Chapter 5: Conclusion
5.3 Future research
As mentioned various times before, the concept of mixity is so wide and touches upon almost every aspect of EU law and politics. When discussing possibilities for future research, a similar position can be taken. Almost every aspect of this thesis can be further elaborated. For instance the relation between mixity and the different negotiation procedures as mentioned in the Vademecum. Additionally, more research can be done on the development of cooperation
~ 51 ~
by the Union and third countries, whether there is some sort of standardization as mentioned in paragraph 2.4. Furthermore, the so-called ‘layers’ as mentioned in paragraph 2.5 should also be further elaborated.
Most notably and what this thesis has started to do, further research should be done on the relation between politics and law in the choice for mixity. This thesis has proposed some interesting ideas that should be further elaborated. For example in the areas between the principles of law and how it relates to the political choice for mixity, it is still limited. The thesis has discussed how the autonomy of the Union has gained a more important influence than the duty of cooperation in recent case-law. This could be argued as political motive of the Court to legally strengthen EU continuity. Such elements seem to be under explored in current literature. Additionally, this thesis has not touched on the role of politics from the perspective of the supranational organs of the Union. What is the role of the European Parliament in this discussion? Such elements should be elaborated in future research. However and most important, it is necessary to do further research on the role of politics in the choice for mixity. As has been mentioned as a limitation of this thesis, no primary data has been used to give examples and formulate a direction in the theory. A few necessary data has to be gathered in future research. First, access to the opinion of the Member States in the negotiation process from previous discussed cases should be granted. It is unclear at the moment how relations between the Member States concerning some topics are and how this influences the choice for mixity. Secondly, in my personal opinion, a proper research on the political choice for mixity cannot be done without interviewing the right persons. Here, it is not only necessary to discuss the ministers that sit in the Council, but also or even more importantly, the persons working for the bureaucratic organs of the Council. Most notably, information should be gathered from the working groups, Coreper I and Coreper II. When this data has been gathered, a proper understanding of the role of politics in the choice for mixity can be achieved. Having noted that, it proposes a proper basis for a Doctorate research, most likely for someone working at the Council.
~ 52 ~
Bibliography
ABC. (2016). Margallo denies that Catalonia and Kosovo are states, because they are not internationally recognized. Retrieved on 19 December 2018, retrieved from https://www.abc.es/espana/abci-margallo-niega-cataluna-y-kosovo-sean-estado- porque-no-reconoce-201605251648_noticia.html
Alesina, A., Angeloni, I. & Etro, F. (2001). The Political Economy of International Unions. Working paper no. 8645. Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research. Ankersmit, L. (2017). Opinion 2/15 and the Future of Mixity and ISDS. Retrieved on 23
January 2019, retrieved from http://europeanlawblog.eu/2017/05/18/opinion-215-and- the-future-of-mixity-and-isds/
Axt, H. J. (1995). Did Genscher Disunite Yugoslavia? Myths and Facts About Foreign Policy of United Germany. In Özdogan, G. G. & Saybaili, K. Balkans: A Mirror of
International Order. Istanbul: Eren.
Bebchuk, L. A. & Neeman, Z. (2017). Investor Protection and Interest Group Politics. NBER Working Paper 13702. Retrieved on 26 December 2018, retrieved from
https://www.nber.org/papers/w13702.pdf
Blauberger, M. & Schmidt, S. K. (2017). The European Court of Justice and its political impact. West European Politics, 40(4), pp. 907-918.
Bosse-Platière, I. (2018). The Principle of Subsidiarity within the External Action of the European Union. In Neframi, E. & Gatti, M. Constitutional Issueas of EU External Relations Law. Luxembourg: Luxemburg legal studies.
Casteleiro, A.D. (2012). EU Declarations of Competence to Multilateral Agreements: A Useful Reference Base? European Foreign Affairs Review, 17(4), pp. 491–510. Chamon B, M. (2018). Facultative mixity as a constitutional mechanism and communicating
vessel with supervening exclusivity. Presentation at GELI Workshop Ghent on 26 September 2018.
Chamon, M. (2018). Constitutional Limits to the Political Choice for Mixity. In Neframi, E. & Gatti, M. Constitutional Issues of EU External Relations Law. Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlag.
Ciongaru, E. (n.d.). The Monistic and the Dualistic theory in European law. Retrieved on 21 November 2018, retrieved from
http://www.ugb.ro/Juridica/Issue1EN/10_Teoria_monista_si_dualista_in_dreptul_euro peanCiongaruEN.pdf
Collins, R. & White, N.D. (2011). Introduction and Overview. In R. Collins and N.D. White (eds), International Organizations and the Idea of Autonomy. London: Routledge.
~ 53 ~
Cremona, M. (2008). Defending the Community Interest: The Duties of Cooperation and Compliance. In Cremona, M. & de Witte, B. EU Foreign Relations Law:
Constitutional Fundamentals. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Cremona, M. (2016). Structural Principles and their Role in EU External Relations Law. Current Legal Problems, 69(1), pp. 35–66.
Cremona, M. (2018). Facultative Mixity and the principle of subsidiarity. Presentation at GELI Workshop Ghent on 26 September 2018.
Dashwood, A. & Heliskoski, J. (2000). The Classic Authorities Revisited. In Dashwood, A. & Hillion, C. (ed.). The General Law of EC External Relations. London: Sweet &
Maxwell.
Dashwood, A. (2010). Mixity in the Era of the Treaty of Lisbon. In Hillion, C. &
Koutrakos, P. (2010). Mixed Agreements Revisited: The EU and Its Member States in the World. Oxfort: Hart Publishing.
De Baere, G. (2008). Constitutional Principles of EU External Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
De Baere, G. (2010). The Framework of EU External competences for developing the External dimensions of EU Asylum and Migration Policy. Working Paper no. 50 for the Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies, retrieved on 23 November 2018, retrieved from
https://ghum.kuleuven.be/ggs/publications/working_papers/2010/50DeBaere
De Baere, G. (2018). Subsidiarity as a Structural Principle governing the use of EU External Competences. In Cremona, M. (ed.). Structural Principles in EU External Relations Law. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
De Bièvre, D. (2018). The Paradox of Weakness in European Trade Policy: Contestation and Resilience in CETA and TTIP Negotiations. The International Spectator, 53(3), pp. 70-85.
De Swarte, G. (n.d.). The Ukraine referendum, what was it about? Retrieved on 13 December 2018, retrieved from https://npofocus.nl/artikel/7515/hoe-zat-het-met-het-oekraine- referendum
Delcamp, A. & ed. (1998). Definitions and limits of the principle of subsidiarity: Local and Regional Authorities No. 55. Retrieved on 15 November 2018, retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/1680747fda
Delimatsis, P. (2017). The Evolution of the EU External Trade Policy in Services – CETA, TTIP, and TiSA after Brexit. Journal of International Economic Law, 2017, 20, pp. 583–625.
~ 54 ~
Dimopoulos, A. (2014). The Involvement of the Union Investor-State Dispute Settlement: A question of responsibilities. Common Market Law Review, 51, pp. 1671–1720. Dolle, T. & Simões B. G. (2016). Mixed Feelings about “Mixed Agreements” and CETA’s
Provisional Application. The European Journal of Risk Regulation, 3, pp. 617-622. Dragos, D. & Langbroek, P. (2017). Law and Public Administration: a Love-Hate
Relationship? In Ongaro, E. & van Thiel, S. (eds.). The Palgrave Handbook of Public Administration and Management in Europe. Palgrave Macmillan: Basingstoke. Eckes, C. (2018). Antarctica: Has the Court of Justice got cold feet? Retrieved on 4 January
2019, retrieved from http://europeanlawblog.eu/2018/12/03/antarctica-has-the-court- of-justice-got-cold-feet/#more-4345
EEAS. (2016). European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP). Retrieved on 4 November 2018, retrieved from https://eeas.europa.eu/diplomatic-network/european-neighbourhood- policy-enp/330/european-neighbourhood-policy-enp_en
Erlbacker, F. (2017). Recent Case Law on External Competences of the European Union: How Member States Can Embrace Their Own Treaty. Working Paper 17/2 of CLEER Institute. Retrieved on 23 January 2019.
EUR-lex A. (n.d.). Legal personality of the Union. Retrieved on 18 January 2019, retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/summary/glossary/union_legal_personality.html EUR-lex B. (n.d.). Subsidiarity. Retrieved on 15 November 2018, retrieved from https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/summary/glossary/subsidiarity.html
EUR-lex C. (n.d.). EU Powers and competences. Retrieved on 20 November 2018, retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/summary/glossary/community_powers.html
EUR-lex. (2017). How CELEX numbers are composed. Retrieved on 5 November 2018, retrieved from https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/content/tools/HowCelexNumbersAreComposed.pdf
European Commission A. (n.d.). Negotiations and Agreements: Types of Agreements. Retrieved on 10 October 2018, retrieved from
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/negotiations-and-agreements/ European Commission B. (n.d.). Press Release. Retrieved on 19 December 2018, retrieved
from http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_DOC-93-5_en.htm
European Commission C. (n.d.). Crisis Management. Retrieved on 5 November 2018, retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/crisis-and- terrorism/crisis-management_en
~ 55 ~
European Commission D. (n.d.). Euro-Mediterranean partnership. Retrieved on 11 October 2018, retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-
regions/regions/euro-mediterranean-partnership/
European Commission. (2016). European Commission proposes signature and conclusion of EU-Canada trade deal. Retrieved on 28 December 2018, retrieved from
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-2371_en.htm
European Parliament. (2010). Directorate-General for External Policies of the Union: EU Competences affecting the Artic. Retrieved on 23 October 2018, retrieved from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2010/433793/EXPO- AFET_ET(2010)433793_EN.pdf
European Parliament. (2011). Directorate General for Internal Policies: Division of competences between the European Union and its Member States concerning immigration. Retrieved on 23 October 2018, retrieved from
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/note/join/2011/453178/IPOL- LIBE_NT(2011)453178_EN.pdf
European Parliament. (2016). Briefing October 2016: A guide to EU procedures for the conclusion of international trade agreements. Retrieved on 23 October 2018, retrieved from
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2016/593489/EPRS_BRI(2016) 593489_EN.pdf
European Parliament. (2017). Understanding the EU customs union. Retrieved on 11 October 2018, retrieved from
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2017/608696/EPRS_BRI%2820 17%29608696_EN.pdf
European Union. (n.d.). EU enlargement – State of Play. Retrieved on 20 December 2018, retrieved from https://europa.eu/newsroom/highlights/special-
coverage/enlargement_en
Gstöhl, S. & Hanf, D. (2014). The EU’s Post-Lisbon Free Trade Agreements: Commercial Interests in a Changing Constitutional Context. European Law Journal, 20(6), pp. 733–748.
Guzman, A. (2013). International Organizations and the Frankenstein Problem. European Journal of International Law, 24(4), pp. 999–1025.
Harris, S. A. (2017). Catalan President Carles Puigdemont Signs Declaration Of
Independence, But Will Seek Talks With Madrid. Retrieved on 19 December 2018, retrieved from https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/catalonia-independence-carles- puigdemont_uk_59dd0ae4e4b0b26332e72356
~ 56 ~
Haukkala H. (2008). The Russian Challenge to EU Normative Power: The Case of European Neighbourhood Policy. The International Spectator, 43(2), pp. 35-47.
Heliskoski, J. (2001). Mixed Agreements As a Technique for Organizing the International Relations of the European Community and Its Member States. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Hillion, C. & Koutrakos, P. (2010). Mixed Agreements Revisited: The EU and its Member States in the World. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Hillion, C. (2007). Negotiating Turkey’s Membership to the European Union: Can the Member States Do As They Please? European Constitutional Law Review, 3(2), pp. 269-284.
Hillion, C. (2009). Mixity and Coherence in EU External Relations: The Significance of the ‘Duty of Cooperation’. Working paper 2009/2 from the CLEER Institute. Retrieved on 16 January 2019.
Hillion, C. (2010). Mixity and Coherence in EU External Relations: the Significance of the ‘Duty of Cooperation’. In Hillion, C. & Koutrakos, P. Mixed Agreements Revisited: The EU and its Member States in the World. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Holdgaard, R. (2008). External Relations Law of the European Community: Legal Reasoning and Legal Discourses. Alphen aan den Rijn: Wolters Kluwer.
Inglis, K. & Ott, A. (2005). The Constitution for Europe and an Enlarging Union: Unity in Diversity? Amsterdam: Europa Law Pub Netherlands.
Janse, R. (2017). The Evolution of the political criteria for accession to the European Community, 1957–1973. European Law Journal, 24(1), pp. 57-76.
Kacic, H. (1999). Affirmation of Statehood and Territorial Integrity of Croatia. Croatia International Relations Review, 1, pp. 27-32.
Kapteyn, P. & VerLoren Van Themaat, P. (1974). Introduction to the European Community Law: 2nd edition. Deventer: Kluwer.
Klamert, M. (2011). New conferral or old confusion? – The perils of making implied competences explicit and the example of the external competence for environmental policy. Centre for the Law of EU External Relations, 6, pp. 1-32.
Koeth, W. (2010). State Building without a State: The EU’s Dilemma in Defining Its Relations with Kosovo. European Foreign Affairs Review, 10(2), pp. 227–247. Koeth, W. (2013). The Serbia-Kosovo Agreement on Kosovo’s Regional Representation and
the ‘Feasibility Study’: A Breakthrough in EU – Kosovo Relations?. European Foreign Affairs Review, 18(1), pp. 127–144.
~ 57 ~
Koutrakos, P. (2015). EU International Relations Law. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. Kübek, G. (2018). CETA’s Investment Court System and the Autonomy of EU Law: Insights
from the Hearing in Opinion 1/17. Retrieved on 28 December 2018, retrieved from https://verfassungsblog.de/cetas-investment-court-system-and-the-autonomy-of-eu- law-insights-from-the-hearing-in-opinion-1-17/
Kuijper A, P. J. (2018). Case C-244/17 – Commission v. Council: The Centre of Gravity test revisited in the context of Article 218(9) TFEU. Retrieved on 27 December 2018, retrieved from https://europeanlawblog.eu/2018/11/26/case-c-244-17-commission-v- council-the-centre-of-gravity-test-revisited-in-the-context-of-article-218-9-tfeu/
Kuijper B, P. J. (2018). Comments on the blog: Case C-244/17 – Commission v. Council: The Centre of Gravity test revisited in the context of Article 218(9) TFEU. Retrieved on 27 December 2018, retrieved from https://europeanlawblog.eu/2018/11/26/case-c-244-17- commission-v-council-the-centre-of-gravity-test-revisited-in-the-context-of-article- 218-9-tfeu/
Kuijper, P. J. (2010). International Responsibility for EU Mixed Agreements. In Hillion, C. & Koutrakos, P. Mixed Agreements Revisited: The EU and its Member States in the World. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Kuijper, P. J. (2016). Post-CETA: How we got there and how to go on. Retrieved on 28 December 2018, retrieved from https://acelg.blogactiv.eu/2016/10/28/post-ceta-how- we-got-there-and-how-to-go-on-by-pieter-jan-kuijper/
Kunz, J. L. (1950). Critical Remarks on Lauterpacht’s “Recognition of States in International Law. The American Journal of International Law, 44(4), pp.713-719.
Langbroek, P. (ed.). (2017). Methodology of Legal Research: Challenges and Opportunities. Utrecht Law Review, 13(3), pp. 1-8.
Lauterpacht, H. (2012). Recognition in International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Leal-Arcas, R. (2001). The European Community and Mixed Agreements. European Foreign Affairs Review, 6(4), pp. 483-513.
Lucarelli, S. (1997). Germany’s Recognition of Slovenia and Croatia: an Institutionalist Perspective. The International Spectator, 32(2), pp. 65-91.
Lucarelli, S. (2000). Europe and the Breakup of Yugoslavia: A Political Failure in Search of a Scholarly Explanation. Den Haag: Kluwer.
Manning, R. & Jaffe, A. (2010). The myth of the Caspian 'great game': the real geopolitics of energy. Survival: Global Politics and Strategy, 40(4), pp. 112-129.
~ 58 ~
Maresceau, M. (2006). Bilateral Agreements concluded by the European Community. Den Haag: Martinus Nijhoff.
Maresceau, M. (2010). A Typology of Mixed Bilateral Agreements. In Hillion, C. &
Koutrakos, P. (2010). Mixed Agreements Revisited: The EU and Its Member States in the World. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Mayer, F. C. (2004). Competences – Reloaded? The Vertical Division of Powers in the EU after the New European Constitution. Retrieved on 29 November 2018, retrieved from http://www.whi-berlin.eu/documents/whi-paper1904.pdf
Mehmeti, E. (2016). Recognition in International Law: Recognition of States and European Integration - Legal and Political Considerations. European Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 2(2), pp. 240-261.
Meunier, S. (2007). Managing Globalization? The EU in International Trade Negotiations. Journal of Common Market, 45(4), pp. 905–926.
Monastiriotis, V. & Borrell, M. (2012). Political and Political Economy Literature on the ENP: Issues and Implications. London: London School of Economics.
Naert, F. (2017). The use of the CFSP legal basis for EU international agreements in
combination with other legal bases. Studies in EU External Relations, 13, pp. 394-423. Neframi, E. (2018). Facultative mixity as a tolerated mechanism under the duty of
cooperation? Presentation at GELI Workshop Ghent on 26 September 2018. Newman, E. & Visoka, G. (2018). The European Union’s practice of state recognition:
Between norms and interests. Review of International Studies, 44(4), pp. 760-786. Odermatt, J. (2016). When a Fence Becomes a Cage: The Principle of Autonomy in EU
External Relations Law. EIU Working Papers from the Max Weber Institute, retrieved from
http://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/41046/MWP_2016_07.pdf?sequence=1 Paasivirta, E. (2011). The EU's external representation after Lisbon: new rules, a new era? In
Koutrakos, P. (ed). The European Union’s external relations a year after Lisbon. Bristol: University of Bristol.
Plümper, T., Schneider, C. J. & Troeger, V. E. (2006). The Politics of EU Eastern
Enlargement: Evidence from a Heckman Selection Model. British Journal of Political Science, 36(1), pp. 17-38.
Popescu N. & Wilson A. (2009). The limits of enlargement-lite: European and an power in the troubled neighbourhood. Policy Report of European Council of Foreign Relations.
~ 59 ~
Post, R. (2010). ‘Constructing the European Polity: ERTA and the Open Skies Judgments’ in Azoulai, L. & Maduro, M. P. (eds). The Past and Future of EU Law. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Rosas, A. (1998). Mixed Union – Mixed agreements. In Koskenniemi, M. International Law Aspects of the European Union. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Rosas, A. (2010). The Future of Mixity. In Hillion, C. & Koutrakos, P. (2010). Mixed Agreements Revisited: The EU and Its Member States in the World. Oxford & Portland: Hard Publishing.
Rosas, A. (2018). Facultative Mixity as a logical corollary to the EU’s shared competences under the principle of conferred powers. Presentation at GELI Workshop Ghent on 26 September 2018.
Rostow, W. W. (1960). The Stages of Economic Growth: A non-communist manifesto. London: Cambridge University Press.
Schimmelfennig, F. (2002). Liberal Community and Enlargement: An Event History Analysis. Journal of European Public Policy, 9, pp. 598-626.
The Time. (2016). De Croo: ‘’Could be worse than Brexit.’’ Retrieved on 7 November 2018, retrieved from https://www.tijd.be/politiek-economie/internationaal-algemeen/De- Croo-Kan-erger-dan-de-brexit-zijn/9823260
Tocci, N. (2002). Cyprus and the European Union Accession Process: Inspiration for Peace or Incentive for Crisis? Turkish Studies, 3(2), pp. 104-138.
Vademecum on the external action of the European Union. (n.d.). Retrieved on 7 January 2019, retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/2/2011/EN/2-2011- 881-EN-1-0.Pdf
Van der Loo, G. & Wessel, R. (2017). The Non-Ratification of Mixed agreements: Legal Consequences and Solutions. Common Market Review. 54(3). pp. 735-770.
Van der Loo, G. (2016). The Dutch Referendum on the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement: Legal Implications and Solutions. Netherlands Yearbook of International Law, 47, pp 337-350.
Van Elsuwege, P. (2015). Securing the institutional balance in the procedure for concluding international agreements: European Parliament v. Council (Pirate Transfer Agreement with Mauritius). Common Market Law Review, 52(5), pp. 1379-1398.
Van Elsuwege, P. (2017). Legal Creativity in EU External Relations: The Stabilization and Association Agreement Between the EU and Kosovo. European Foreign Affairs Review, 22(3), pp. 393–410.
~ 60 ~
Van Vooren, B. & Wessel, R. A. (2014). EU External Relations Law: Text, Cases and Materials. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vennix, J.A.M. (2011). Research- and Intervention methodology, Amsterdam: Pearson Benelux BV.
Verellen, T. (2016). On Hybrid Decisions, Mixed Agreements and the Limits of the New Legal Order: Commission v Council (“US Air Transport Agreement”). Common Market Law Review, 53(3), pp. 741-762.