DOCSLIB.ORG

The WTO in the EU: Unwinding the Knot John Errico†

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The WTO in the EU: Unwinding the Knot John Errico† \\jciprod01\productn\C\CIN\44-1\CIN109.txt unknown Seq: 1 25-FEB-11 15:38 The WTO in the EU: Unwinding the Knot John Errico† Introduction ..................................................... 179 R I. Direct Effect .............................................. 182 R II. Case Law ................................................ 183 R A. International Fruit .................................... 183 R B. Kupferberg ............................................ 184 R C. Portugal .............................................. 185 R D. Biret .................................................. 186 R E. Between Biret and FIAMM ............................. 188 R F. FIAMM ............................................... 189 R III. Analysis .................................................. 190 R A. Nakajima and Fediol .................................. 190 R B. Requirements for Non-Contractual Liability ............ 191 R 1. The First Requirement: A Breach of Community Law . 192 R 2. The Second Requirement: The Rule Breached Must Intend to Confer Rights on Individuals .............. 197 R 3. The Third and Fourth Requirements: The Breach Must be Sufficiently Serious and There Must Exist a Direct Causal Link ....................................... 201 R 4. Summary ......................................... 201 R C. Non-Contractual Liability Without a Violation of Law . 202 R D. “Pure” EC Law Principles: Fundamental Rights ........ 203 R E. Pragmatic Concerns and the Future ................... 203 R Conclusion ...................................................... 206 R Introduction The myriad expansion of treaties and organizations governing interna- tional trade in the second half of the twentieth century1 has doubtlessly contributed to increases in the volume of international trade. Despite these benefits, the creation of systems such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), formerly the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), † B.A., History, Yale University, 2008; Candidate for J.D. and L.L.M. in International and Comparative Law, Cornell Law School, 2011; Managing Editor, Cornell International Law Journal, Volume 44. I would like to thank Professor John J. Barcel´o III for his suggestion of this topic and his helpful critiques, Professors Mitchel Lasser and Clifford Jones for their illuminating teaching on international law topics, and all my ILJ colleagues for their friendship and continued hard work. 1. For example, European Union (EU) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) (formerly the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)), the North American Free Trade Association (NAFTA), and others. 44 CORNELL INT’L L.J. 179 (2011) \\jciprod01\productn\C\CIN\44-1\CIN109.txt unknown Seq: 2 25-FEB-11 15:38 180 Cornell International Law Journal Vol. 44 which contain rules by which the trade activity of signatory states can be judged, has added an additional layer of complexity to the trading regimes of signatory states. With the WTO’s recent creation of the Dispute Resolu- tion Body (DSB),2 signatory states and, importantly, private entities such as businesses within these states, can face real penalties for their govern- ment’s non-compliance with WTO provisions.3 For example, a signatory state that has received a favorable judgment against another signatory state at the DSB for violation of WTO law may ultimately be able to impose new tariffs or suspend tariff concessions granted as a result of membership in the WTO.4 Such a judgment could seriously harm businesses in the violat- ing member state that depend on open borders to conduct trade.5 As a result, the impact and use of WTO law within the legal orders of signatory states is a vitally important topic. The complexity and importance of this topic are best examined by investigating the role of WTO law within the legal order of the European Union (EU), which is itself an entity existing somewhere between a fully- fledged nation state and a “mere” international treaty.6 Private entities within the EU interested in changing the trading practices of the EU, or that have been damaged as a result of the authorized suspension of concessions by a trading partner under WTO law, have increasingly attempted to use WTO law as a means to declare the law or practices of the EU impermissi- ble or to obtain compensation for damages suffered. The EU’s relative openness7 to international law within the its legal order8 has led commen- tators to state that private litigants within the EU may be able to use WTO law to invalidate EU law9 or to obtain damages under the EU’s non-con- tractual liability provision, Article 340(2), formerly Article 288(2) TEC.10 This state of affairs stands in stark contrast to the United States, where 2. DAVID PALMETER & PETROS C. MAVROIDIS, DISPUTE SETTLEMENT IN THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE 14– 15 (Cambridge Univ. Press 2004) (1999). 3. See, e.g., Joined Cases C-120/06P & C-121/06P, Fabbrica Italiana Accumulatori Motocarri Montecchio SpA v. Council, 2008 E.C.R. I-6513, ¶ 23– 24, 30 [hereinafter FIAMM, ECJ] (noting that, as result of the EU’s non-compliance with WTO law regard- ing bananas, the US was authorized to levy a customs duty on products including batter- ies and spectacles, which were produced by FIAMM and Fedon. Both companies complained that the EU was liable for damages allegedly suffered by the imposition of the customs duty.). 4. Id. ¶ 23– 24. 5. Id. ¶ 30. 6. See J.H.H. Weiler, The Transformation of Europe, 100 YALE L.J. 2403, 2405– 07 (1991). 7. Compared to, for example, the United States. 8. E.g. Case C-104/81, Hauptzollamt Mainz v. C.A. Kupferberg & Cie KG a.A., 1982 E.C.R. I-3641 [hereinafter Kupferberg]. 9. See PIET EECKHOUT, EXTERNAL RELATIONS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION: LEGAL AND CON- STITUTIONAL FOUNDATIONS 330 (2004) (noting that there exists a presumption of direct effect in international law, with the apparent notable exception of GATT/WTO law). 10. To allay confusion, when introducing a Treaty provision, this paper will parenthetically reference the older Treaty Establishing the European Community (TEC) numbering system (the renumbering system instituted by the Treaty of Amsterdam, effective 1999 until 2009) and, when applicable, the original Treaty number under the \\jciprod01\productn\C\CIN\44-1\CIN109.txt unknown Seq: 3 25-FEB-11 15:38 2011 The WTO in the EU: Unwinding the Knot 181 such claims are barred due to sovereign immunity.11 To the disappointment of litigants and scholars alike,12 the European Court of Justice (ECJ), the highest court in the European Union on matters of EU law, has continually denied review of the legality of EU law on the basis of WTO law and has correspondingly denied damages to private enti- ties even when the EU’s behavior has been explicitly declared inconsistent with WTO obligations by the DSB.13 In the terms frequently used by com- mentators and the ECJ (and utilized in this note), the ECJ has also contin- ued to deny the “direct effect” of WTO law within the EU legal order. Although this result may be unsurprising from a political perspective, par- ticularly considering that comparable actions are not available in the EU’s trading partners, the legal basis on which these actions have been denied in the EU has been unfulfilling and opaque. This Note will specifically focus on the claims of private litigants who have been damaged by the EU’s explicit noncompliance with WTO law as determined by the DSB. The DSB has determined that EU law is inconsis- tent with WTO law in the DSB in both the Bananas and Hormones dis- putes.14 Each dispute brought with it a flurry of litigation within the EU by litigants who claimed either that their business had been harmed by the EU’s non-compliant law,15 or that their business had been harmed when the EU’s trading partners authorized suspension of trade concessions in response to the EU’s non-implementation of DSB recommendations. In these situations, litigants attempt to use Article 340(2) of the EU Treaty to argue that they are justly entitled to damages under EU law. Treaty of Rome. At times, this may result in three separate numbers being listed for a Treaty provision. 11. See John H. Jackson, Direct Effect of Treaties in the US and the EU, the Case of the WTO: Some Perceptions and Proposals, in CONTINUITY AND CHANGE IN EU LAW: ESSAYS IN HONOUR OF SIR FRANCIS JACOBS 361, 373– 75 (Anthony Arnull, Piet Eeckhout & Takis Tridimas eds., Oxford Univ. Press 2008). 12. E.g. PIET EECKHOUT, EXTERNAL RELATIONS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL FOUNDATIONS (Francis G. Jacobs, ed. Oxford Univ. Press 2004); Armin Von Bogdandy, Legal Effects of World Trade Organization Decisions within Europe Union Law: A Contribution to the Theory of the Legal Acts of International Organizations and the Action for Damages under Article 288(2) EC, 39 J. WORLD TRADE 45 (2005); Stefan Griller, Judicial Enforceability of WTO Law in the European Union: Annotation to Case C-149/96, Portugal v. Council, 3 J. INT’L ECON. L. 441 (2000); Alberto Alemanno, Recent Develop- ment: Judicial Enforcement of the WTO Hormones Ruling Within the European Community: Toward EC Liability for the Non-Implementation of WTO Dispute Settlement Decisions?, 45 HARV. INT’L L.J. 547, 560 (2004); Geert A. Zonnekeyn, EC Liability for the Non-Implemen- tation of WTO Dispute Settlement Decisions – Are the Dice Cast?, 7 J. INT’L ECON. L. 483 (2004). 13. Two important but rarely permitted exceptions to this general idea exist: the Nakajima and Fediol exceptions, to be explored later in this note. See infra Part III.A. 14. Appellate Body Report, European Communities— Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas, WT/DS27/AB/R (Sept. 9, 1997); Appellate Body Report, European Communities— Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), WT/ DS48/AB/R (Jan. 16, 1998). 15. E.g., Case C-94/02, Etablissements´ Biret et Cie SA v. Council, 2003 E.C.R. I- 10565 [hereinafter Biret, ECJ]. \\jciprod01\productn\C\CIN\44-1\CIN109.txt unknown Seq: 4 25-FEB-11 15:38 182 Cornell International Law Journal Vol.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Cjeu Syllabus
    Academic Year 2017-2018 European Legal Studies Department Professor: Judge Allan Rosas Assistant: Alexandros Liatsos THE CJEU AND THE ECHR POST OPINION 2/13 SYLLABUS Table of contents 1. Course Outline 2. Draft Revised Agreement on the Accession of the European Union to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Council of Europe document 47+1 (2013) 008 rev 2 (10 June 2013) (See PowerPoint presentation) 3. Opinion 2/13 of the European Court of Justice of 18 December 2014 on the compatibility of the draft accession agreement with the Treaties, EU:C:2014:2454 Further Reading “The CJEU and the ECHR post Opinion 2/13” Judge Allan Rosas, European Court of Justice 16 and 17 February 2018 College of Europe, Bruges Course Outline 1. How It All Began • Case C-29/69 Stauder, EU:C:1969:57. Fundamental rights are among the general principles of Community law whose observance the Court ensures. • Inspiration is provided by the constitutional traditions common to the Member States (Case C-11/70 Internationale Handelsgesellschaft, EU:C:1970:114, and guidelines are provided by international treaties on which the Member States have collaborated or of which they are signatories (Case C-4/73 Nold, EU:C:1974:51). 2. Rapprochement between Luxembourg and Strasbourg • No reference to ECHR in case-law: 1969 - 1974. • Case C-36/75 Rutili, EU:C:1975:137: France had become a Contracting Party to the ECHR. • ECHR has "special significance" (since the 1980s), but that does not exclude occasional reference to other human rights instruments.
    [Show full text]
  • Is the EU a Human Rights Organisation? Allan Rosas
    CENTRE FOR THE LAW OF EU EXTERNAL RELATIONS Founded in 2008, the Centre for the Law of and prosperity and is carried out along the fol- EU External Relations (CLEER) is the fi rst au- lowing transversal topics: thoritative research interface between academia • the reception of international norms in the EU and practice in the fi eld of the Union’s external legal order; relations. CLEER serves as a leading forum for • the projection of EU norms and impact on the debate on the role of the EU in the world, but its development of international law; most distinguishing feature lies in its in-house re- • coherence in EU foreign and security policies; search capacity, complemented by an extensive • consistency and effectiveness of EU external network of partner institutes throughout Europe. policies. Goals CLEER’s research focuses primarily on four • To carry out state-of-the-art research leading cross-cutting issues: Is the EU a Human Rights Organisation? to offer solutions to the challenges facing the • the fi ght against illegal immigration and crime; EU in the world today. • the protection and promotion of economic and • To achieve high standards of academic excel- fi nancial interests; lence and maintain unqualifi ed independence. • the protection of the environment, climate and • To provide a forum for discussion among all energy; Allan Rosas stakeholders in the EU external policy process. • the ability to provide military security. • To build a collaborative network of researchers and practitioners across the whole of Europe. Network • To disseminate our fi ndings and views through CLEER carries out its research via the T.M.C.
    [Show full text]
  • The EU and International Dispute Settlement
    © 2017, Allan Rosas • This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY) 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited • DOI: https://doi.org/10.14324/111.444.ewlj.2017.03. The EU and international dispute settlement Allan Rosas* This article focuses on recent developments with regard to the mechanisms for international dispute settlement which the EU has accepted or in some instances promoted, or which in any case are of direct relevance for the EU. As a preliminary question, the case law of the European Court of Justice concerning the compatibility of inter- national dispute settlement mechanisms will be analysed. The article then provides an overview of such mechanisms included in multilat- eral and bilateral agreements concluded by the EU, with a particular emphasis on recent bilateral trade and cooperation agreements. The last parts of the article look at specific institutional problems such as the question of the representation of the EU before international dispute settlement mechanisms, and the special challenges posed by investment disputes and, in this context, investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS), including ISDS mechanisms in bilateral investment agreements concluded between the EU Member States. 1. Introduction As an economic and political union of states, based largely on a ‘federative’ model, the EU has entered into a number of international agreements and other commitments, including membership in several * Dr Jur, Dr Jur hc, Dr PolSc hc; Judge at the European Court of Justice (since 2002); Senior Fellow of the University of Turku; Fellow of the Robert Schuman Institute for European Affairs, University of Luxembourg; Visiting Professor, College of Europe and University of Helsinki.
    [Show full text]
  • 54 the EU As an External Human Rights Actor
    54 The EU as an External Human Rights Actor Sybilla Fries and Allan Rosas* The EU and human rights: general considerations European integration started off during the 1950s as an economic project, centred around the three Communities, the Coal and Steel Community (1952), the European Economic Community – EEC (1957) and the European Atomic Energy Community – Euratom (1957). In the external relations of these Communities, the focus was on international trade and commerce, which became a matter of exclusive Community competence, replacing gradually the former competence of the Member States to con- clude trade agreements.1 With the European Single Act (1987), the establishment of the European Union (EU) and the European Community (EC, replacing the EEC) in 1992 and subsequent modi- fications to the EU and EC treaties,2 the European integration agenda has broadened considerably and today covers in one form or another practically all areas of human activity, including a common defence policy. The external relations of the EU3 have un- * Sybilla Fries is First Secretary/Legal Officer of the WTO Section of the Permanent Delega- tion of the European Commission to the International Organisations in Geneva; Allan Rosas is Judge of the European Court of Justice. Disclaimer: This chapter was written in December 2006 and does not reflect the changes that have taken place thereafter. 1 See in particular Opinion 1/75 delivered by the European Court of Justice on an Understand- ing on a Local Cost Standard, ECR 1355 (1975). On EC external competence in general, see e.g. P. Eckhout, External Relations of the European Union: Legal and Constitutional Foundations (Oxford University Press, 2004).
    [Show full text]
  • Human Rights and the European Union: Who Decides - Possible Conflicts Between the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights Elizabeth F
    Penn State International Law Review Volume 19 Article 4 Number 2 Dickinson Journal of International Law 1-1-2001 Human Rights and the European Union: Who Decides - Possible Conflicts between the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights Elizabeth F. Defeis Follow this and additional works at: http://elibrary.law.psu.edu/psilr Recommended Citation Defeis, Elizabeth F. (2001) "Human Rights and the European Union: Who Decides - Possible Conflicts between the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights," Penn State International Law Review: Vol. 19: No. 2, Article 4. Available at: http://elibrary.law.psu.edu/psilr/vol19/iss2/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Penn State Law eLibrary. It has been accepted for inclusion in Penn State International Law Review by an authorized administrator of Penn State Law eLibrary. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Human Rights and the European Union: Who Decides? Possible Conflicts Between the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights Elizabeth F. Defeis* I. Introduction The Treaty of Amsterdam, which came into force in 1999, affects both the substantive content of human rights and the mechanisms available to protect human rights in the European Union. The human rights policy of the European Union is two- fold. It affects all community actions and national action and legislation that implement community law. It also affects the external relations of the European Union by addressing human rights concerns in its dealings with nations who are not members of the European Union.' * Professor of Law, Seton Hall University School of Law.
    [Show full text]
  • Forms and Patterns of Judicial Dialogue
    The European Court of Justice in Context: Forms and Patterns of Judicial Dialogue Allan Rosas I. Introduction While the feudal system was monist, the nation state system was dualist and characterised by the dichotomies of international law versus national law, public law versus private law, and law versus non-law. Post-industrialised or ‘post-modern’ society implies a more pluralist system, involving globalisation, regionalisation as well as localisation. We are facing a patchwork of authorities instead of just one national government and one legislature.1 The international and the internal are increasingly intertwined. Especially in EU-law, the distinction between public and private law seems less relevant. The phenomenon of soft law dilutes the barrier between law and non-law. This plurality of international, European, national and sub-national norms and norm- givers seems to be accompanied by an increased focus on universal and European values and principles. They tie together, as it were, the various bits and pieces and give some stability and predictability to an otherwise somewhat chaotic world constantly on the move. The values and principles are articulated and interpreted mainly by a sort of “aristocracy of wise men and women”.2 It is, or at least should be, an open group, in fact more of a loose forum, consisting of political, administrative and economic elites, judges, ombudsmen and other monitoring bodies, academic circles and the vanguard of non-governmental and interest organisations. Whether we like it or not, courts and judges play an important -and probably increasing- role in this process. At the international level, speaking of the ‘proliferation’ of 1 A.
    [Show full text]
  • The UN, the EU, and the Kadi Case: a New Appeal for Genuine Institutional Cooperation
    Articles The UN, the EU, and the Kadi Case: A New Appeal for Genuine Institutional Cooperation By Matej Avbelj* & David Roth-Isigkeit** Abstract While the Kadi affair has attracted a lot of attention, this Article approaches it from a rarely used contextual theoretical perspective of resolving institutional conflicts through reflexive sincere cooperation. The argument is short and simple: The institutional relationship between the EU judiciary and the UN Security Council should have been conducted not in strategic-pragmatic terms motivated by institutional power-plays, but rather by genuine pluralist institutional cooperation. The argument is preceded by an in-depth analysis of the theoretical and concrete practical shortcomings stemming from the lack of institutional cooperation between the UN and the EU in the Kadi affair. These shortcomings were not inevitable, as the EU and the UN legal and political systems are already connected with a whole set of bridging mechanisms. These should be, however, strengthened and their use should be made more common. In order to achieve that, the Article suggests an amendment to the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EU and further improvement of the safeguards in the UN Security Council sanctioning mechanisms procedures. There is no dilemma: Enhanced institutional cooperation between the institutions of the two systems will work to their mutual advantage as well as, most importantly, maintain the rights and liberties of individuals like Kadi. * Associate Professor of European Law, Graduate School of Government and European Studies, Slovenia, contact: [email protected]. ** Research Fellow, Normative Orders, Cluster of Excellence at Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, contact: [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • The European Court of Justice and Public International Law*
    1 Meeting of the Council of Europe Committee of Legal Advisers on Public International Law (CAHDI), Strasbourg, 23 March 2018 The European Court of Justice and Public International Law Judge Allan Rosas 1. The EU as an external actor and subject of international law Whilst not being recognised as a State, the EU has developed into a far-reaching regional integration organisation endowed with a constitutional order. The EU legal order is based on a clear distinction between external relations, on the one hand, and the internal market and the (internal) area of freedom, security and justice, on the other. External borders should be effectively controlled while internal borders gradually dismantled. There is a marked difference between the status of Union citizens and that of third country nationals.1 As will be further explained below, there is also a clear difference between the relations between the EU Member States inter se, on the one hand, and the relations between them and third countries, on the other. Concerning specifically the external dimension, the EU has become an increasingly active player, which seeks to develop relations and build partnerships with third countries and international intergovernmental and non-governmental organisations.2 These activities span across a broad spectrum including trade, transport, development, environmental protection and international peace and security. According to Article 3(5) of the Treaty on European Union (hereinafter TEU), the EU, while upholding and promoting its values and interests and contributing to the protection of its citizens, shall contribute to these and other objectives and also to ‘the strict observance and the development of international law, including respect for the principles of the United Nations’.
    [Show full text]
  • The National Judge As EU Judge: Some Constitutional Observations
    SMU Law Review Volume 67 Issue 4 Article 5 2014 The National Judge as EU Judge: Some Constitutional Observations Allan Rosas European Court of Justice, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Allan Rosas, The National Judge as EU Judge: Some Constitutional Observations, 67 SMU L. REV. 717 (2014) https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr/vol67/iss4/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in SMU Law Review by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. THE NATIONAL JUDGE AS EU JUDGE; SOME CONSTITUTIONAL OBSERVATIONS Allan Rosas* I. INTRODUCTION HE constitutional structure of the European Union (EU) differs in some respects from that of federal states. Especially the rela- Ttionship between the EU and its Member States presents some particularities that are not to be found in most federal state contexts. The Member States are still in the driving seat as far as constitutional amend- ments are concerned,1 and an individual Member State may, according to Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), decide to withdraw from the Union.2 Union legislation, however, may, as a general rule, be adopted by the European Parliament and the Council jointly, the latter acting by qualified majority.3 As is well known, Union law enjoys primacy over the laws of Member States and may, under certain conditions,
    [Show full text]
  • Dimitry Vladimirovich Kochenov & Graham Butler
    THE JEAN MONNET PROGRAM J.H.H. Weiler, Director Gráinne de Burca, Director Jean Monnet Working Paper 2/20 Dimitry Vladimirovich Kochenov & Graham Butler The Independence and Lawful Composition of the Court of Justice of the European Union: Replacement of Advocate General Sharpston and the Battle for the Integrity of the Institution NYU School of Law New York, NY 10011 The Jean Monnet Working Paper Series can be found at www.JeanMonnetProgram.org All rights reserved. No part of this paper may be reproduced in any form without permission of the author. ISSN 2161-0320 (online) Copy Editor: Danielle Leeds Kim © Dimitry Vladimirovich Kochenov & Graham Butler 2020 New York University School of Law New York, NY 10011 USA Publications in the Series should be cited as: AUTHOR, TITLE, JEAN MONNET WORKING PAPER NO./YEAR [URL] The Independence and Lawful Composition of the Court of Justice of the European Union: Replacement of Advocate General Sharpston and the Battle for the Integrity of the Institution Dimitry Vladimirovich Kochenov1 & Graham Butler2 Table of Contents Abstract................................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 2 The Brexit Prelude: EU primary law, the Statute of the CJEU, and the rule of law .......... 9 Act I: Member States move to dismiss AG Sharpston, and replace her with Mr. Rantos (Brussels, Sept 2, 2020) ...................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Eva Kassoti This Contribution Explores the Question Whether the CJEU Has
    FRAGMENTATION AND INTER-JUDICIAL DIALOGUE: THE CJEU AND THE ICJ AT THE INTERFACE Eva Kassoti∗ This contribution explores the question whether the CJEU has promoted or, conversely, weakened the coherence of the international legal system through its practice within the broader context of the fragmentation debate. In order to do so, the article begins by inquiring into the notions of 'fragmentation' and 'coherence' and argues that the two terms are used to connote a wide array of meanings. Focusing on the judicial aspect, the article continues by examining the extent to which the CJEU is willing to engage with external sources by directly citing the jurisprudence of the ICJ in cases involving questions of public international law. It is demonstrated, that, in its practice, the Court shows a high degree of deference to the authority of the ICJ by routinely having recourse to the latter's case-law. In this light, the article puts into question the manner in which the EU courts are often portrayed in the literature: by refusing to make their own bold pronouncements on international law, the EU courts are actually conducive to the coherence of the international legal system. The article concludes by highlighting that, in order to remain informed and relevant, the fragmentation/coherence debate must also include the 'trans-judicial communication' perspective. Keywords: fragmentation, coherence, self-contained regimes, judicial dialogue, EU law, international law, ICJ, CJEU, constitutionalism. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 22 II. INTERNATIONAL LAW AND EU LAW: SOME PRELIMINARY REMARKS........................................................................................................... 23 III. THE MULTIPLE SHADES OF FRAGMENTATION..................................... 28 IV. FROM FRAGMENTATION TO COHERENCE .............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Currulum Vitae
    CURRULUM VITAE NAME Markku John Rainer Suksi DATE AND PLACE OF BIRTH 3 September 1959 in Närpes, Finland HOME ADDRESS Karelengatan 18, 20740 Turku/Åbo, Finland (phone: +358-50-5344031) OFFICE ADDRESS Department of Law/Åbo Akademi University Gezeliusgatan 2, 20500 Turku/Åbo, Finland (phone: +358-2-2153231; e-mail: [email protected]) FAMILY Spouse: Lena Hannus-Suksi, MA, Teacher of Children with Special Needs Children: Anna (b. 1989); Oskar (b. 1992); Vilhelm (b. 1998) DEGREES Master of Political Science (Åbo Akademi University, 1983); Licentiate of Political Science (Åbo Akademi University, 1986); Master of Laws (LL.M., the University of Michigan Law School, 1989); Doctor of the Science of Law (S.J.D., the University of Michigan Law School, 1992); Doctor of Political Science (Åbo Akademi University, 1993; Public Law). KNOWLEDGE OF LANGUAGES Main languages: Swedish and Finnish. Other languages (indicated by numbers: 3=fluent; 2=good; 1=fair): English German French Dan. Norw. Dutch Reading 3 2 1 3 3 1 Writing 3 - - ? ? - Speaking 3 1 - ? ? - SCHOLARSHIPS October 1, 1985 - June 30, 1986: research scholarship for studies at Katholieke Universiteit Brabant, Tilburg, the Netherlands; joint grant by the Finnish Ministry of Education and the Dutch Ministry of Education; July 10, 1988 - August 11, 1988: Orientation in the U.S. Legal System, course in Washington D.C. by the International Law Institute; grant from the Institute for International Education; August 24, 1988 - May 12, 1989: Fulbright scholarship for research and LL.M. studies at the University
    [Show full text]