CONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION ON THE EU LEGAL ORDER AS A SELF-CONTAINED LEGAL REGIME
Abstract
Since the process of fragmentation of international public law has enabled the formation of numerous legal regimes, the question of the qualification of the legal order of the European Union (EU) arises. Namely, for a long time it was not percieved as an self-contained regime, to which the classification of the International Law Commission’s Report “Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties arising from Diversification and Dissemination of International Law“ indirecly contributed. This Report classifies the EU legal order within the section on regionalization, thus relativizing it by reducing it to the cooperation of states determined only by geographical criteria. Although indisputable, the geographical criterion is of secondary value to a number of other arguments that take into account its qualitative dimension. Therefore, the paper raises the key question of whether the EU legal order has reached such a level of development and quality that it can be considered an self-contained legal regime. In the search for answers to the research question, the paper analyzes arguments pro et contra.
Arguments against the notion of the EU legal order as an self-contained legal regime relate to: the omnipresence of general international public law, which necessarily implies the connection of the specialized EU law with general international law. In addition, the arguments of the origin, subjects and the manner of creating EU law are emphasized, because they are inseparable from the international law, which is why it is denied the characteristic of independence. By emphasizing these arguments, there is a thesis that EU law is and remains only a subsystem of international law, which would be especially be visible in the case of inadequate regulation of state responsibility in EU law. In such situations, it would be necessary to resort to the provisions of international public law (so-called fall-back).
On the other hand, arguments in favor of the independence of the EU legal order are analyzed and emphasized. Without denying the fact that the EU legal order evolved from international public law, that it represented a nasciturus within it, was based on an international treaty, and that the EU itself represents an international organization, the fact of its decades-long evolutionary development must be accepted. a greater degree of autonomy than general international public law, which is confirmed and supported by case law and attitudes from the doctrine. In addition, the specific way of filling legal gaps with solutions from EU law itself, and not by applying the logic of the fall-back system, speaks in favor of the autonomy of the EU legal order. All this points to the exceptionality and uniqueness of the EU legal order, as well as its completeness.
Therefore, even if there were arguments in favor of imperfection and incompleteness of the EU legal order, its dynamic development leads us to the conclusion that it is at such a developmental and qualitative stage today that it should be recognized as an self-contained legal regime.
References
Аутор, (2020).
Auzolai, L., The Acquis of the European Union and International Organisations, European Law Journal, 2005, 11(2), pp. pp. 196-231;
Besson, S., How international is the European legal order? Retracing Tuori's steps in the exploration of European legal pluralism, No Foundations: Journal of Extreme Legal Positivism, Number 5, 2008, pp. 50-70;
Ćapeta, T., Rodin, S., (2011). Osnove prava Evropske unije na temelju Lisabonskog ugovora, Narodne novine d.d., Zagreb;
Conway, G., Breaches of EC Law and the International Responsibility of Member States, European Journal of International Law, 13, 2002, pp. 679-695;
Craig, P., De Burca, G. (Eds.), (2011). The Evolution of EU Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford;
Craig, P., De Burca, G., (2008). EU Law, Text, Cases, and Materials, Oxford University Press, Oxford;
De Witte, B., European Union Law: How Autonomous is its Legal Order?, Zeitschrift für öffentliches Recht 65, 2010, pp. 141-155;
De Witte, B., Rules of Change in International Law: How Special is the European Community?, Netherlands Yearbook of International Law, 15, 1994, pp. 299-333;
Dekker, I. F., Wessel, R. A., Governance by International Organizations: Rethinking the Normative Force of International Decisions, Dekker, I. F., Werner, W. G. (Eds.), (2004). Governance and international legal theory, Nijhoff;
Delcourt, C., The Acquis Communautaire: Has the Concept Had Its Day?, Common Market Law Review, 38, 2001, pp. 829-870;
Dupuy, P-M., (2006). Fragmentation du droit international ou des perceptions qu’on en a?, EUI Working Papers, no. 14;
Eeckhout, P., (2011). EU External Relations Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford;
Gialdino, C., Some reflections on the acquis communautaire, Common Market Law Review, 32, 1995, pp. 1089-1121;
Hafner, G., Pros and Cons Ensuing from Fragmentation of International Law, Michigan Journal of International Law, 25 (4), 2004, pp. 849-863;
Hartley, T., International Law and the Law of the European Union – A Reassessment, British Yearbook of International Law, 72, 2001, pp. 1-35;
Kennedy, D., The Disciplines of International Law and Policy, Leiden Journal of International Law, 12 (1), 1999, pp. 9-133;
Klabbers, J., Presumptive Personality: The European Union in International Law, Koskenniemi, M. (Ed.), International Law Aspects of the European Union, The Hague, Nijhoff, 1997, pp. 231-254;
Klabbers, J., (2009). Treaty Conflict and the European Union, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge;
Koskenniemi, M., Leino, P., Fragmentation of International Law? Postmodern Anxieties, Leiden Journal of International Law, 15 (3), 2002, pp. 553-579;
Koutrakos, P., The anatomy of autonomy: themes and perspectives on an elusive principle. ECB Legal conference 2019, pp. 90-103;
Lavranos, N., Protecting European Law from International Law, European Foreign Affairs Review, 15 (1), 2010, pp. 265-282;
Leathley, C., An Institutional Hierarchy to Combat the Fragmentation Of International Law: Has the ILC Missed an Opportunity?, New York University Journal of International Law and Politics, 40 (1), 2007, pp. 259-306;
Лукић, М., Да ли је европско право аутономно, самосвојно, унутар или изван међународног – шта крију кључне пресуде Европског суда правде?, Зборник међународне научне конференције „Хармонизација домаћег законодавства са правом ЕУ“, Институт за међународну политику и привреду, Београд, 2011, стр. 145-154;
Malenovsky, J., L’enjeu délicat de l’éventuelle adhésion de l’Union européenne a la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme: de graves différences dans l’application du droit international, notamment général, par les juridictions de Luxembourg et Strasbourg, Revue Générale de droit International Public, 4, 2009, pp. 753-783;
Nollkaemper, A., (2009). Rethinking the Supremacy of International Law, Amsterdam Center for International Law Working Paper;
Nolte, G., Aust, H. P., European Exceptionalism, Global Constitutionalism, 2 (3), 2013, pp. 407-436;
- Eeckhout, A. Biondi, S. Ripley (Еds.), (2012). EU Law After Lisbon, Oxford University Press, Oxford;
Pellet, A., Les fondements juridiques internationaux du droit communautaire, Collected Courses of the Academy of European Law, vol V, Book 2, 1997, pp. 193-271;
Pescatore, P., L’apport du droit communautaire au droit international public, Cahier de droit européen, 5/1970, pp. 501-525;
Radivojević, Z., Raičević, N., Financial Sanctions Against Member States For Infringement of EU Law, EU and comparative law issues and challenges series: Procedural Aspects of EU Law, Vol 1, 2017, Osijek, pp. 171-191.
Ракић, Б., Фрагментација међународног права и европско право – на Западу нешто ново, Анали Правног факултета у Београду, 57( 1), 2009, стр. 122-147;
Raičević, N., Đorđević Aleksovski, S., The control of compliance with the judgements of the EU Court of Justice, Legal, social and political control in national, international and EU law: collection of papers, Niš, Faculty of Law, 2016, pp. 273-292;
Rasmussen, M., Revolutionizing European Law: A History of the Van Gend en Loos Judgment, International Journal of Constitutional Law, 12 (1), 2014, pp. 136-163;
Schilling, T., The Autonomy of the Community Legal Order: An Analysis of Possible Foundations, Harvard International Law Journal, 37, 1996, pp. 389-410;
Schutze, R., (2007). On ‘Middle Ground‘. The European Community and Public International Law, EUI Working Papers, Law, no 13;
Simma, B., Fragmentation in a Positive Light, Michigan Journal of International Law, 2004, 25 (4), pp. 845-847;
Simma, B., Pulkowski, D., Of Planets and the Universe: Self-contained Regimes in International Law, European Journal of International Law, 17 (3), 2006, pp. 483–529;
Tsagourias, N., Conceptualizing the Autonomy of the European Union, Collins, R., White, N. D. (Eds.), (2011). International Organizations and the Idea of Autonomy: Institutional Independence in the International Legal Order, London, New York, Routledge;
Van Rossem, J.W.C., The Autonomy of EU Law: More is Less?, Wessel, R.A., Blockmans, S. (Eds.), (2013). Between Autonomy and Dependence: The EU Legal Order under the Influence of International Organisations, The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press, Springer;
Weatherill, S., Safequarding the Acquis Communautaire, Heukels, T., Blokker, N., Brus, M. (Eds), (1998). The European Union after Amsterdam, Kluwer Law International, The Hague, London, Boston;
Weiler, J. H. H., (1999). The Constitution of Europe: “Do the New Clothes Have an Emperor?” and Other Essays on European Integration, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge;
Wyatt, D., New Legal Order, or Old?, European Law Review, 7, 1982, pp. 147-166;
Ziegler, K. S., International Law and EU Law: Between Asymmetric Constitutionalisation and Fragmentation, Orakhelashvili, A. (Ed.), (2011). Research Handbook on the Theory of International Law, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham.
Судска пракса и документи
Arangio-Ruiz, G., Summary Records of the Meetings of the Forty-fourth Session, ILC Yearbook Vol. I, 1992;
C-203/07 P, Greece v Commission, 2008, ECR I-8161, ECLI:EU:C:2008:606;
C-203/07 P, Greece v Commission, Opinion of AG Mazák, 2008, ECR I-08161, ECLI:EU:C:2008:270;
C-232/78, Commission of the European Communities v French Republic, (Mutton and lamb), 1979, ECR 2729, ECLI:EU:C:1979:215;
C-26/62, NV Algemene Transport- en Expeditie Onderneming van Gend & Loos v Netherlands Inland Revenue Administration, 1963, ECR 1, ECLI:EU:C:1963:1;
C-285/12, Aboubacar Diakité v Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides, EU:C:2014:39;
C-38/89, Ministère public v Guy Blanguernon, 1990, ECR I-83, ECLI:EU:C:1989:367;
C-459/03, Commission v Ireland (Mox Plant), 2006, ECR I-4635, ECLI:EU:C:2006:345;
C-6/64, Costa v ENEL, 1964, ECR 585, ECLI:EU:C:1964:66;
Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted, OJ L 304/12;
Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law, Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission, finalized by Martti Koskenniemi, A/CN.4/L.682, 13 Apr. 2006;
Guillaume, G., Address to the Plenary Session of the General Assembly of the UN, 2000;
Joined cases C-142-143/80, Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v Essevi Spa and Carlo Salengo, 1981, ECR 1413, ECLI:EU:C:1981:12;
Joined cases C-402, 415/05 P, Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission, (Kadi I), 2008, ECR 1-6351, ECLI:EU:C:2008:461;
Joined cases C-402, 415/05 P, Yassin Abdullah Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities, Opinion of AG Maduro, 2008, ECR I-6351, ECLI:EU:C:2008:11;
Joined cases C-6, 9/90, Andrea Francovich and Danila Bonifaci and others v Italian Republic, 1991, ECR, I-5357, ECLI:EU:C:1991:428;
Joined cases C-90-91/63, Commission of the European Economic Community v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and Kingdom of Belgium, 1964, ECR 625, ECLI:EU:C:1964:80;
Opinion 1/17, Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada, of the one part, and the European Union and its Member States, of the other part (CETA), EU:C:2019:341;
Opinion 1/91, Draft Agreement Relating to the Creation of the European Economic Area, 1991, ECR I–6079, ECLI:EU:C:1991:490;
Opinion 2/13, Accession of the European Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2454;
Schwebel, S. M., Address to the Plenary Session of the General Assembly of the UN, 1999;
T-115/94, Opel Austria GmbH v Council of the European Union, 1998, ECR II-02739, ECLI:EU:T:1998:166.