User menu

Accès à distance ? S'identifier sur le proxy UCLouvain

The European Union in international environmental negotiations: a legal perspective on the internal decision-making process

Primary tabs

Delreux, Tom [UCL]

From an EU point of view, most international environmental agreements are mixed. This means that both the European Community (EC) and its member states are party to the agreement. As the participation of the EC in international negotiations and agreements is properly arranged by the Treaty establishing the European Community, but the EU member states’ participation is not legally organized on the EU level, the internal decision-making process regarding mixed agreements is rather complicated. Insights into this process are needed to understand the representation and the role of the European Union in international environmental negotiations. This article clarifies the legal framework of the EU decision-making process regarding such negotiations.

Document type Article de périodique (Journal article)
Access type Accès restreint
Publication date 2006
Language Anglais
Journal information "International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics" - Vol. 6, no. 3, p. 231-248 (2006)
Peer reviewed yes
Publisher Springer Netherlands ((Netherlands) Dordrecht)
issn 1567-9764
e-issn 1573-1553
Publication status Publié
Affiliation UCL - SSH/SPLE - Institut de sciences politiques Louvain-Europe
Keywords EU decision-making ; EU member states ; European Commission ; Mixed agreements
Links
  1. Bail, C., Decaestecker, J., & Jørgensen, M. (2002). European Union. In C. Bail, R. Falkner, & H. Marquard (Eds.), The Cartagena protocol on biosafety. Reconciling trade in biotechnology with environment & development? (pp. 166–185). London: Royal Institute of International Affairs.
  2. Bossuyt, M., & Wouters, J. (2005) Grondlijnen van internationaal recht. Antwerpen, Intersentia, 1114 pp.
  3. Bretherton, C., & Vogler, J. (2003). The European Union as a global actor. London: Routledge, 316 pp.
  4. Coleman, W., & Tangermann, S. (1999). The 1992 CAP reform, the Uruguay round and the commission: Conceptualizing linked policy games. Journal of Common Market Studies, 37(3), 385–404.
  5. Collinson, S. (1999). «Issue-systems», «multi-level games» and the analysis of the EU’s external commercial and associated policies: A research agenda. Journal of European Public Policy, 6(2), 206–224.
  6. Dashwood, A., & Heliskoski, J. (2000). The classic authorities revisited. In A. Dashwood, & C. Hillion (Eds.), The general law of E.C. external relations (pp. 3–19). London: Sweet & Maxwell.
  7. Dutzler Barbara, The Representation of the EU and the Member States in International Organisations — General Aspects, External Economic Relations and Foreign Policy in the European Union (2002) ISBN:9783211837269 p.151-189, 10.1007/978-3-7091-6156-2_5
  8. Eeckhout, P. (2004). External relations of the European Union. New York: Oxford University Press. 490 pp.
  9. Ehlermann, C. D. (1983). Mixed agreements. A list of problems. In D. O’Keeffe, & H. Schermers (Eds.), Mixed agreements (pp. 3–21). Deventer: Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers.
  10. Emiliou, N. (1996). The allocation of competence between the EC and its member states in the sphere of external relations. In N. Emiliou, & D. O’Keefe (Eds.), The European Union and world trade law (pp. 31–45). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
  11. Frieden, J. (2004). One Europe, one vote? European Union Politics, 5 (2), 261–276.
  12. Groenleer, M., & van Schaik, L. (2005). The EU as an «Intergovernmental» actor in foreign affairs. Case studies of the international criminal court and the Kyoto protocol. Brussels, CEPS Working Document 228, 20 pp.
  13. Groux, J. (1983). Mixed negotiations. In D. O’Keeffe, & H. Schermers (Eds.), Mixed agreements (pp. 87–96). Deventer: Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers.
  14. Heliskoski, J. (2001). Mixed agreements as a technique for organizing the international relations of the European Community and its member states. Den Haag: Kluwer Law International, 321 pp.
  15. Johnson, M. (1998). European Community trade policy and the article 133 committee. London: Royal Institute for International Affairs, 69.
  16. Jupille, J., & Caporaso, J. (1998). States, agency, and rules: The European Union in global environmental politics. In C. Rhodes (Ed.), The European Union in the world community (pp. 213–229). London: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
  17. Kerremans, B., (2004). What went wrong in Cancun? A principal-agent view on the EU’s rationale towards the Doha development round. European Foreign Affairs Review, 9(3), 363–393.
  18. Keukeleire, S. (1998). Het buitenlands beleid van de Europese Unie. Deventer: Kluwer, 521 pp.
  19. Leal-Arcas, R. (2001). The European Community and mixed agreements. European Foreign Affairs Review, 6(4), 483–513.
  20. Leefmans, P. J. (1998). Externe milieubevoegdheden. Communautairrechtelijke grenzen aan externe milieubevoegdheden van de EG-lidstaten. Deventer: Kluwer, 524 pp.
  21. Lenaerts, K., Van Nuffel, P., & Bray, R. (2005). Constitutional law of the European Union. London: Sweet & Maxwell, 969 pp.
  22. Macleod, I., Hendry, I., & Hyett, S. (1998). The external relations of the European Communities. A manual of law and practice. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 432 pp.
  23. Macrory, R., & Hession, M. (1996). The European Community and climate change. The role of law and legal competence. In T. O’Riordan, & J. Jäger (Eds.), Politics of climate change. A European perspective (pp. 106–154). London: Routledge.
  24. Maurer, A., Kietz, D., & Völkel, C. (2005). Interinstitutional agreements in the CFSP: Parliamentarization through the back door? European Foreign Affairs Review, 10(4), 175–195.
  25. Mcgoldrick, D. (1997). International relations law of the European Union. London: Longman, 249 pp.
  26. Meunier, S. (1998). Divided but united: European trade policy integration and US-U.S. agricultural negotiations in the Uruguay round. In C. Rhodes (Ed.), The European Union in the world community (pp. 193–211). London: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
  27. Meunier, S. (2000). What single voice? European institutions and EU-U.S. trade negotiations. International Organization, 54(1), 103–135.
  28. Murphy, A. (2000). In the maelstrom of change. The Article 133 Committee in the governance of external economic policy. In T. Christiansen, & E. Kirchner (Eds.), Committee governance in the European Union (pp. 98–114). Manchester: Manchester University Press.
  29. Nicolaïdis, K. (1999). Minimizing agency costs in two-level games. Lessons from the trade authority controversies in the United States and the European Union. In R. Mnookin, & L. Susskind (Eds.), Negotiating on behalf of others (pp. 87–126). London: Sage Publications.
  30. Pattersson, L. A. (1997). Agricultural policy reform in the European Community: A three-level-game analysis. International Organization, 51(1), 135–165.
  31. Peterson John, Bomberg Elizabeth, Decision-Making in the European Union, ISBN:9780333604922, 10.1007/978-1-349-27507-6
  32. Pocar, F. (2002). The decision-making process of the European Community in external relations. In E. Cannizzaro (Ed.), The European Union as an actor in international relations (pp. 3–16). Den Haag: Kluwer Law International.
  33. Pollack Mark A., The Engines of European Integration, ISBN:9780199251179, 10.1093/0199251177.001.0001
  34. Reiter, J. (2005). The European Union as actor in international relations. The role of the external environment for EU institutional design. In O. Elgström, & C. Jönsson (Eds.), European Union negotiations. Processes, networks and institutions (pp. 148–163). London: Routledge.
  35. Rhinard, M., & Kaeding, M. (2005). The international bargaining power of the European Union in «Mixed» competence negotiations. The case of the 2000 Cartagena protocol on biosafety. Paper presented at EUSA Biennial Conference, Austin Texas, 30 pp.
  36. Rosas, A. (2000). The European Union and mixed agreements. In A. Dashwood, & C. Hillion (Eds.), The general law of E.C. external relations (pp. 200–220). London: Sweet & Maxwell.
  37. Sbragia, A. (1998). Institution-building from below and above: The European Community in global environmental politics. In W. Sandholz, & A. Stone Sweet (Eds.), European integration and supranational governance (pp. 283–303). New York: Oxford University Press.
  38. Thieme, D. (2001). European Community external relations in the field of the environment. European Environmental Law Review, 11(8–9), 252–264.
  39. Timmermans, C. (2000). Organising joint participation of EC and member states. In A. Dashwood, & C. Hillion (Eds.), The general law of E.C. external relations (pp. 239–247). London: Sweet & Maxwell.
  40. Van Schaik, L., & Egenhofer, C. (2005). Improving the climate. Will the new Constitution strenghten the EU’s performance in international climate negotiations? Brussel, CEPS Policy Brief 63, 11 pp.
  41. Verwey Delano R., The European Community, the European Union and the International Law of Treaties, ISBN:9789067041829, 10.1007/978-90-6704-419-6
  42. Vogler, J. (1999). The European Union as an actor in international environmental politics. Environmental Politics, 8(3), 24–48.
  43. Young Alasdair R, What game? By which rules? : Adaptation and flexibility in the EC’s foreign economic policy, Understanding the European Union’s External Relations ISBN:9780203391969 p.54-72, 10.4324/9780203391440_chapter_3
  44. Heliskoski, J. (2000). Internal struggle for international presence: The exercise of voting rights within the FAO. In A. Dashwood, & C. Hillion (Eds.), The general law of E.C. external relations. (pp. 79–99). London: Sweet & Maxwell.
Bibliographic reference Delreux, Tom. The European Union in international environmental negotiations: a legal perspective on the internal decision-making process. In: International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Vol. 6, no. 3, p. 231-248 (2006)
Permanent URL http://hdl.handle.net/2078.1/87892