

  • Wendel M (2014) § 18 Unionsbürgerrechte, Freizügigkeit. In: Grabenwarter C (ed) Europäischer Grundrechteschutz. Enzyklopädie Europarecht, vol 2. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Law, Freie Universität Berlin, Boltzmannstr. 3, 14195, Berlin, Germany

    Mattias Wendel

Authors
  1. Mattias Wendel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mattias Wendel .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany

    Marc Bungenberg

  2. Faculty of Law, University of Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany

    Markus Krajewski

  3. School of Law, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom

    Christian Tams

  4. Competition and Regulation Institute, Leuphana University of Lüneburg, Lüneburg, Germany

    Jörg Philipp Terhechte

  5. Faculty of Law and Criminal Sciences, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland

    Andreas R. Ziegler

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Wendel, M. (2017). International Trade Agreements and Democratic Participation. In: Bungenberg, M., Krajewski, M., Tams, C., Terhechte, J., Ziegler, A. (eds) European Yearbook of International Economic Law 2017. European Yearbook of International Economic Law, vol 8. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58832-2_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58832-2_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-58831-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-58832-2

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation