Instruments of a soft law nature were also adopted, as exemplified by the APs on Russia and Ukraine respectively. These instruments were elaborated through interactions between the Council and the Commission acting outside specific Treaty procedures, under the overall supervision of the European Council, which progressively emerges as an important actor in the development of the Partnerships. It may be wondered why such sui generis instruments were favoured. First, it could be suggested that the Member States felt it more appropriate and less intrusive in their own foreign policy choices to agree on this type of non-committal instruments. Secondly, it was easier to give them an all-encompassing scope. Had they been based on Title V, they would have to be more restricted and perhaps more contentious. The informal character and the comprehensive scope allowed the APs to be elaborated without being determined by pillar-politics.
The Treaty of Lisbon tried to streamline the external representation of the EU by creating the office of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, who is supposed to ‘conduct the Union’s common foreign and security policy’.7 As the High Representative is simultaneously the Vice-President of the Commission for CFSP, the chair of the Foreign Affairs Council and may take part in the work of the European Council, the hope was that this function could unite the external representation of the EU and silence Kissinger once and for all. At the same time, however, the Treaty of Lisbon also created a permanent President of the European Council, who shall ‘at his level and in that capacity, ensure the external representation of the Union on issues concerning its common foreign and security policy.’8 Similarly, the responsibil- ity of the President of the European Commission to represent the EU exter- nally was not removed, nor was the external role of the rotating presidency of the Council.
In order to answer this question, I will rely on four documents with different legal status, two from the EU and two from the US. I will start with the European ones. The first is the Constitutional Treaty, which in its articles I-3 and III-292 lists the objectives of the so-called “external action” of the Union and emphasises the importance of values such as democracy, the rule of law, universality and indivisibility of human rights and fundamental freedoms, the respect of human dignity, the principles of equality and solidarity and, last but not least, the respect for the principles of the UN Charter and international law. In the same spirit, the text favours multilateral solutions to common problems, in particular in the UN framework. These principles, that are not all new in the treaties, are common to all aspects of “external action”, both EC and CFSP. What is new is the accent on multilateralism and the insistence on the importance of international law. The addition of principles that should inspire external action demonstrates the fundamental normative feature of EU foreign policy. It is not insignificant that the text was drafted by the Convention on the future of Europe at the time (2003) when the US invaded Iraq.
Beyond the intention to the export of integration know-how, the EU also aimed at “supporting the elaboration of sectoral policies in fields such as education, health and the development of rural areas, whereby measures to institutionally support and mobilise the knowledge of civil society should have priority” (Council 1995: 1; own translation from German). In regard to this goal, the EU sought to support the definition of a Mercosur energy policy and pushing Mercosur to make environmental protection and sustainable development a cross-section issue in all areas of cooperation (policy goals) which the EU had integrated as such into the Maastricht Treaty only shortly before 14 (EC 1995). Other areas designated for cooperation which include far-reaching policy transfer intentions in view of the Association Agreement include: the mutual participation of scientists in S&T programmes leading to “convergence of S&T policies in the two regions” (EC 2002: 24), the establishment of an university student exchange programme in Mercosur similar to the European ERASMUS programme (EC 2002: 46), the development of a trans-Mercosur traffic network modelled after the Transeuropean Network (Interview European Commission), and a programme to support the information society in Mercosur which corresponds to an EU-internal priority in the framework of the Lisbon strategy. Hence, similar to economic relations, the EU intends to transfer objects it has recognized to be important in its own internal development. All of the programmes in this pillar have since the beginning been subjected to co-financing by the other side: “Financial contributions by the beneficiary must be systematically incorporated into those measures where their financial means allow for it” (EC 1995: 142; own translation). This may be categorized
This chapter explores the relationship between the judiciary and the leg- islature within the externalrelations of the EuropeanUnion. It does so from two angles: on the one hand, it focuses on the interactions between the Court of Justice of the EuropeanUnion (CJEU) and the drafters of the Treaties, the Union’s primary law, and, on the other hand, it exam- ines the interactions between the Court and the legislature proper, that is the institutions which adopt secondary legislation. In the context of the Union’s externalrelations, this broad understanding of the term ‘legislature’ is necessary: the very genesis of this area of law owes its existence to the Court’s creativity against the paucity of references to external action in primary law; as for the central position of external rela- tions in the current constitutional arrangements, it is due to the gradual adjustment of the Treaties to the evolving legal landscape as shaped by case law. The analysis is structured in two parts. The first part examines the interactions between the judiciary and the masters of the Treaties and analyses the manner in which the CJEU’s construction of the com- mon commercial policy (CCP) and the Treaty drafters’ reactions to that construction have moulded that policy into the bedrock of EU exter- nal relations that it is today. It also assesses how the CJEU reacted to the sparseness of explicit externalrelations competences in the original Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (EEC) by devis- ing a doctrine of implied competences, which has been codified in the Treaty on the Functioning of the EuropeanUnion (TFEU) after Lisbon. The second part focuses on three specific areas of EU externalrelations (investment, aviation, civil justice) and examines the procedural frame- works which the legislature has introduced (or suggested) in response to the Court’s case law on competence. It explores the implications of the
Today, Newcastle is a modern, compact and culturally vibrant European city with a strong identity. The city centre is easy to get around and offers excellent shopping, restaurants, museums, galleries and cinemas. The city centre is renowned for its stunning architecture with many fine buildings and streets including Grey Street, described by renowned architectural historian, Nikolaus Pevsner, as ‘one of the finest streets in England’. Once a busy industrial and commercial dockside, Newcastle’s Quayside is now packed with cafés, bars and restaurants from which to enjoy views of the River Tyne and its bridges.
The dissertation analyses the level and direction o f trade integration between Bulgaria and the EuropeanUnion for the period between the end o f central planning and 1996. For this purpose, the size and content of the trade flows between the two sides are examined in detail. Chapter 1 makes an overview o f the relevant theoretical and empirical literature and presents in detail the Chamberlin-Heckscher-Ohlin model, used in the dissertation. It also lists the data sources for the study. Chapter 2 gives a wider historical and geographical background to the trade integration between Bulgaria and the EU. Presentation is made o f the foreign trade patterns o f the country in the interwar period, during central planing and in the first years o f transition. The chapter also makes an econometric analysis with the help of the gravity model in order to find out to what extent in the first half of the 1990s the Bulgarian direction of trade with different countries and regions corresponded to the potential for trade integration with them. Chapter 3 uses several indicators o f export performance in order to analyse the nature of the changes in Bulgarian exports to the EU in the period 1989-1996. These include changes in export volumes, export composition and unit values. The development of Bulgarian comparative advantage towards the EU is estimated with the help o f the Export Specialisation Index (ESI). Chapter 4 presents a detailed analysis o f Intra- Industry Trade (IIT) between Bulgaria and the EU. Measurements o f horizontal and vertical IIT are conducted at a very high level o f disaggregation, and an econometric analysis is made o f their determinants. Chapter 5 presents an analysis o f Marginal Intra- Industry Trade (MIIT) between Bulgaria and the EU.