Abstract
This chapter focuses on the nature and effect of the values and principles enshrined in Articles 3(5) and 21 TEU, which set out the objectives and limits of the EU’s external action. It begins with some introductory remarks highlighting the constitutional significance of international values aimed at giving guidance to the conduct of the EU foreign relations power. The second part explores the tendency of the CJEU to use these values and principles as a means of enlarging the functional scope of the EU competences. The problematic issues flowing from this approach, in particular the relation between general objectives of the EU’s external action and particular objectives assigned to single areas, are discussed in the third part. The chapter concludes with a brief enquiry on the impact of general values and objectives on the principle of conferral.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
See Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the European Union, 2012, OJ C326 (TEU), Article 21(3).
- 2.
- 3.
- 4.
See Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, 2012, OJ C 326 (TFEU), Articles 2017(1), 208(1), 212(1), 214(1).
- 5.
Kube 2016.
- 6.
With the exception of Article 215 TFEU, concerning the restrictive measures, which, however, proceeds on the basis of a CFSP decision, subject, under Article 23 TEU, to the respect of the principles and objectives of the External Action; see TFEU, above n. 4.
- 7.
See, again, TFEU, above n. 4, Articles 207(1), 208(1), 212(1) and 214(1).
- 8.
Articles 40 also prevents a coordinated exercise of powers of actions respectively conferred upon each of these two dimensions of the European integration, either based on a combination of their respective legal basis or on a sequence of measures, each grounded on its own legal basis. A sequential exercise of CFSP acts and of EU substantive policies acts is, notoriously, established only by Article 315 TFEU in the area of restrictive measures and, consequently, appears as a lex specialis, unlikely to be replicated in situations which fall outside its scope. For a more in-depth analysis of the exceptional status of Article 315, I refer to Cannizzaro 2017, pp. 531–546.
- 9.
Court of Justice, Western Sahara Campaign UK, Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 27 February 2018, Case C-266/16, ECLI:EU:C:2018:118.
- 10.
See Hilpold 2009, pp. 141–182.
- 11.
Kokott and Sobotta 2012, pp. 1015–1024. This impression emerges from Court of Justice, Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission, Judgment, 03 September 2008, Joined Cases C-402/05 and C-415/05, ECLI:EU:C:2008:461, paras 290–292, which, however, does not unveil the argument leading to this solution. A perspective based on the idea that the EU succeeded to the MS in the rights and duties flowing from the Charter, which fall within its competences, was set out by the GC (CFI) in Court of Justice, Kadi v Council and Commission, Judgment, 21 September 2005, Case T-315/01, ECLI:EU:T:2005:332, paras 193–195.
- 12.
Court of Justice, Rosneft, Judgment, 28 March 2017, Case C-72/15, ECLI:EU:C:2017:236.
- 13.
Ibid., para 111ff.
- 14.
Court of Justice, Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada, of the one part, and the European Union and its Member States, of the other part (CETA), Opinion of the Court, 30 April 2019, Opinion 1/17, ECLI:EU:C:2019:341.
- 15.
Ibid., para 200.
- 16.
This use of the general values and principles of Articles 3(5) and 21 emerges from the Opinion of AG Bot; see Court of Justice, Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada, of the one part, and the European Union and its Member States, of the other part (CETA), Opinion of AG Bot of 29 January 2019, Opinion 1/17, ECLI:EU:C:2019:72, paras 73–78: “It is my view that examination of the compatibility of Section F of Chapter 8 of the CETA with the principle of the autonomy of EU law must be carried out taking due account of the need to preserve the European Union’s capacity to contribute to achieving the principles and the objectives of its external action. … the Court should interpret the principle of the autonomy of EU law not only in such a way as to maintain the specific characteristics of EU law but also to ensure the European Union’s involvement in the development of international law and of a rules-based international legal order.”
- 17.
Opinion 1/17 (CETA), above n. 14, para 117.
- 18.
Court of Justice, Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Singapore, Opinion of AG Sharpston, 21 December 2016, Opinion 2/15, ECLI:EU:C:2016:992.
- 19.
Ibid., paras 489–494.
- 20.
Ibid., para 495.
- 21.
Court of Justice, Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Singapore, Opinion of the Court, 16 May 2017, Opinion 2/15, ECLI:EU:C:2017:376.
- 22.
Ibid., paras 143–144.
- 23.
Ibid., para 166.
- 24.
This conclusion was suggested by AG Bot in the Mauritius, who proclaimed his intention “to define the boundaries between the CFSP and the Union’s other policies” and concluded that “(i)n so far as Article 21(2) TEU sets out the common objectives of the Union’s external action, that provision should be read in conjunction with the more specific provisions applicable to each policy in order to determine the Union policy to which a certain objective is more specifically related”; see Court of Justice, Parliament v Council (Mauritius), Opinion of AG Bot, 30 January 2014, Case C-658/11, ECLI:EU:C:2014:41, paras 87–88.
- 25.
Ibid., para 46: The provisions falling within the scope of the CFSP “are not therefore of a scope enabling them to be regarded as a distinct component of that agreement. On the contrary, they are incidental to that agreement’s two components constituted by the common commercial policy and development cooperation”.
- 26.
Ibid., para 77.
- 27.
See Court of Justice, Commission v Council, Judgment of the Court, 20 May 2008, Case C-91/05, ECLI:EU:C:2008:288; see Hillion and Wessel 2009, pp. 551–86.
- 28.
On that role, in the light of the pre-Lisbon institutional practice, see Cannizzaro 2007, pp. 193–234.
- 29.
References
Cannizzaro E (2007) Unity and Fragmentation in the EU’s Foreign relations Power. In: Barnard C (ed) The Fundamental of EU Law Revisited. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 193–234
Cannizzaro E (2017) The EU Antiterrorist Sanctions. In: Eeckhout P, Lopez-Escudero M (eds) The European Union’s External Action in Times of Crisis. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 531–546
Cremona M (2016) Values in EU Foreign Policy. In: Sciso E, Baratta R, Morviducci C (eds) I valori dell’Unione europea e l’azione esterna. Giappichelli, Turin
de Witte B (2008) Too Much Constitutional Law in the European Union’s Foreign Relations? In: Cremona M, de Witte B (eds) EU Foreign Relations Law—Constitutional Fundamentals. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 3–15
Hillion C, Wessel RA (2009) Competence distribution in EU external relations after ECOWAS: Clarification or continued fuzziness? CMLRev 46:551–86
Hilpold P (2009) EU Law and UN Law in Conflict: The Kadi Case. Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law 13:141–182
Kokott J, Sobotta C (2012) The Kadi Case—Constitutional Core Values and International Law—Finding the Balance? European Journal of International Law 23:1015–1024
Kube V (2016) The European Union’s External Human Rights Commitment: What is the Legal Value of Article 21 TEU? EUI Department of Law Research Paper No. 2016/10
Larik J (2013) Entrenching Global Governance: The EU’s Constitutional Objectives Caught Between a Sanguine World View and a Daunting Reality. In: Van Vooren B, Blockmans S, Wouters J (eds) The EU’s Role in Global Governance: The Legal Dimension. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 7–22
Larik J E (2016) Foreign Policy Objectives in European Constitutional Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Leino P (2016) The Journey Towards All that is Good and Beautiful: Human Rights and Common Values as Guiding Principles of EU Foreign Relations Law. In: Cremona M, de Witte B (eds) EU Foreign Relations Law—Constitutional Fundamentals. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 259–289
Lonardo L (2018) Common Foreign and Security Policy and the External Action Objectives: An Analysis of Article 21 of the Treaty on the European Union. European Constitutional Law Review 14:584–608
Neframi E (2013) Les Rapports entre Objectifs et Compétences: de la Restructuration et de l’Identité de l’Union Européenne [The Relationship between Objectives and Competences: on the Restructuring and Identity of the European Union]. In: Neframi E (ed) Objectifs et compétences dans l’Union européenne [Objectives and Competences in the EU]. Bruylant, Brussels
Wessel R A (2020) Legality in EU Common Foreign and Security Policy: The Choice of the Appropriate Legal Basis. In: Kilpatrick C, Scott J (eds) Contemporary Challenges to EU Legality: Collected Courses of the Academy of European Law. Oxford University Press (forthcoming)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors
About this paper
Cite this paper
Cannizzaro, E. (2021). The Value of the EU International Values. In: Douma, W.T., Eckes, C., Van Elsuwege, P., Kassoti, E., Ott, A., Wessel, R.A. (eds) The Evolving Nature of EU External Relations Law. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-423-5_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-423-5_1
Published:
Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague
Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-422-8
Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-423-5
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)