Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-wxvwp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T04:12:44.490Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

II. External Relations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2008

Joe McMahon and
Eileen Denza
Eileen Denza
Affiliation:
University College London.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

The last account of developments in the external relations of the European Union, described how the Treaty of Amsterdam, which had just entered into force, had reformed the Common Foreign and Security Policy. Three years on one can begin to assess the impact of these changes.

Information

Type
Current Developments European Community Law
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 51 , Issue 4 , October 2002, pp. 990 - 996
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2002

References

1 1999/414/CFSP, OJ L 157, 24.6.1999; Bulletin of the EU 6 -1999 point 1.3.97.

2 1999/877/CFSP, OJ L 331, 23.12.1999; Bulletin of the EU 12–1999, point 1.4.91.

3 Annex V to Conclusions of Santa da Feira European Council, June 2000.

4 For example by Spencer ‘The EU and Common Strategies: The Revealing Case of the Mediterranean’ (2001), EFAR, 31.

5 Under the EU Action Plan on Common Action for the Russian Federation on Combating Organized Crime, OJ C 106/5, 13 Apr 2000.

6 Conclusions of European Councils in Brussels on 21 Sept 2001 and at Laeken, 15 Dec 2001.

7 Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in evidence to House of Lords Select Committee on the European Union, 3rd Report, 1999–2000, HL Paper 22, 10.

8 Text in Conclusions of the Council of 25 May 1998 and in Bulletin of the EU 5–1998 points 1.3.5 and 6.

9 Second Annual Report, OJ C 379, 20.12.2000.

10 Council Regulation 1334/2000, OJ L 159, 30 June 2000 and Decision 2000/402/CFSP, OJ L 159/218, 30 June 2000.

11 For a detailed account of the controversy preceding the new Regulation see Koutrakos: Trade, Foreign Policy and Defence in EU Constitutional Law (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2001).

12 OJ 2000 L/49, 22 Feb 2000. The Committee was later established on a permanent basis.

13 Yesson ‘NATO, EU and Russia: Reforming Europe's Security Institutions’ (2001), EFAR 197; Conclusions of the European Council at Laeken.

14 Cm 5090; OJ C 80, 10 Mar 2001.

15 UKTS No 1 (1949) and 1954 amending Protocols, UKTS No 39 (1955).

16 See Martenczuk ‘From Lome to Cotonou: The ACP-EC Partnership Agreement in a Legal Perspective’ (2000), EFAR 461.

17 Case C–149/96 [1999] ECR 1–8395.

18 Delivered on 6 Dec 2001.

19 In Belgium, seven parliamentary assemblies must approve, and in Ireland a second referendum is required.

20 See Wessel in The European Union's Foreign and Security Policy, c 7 and in ‘Revisiting the International Legal Status of the EU’ (2000), EFAR, 109; Neuwahl ‘A Partner with a Troubled Personality: EU Treaty-Making in Matters of CFSP and JHA after Amsterdam’ (1998), EFAR, 177. For the contrary positions see the UK Government's submission of an Explanatory Memorandum to Parliament after conclusion of Treaty of Amsterdam.

21 Contrast Art 288 (ex Art 215) EC.

22 OJ L 125, 5.5.2001. A similar agreement with the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) concluded in September 2001 is in OJ L 241, 11 Sept 2001.

23 Dashwood, in Legal Issues of the Amsterdam Treaty, says at p 220 that if the Union is expressed to be the party, ‘there will no longer be any room for doubt about the intention of the Member States …’ but also sets out several questions that are left unclear.