DOCSLIB.ORG

Treaty of Amsterdam

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Treaty of Amsterdam EUROPEAN UNION TREATY OF AMSTERDAM TREATY OF AMSTERDAM AMENDING THE TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION, THE TREATIES ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES AND CERTAIN RELATED ACTS INTRODUCTORY NOTE This publication reproduces the text of the Treaty of Amsterdam amending the Treaty on European Union, the Treaties establishing the European Communities and certain related aas, as signed in Amsterdam on 2 October 1997. The text has been produced for documentary purposes and does not involve the responsibility of the institutions A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet. It can be accessed through the Europa server (http://europa.eu.int) Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 1997 ISBN 92-828-1652-4 © European Communities, 1997 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged Printed in Germany CONTENTS (not part of the Treaty) Page PART ONE — SUBSTANTIVE AMENDMENTS Articles 1-5 7 PART TWO — SIMPLIFICATION Articles 6-11 58 PART THREE — GENERAL AND FINAL PROVISIONS· Articles 12-15 78 ANNEX — Tables of equivalences referred to in Article 12 of the Treaty of Amsterdam 85 PROTOCOLS A. Protocol annexed to the Treaty on European Union 92 — Protocol on Article J.7 of the Treaty on European Union 92 B. Protocols annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Community 93 — Protocol integrating the Schengen acquis into the framework of the European Union 93 — Protocol on the application of certain aspects of Article 7a of the Treaty estab• lishing the European Community to the United Kingdom and to Ireland 97 — Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland 99 — Protocol on the position of Denmark 101 C. Protocols annexed to the Treaty establishing the European Community 103 — Protocol on asylum for nationals of Member States of the European Union ... 103 — Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality 105 — Protocol on external relations of the Member States with regard to the crossing of external borders 108 — Protocol on the system of public broadcasting in the Member States 109 — Protocol on protection and welfare of animals 110 D. Protocols annexed to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaties establishing the European Community, the European Coal and Steel Community and the European Atomic Energy Community Ill — Protocol on the institutions with the prospect, of enlargement of the European Union Ill — Protocol on the location of the seats of the institutions and of certain bodies and departments of the European Communities and of Europol 112 — Protocol on the role of national parliaments in the European Union 113 FINAL ACT 115 DECLARATIONS ADOPTED BY THE CONFERENCE 125 1. Declaration on the abolition of the death penalty 125 2. Declaration on enhanced cooperation between the European Union and the Western European Union 125 3. Declaration relating to Western European Union 125 4. Declaration on Articles J. 14 and K.10 of the Treaty on European Union 131 5. Declaration on Article J.15 of the Treaty on European Union 132 6. Declaration on the establishment of a policy planning and early warning unit .... 132 7. Declaration on Article K.2 of the Treaty on European Union 132 8. Declaration on Article K.3(e) of the Treaty on European Union 133 9. Declaration on Article K.6(2) of the Treaty on European Union 133 10. Declaration on Article K.7 of the Treaty on European Union 133 11. Declaration on the status of churches and non-confessional organisations 133 12. Declaration on environmental impact assessments .' 133 13. Declaration on Article 7d of the Treaty establishing the European Community ... 133 14. Declaration on the repeal of Article 44 of the Treaty establishing the European Community 134 15. Declaration on the preservation of the level of protection and security provided by the Schengen acquis 134 16. Declaration on Article 73j(2)(b) of the Treaty establishing the European Community 134 17. Declaration on Article 73k of the Treaty establishing the European Community 134 18. Declaration on Article 73k(3)(a) of the Treaty establishing the European Community 134 19. Declaration on Article 731(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community 134 20. Declaration on Article 73m of the Treaty establishing the European Community 135 21. Declaration on Article 73o of the Treaty establishing the European Community ... 135 22. Declaration regarding persons with a disability 135 23. Declaration on incentive measures referred to in Article 109r of the Treaty estab• lishing the European Community 135 24. Declaration on Article 109r of the Treaty establishing the European Community 135 25. Declaration on Article 118 of the Treaty establishing the European Community ... 135 26. Declaration on Article 118(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community 136 27. Declaration on Article 118b(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community 136 28. Declaration on Article 119(4) of the Treaty establishing the European Community 136 29. Declaration on sport 136 30. Declaration on island regions 136 31. Declaration relating to the Council Decision of 13 July 1987 137 32. Declaration on the organisation and functioning of the Commission 137 33. Declaration on Article 188c(3) of the Treaty establishing the European Community 137 34. Declaration on respect for time limits under the co-decision procedure 137 35. Declaration on Article 191a(l) of the Treaty establishing the European Community 137 36. Declaration on the Overseas Countries and Territories 138 37. Declaration on public credit institutions in Germany 138 38. Declaration on voluntary service activities 139 39. Declaration on the quality of the drafting of Community legislation 139 40. Declaration concerning the procedure for concluding international agreements by the European Coal and Steel Community 139 41. Declaration on the provisions relating to transparency, access to documents and the fight against fraud 140 42. Declaration on the consolidation of the Treaties ¡ 140 43. Declaration relating to the Protocol on the application of the principles of sub• sidiarity and proportionality 140 44. Declaration on Article 2 of the Protocol integrating the Schengen acquis into the framework of the European Union ^ 140 45. Declaration on Article 4 of the Protocol integrating the Schengen acquis into the framework of the European Union 140 46. Declaration on Article 5 of the Protocol integrating the Schengen acquis into the framework of the European Union 141 47. Declaration on Article 6 of the Protocol integrating the Schengen acquis into the framework of the European Union 141 48. Declaration relating to the Protocol on asylum for nationals of Member States of the European Union 141 49. Declaration relating to subparagraph (d) of the Sole Article of the Protocol on asylum for nationals of Member States of the European Union 141 50. Declaration relating to the Protocol on the institutions with the prospect of enlargement of the European Union 142 51. Declaration on Article 10 of the Treaty of Amsterdam 142 DECLARATIONS OF WHICH THE CONFERENCE TOOK NOTE 143 1. Declaration by Austria and Luxembourg on credit institutions 143 2. Declaration by Denmark on Article K.14 of the Treaty on European Union 143 3. Declaration by Germany, Austria and Belgium on subsidiarity 143 4. Declaration by Ireland on Article 3 of the Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland 143 5. Declaration by Belgium on the Protocol on asylum for nationals of Member States of the European Union 144 6. Declaration by Belgium, France and Italy on the Protocol on the institutions with the prospect of enlargement of the European Union 144 7. Declaration by France concerning the situation oPthe overseas departments in the light of the Protocol integrating the Schengen acquis into the framework of the European Union 144 8. Declaration by Greece concerning the Declaration on the status of churches and non-confessional organisations 144 HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE BELGIANS, HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN OF DENMARK, THE PRESIDENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY, THE PRESIDENT OF THE HELLENIC REPUBLIC, HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF SPAIN, THE PRESIDENT OF THE FRENCH REPUBLIC, THE COMMISSION AUTHORISED BY ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF IRELAND TO EXERCISE AND PERFORM THE POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF THE PRESIDENT OF IRELAND, THE PRESIDENT OF THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC, HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS THE GRAND DUKE OF LUXEMBOURG, HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN OF THE NETHERLANDS, THE FEDERAL PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF AUSTRIA, THE PRESIDENT OF THE PORTUGUESE REPUBLIC, THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF FINLAND, HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF SWEDEN, HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND, HAVE RESOLVED to amend the Treaty on European Union, the Treaties establishing the European Communities and certain related acts, and to this end have designated as their Plenipotentiaries: HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE BELGIANS: Mr. Erik Derycke, Minister for Foreign Affairs; HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN OF DENMARK: Mr. Niels Helveg Petersen, Minister for Foreign Affairs; THE PRESIDENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY: Dr. Klaus Kinkel, Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs and Deputy Federal Chancellor; THE PRESIDENT OF THE HELLENIC REPUBLIC: Mr. Theodoros Pángalos, Minister for Foreign Affairs; HIS MAJESTY THE KING.OF SPAIN: Mr. Juan Abel Matutes, Minister for Foreign Affairs; THE PRESIDENT OF THE FRENCH REPUBLIC: Mr. Hubert Védrine, Minister for Foreign Affairs; THE COMMISSION AUTHORISED BY ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF IRELAND TO EXERCISE AND PERFORM THE POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF THE PRESIDENT OF IRELAND: ^ Mr. Raphael P. Burke, Minister for Foreign Affairs; THE PRESIDENT OF THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC: Mr. Lamberto Dini, Minister for Foreign Affairs; HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS THE GRAND DUKE OF LUXEMBOURG: Mr. Jacques F. Poos, Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Foreign Trade and Cooperation; HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN OF THE NETHERLANDS: Mr.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Amsterdam City Doughnut
    THE AMSTERDAM CITY DOUGHNUT A TOOL FOR TRANSFORMATIVE ACTION TABLE OF CONTENTS Amsterdam becoming a thriving city 3 The Doughnut: a 21st century compass 4 Creating a Thriving City Portrait 5 Amsterdam’s City Portrait 6 Lens 1: Local Social 6 What would it mean for the people of Amsterdam to thrive? Lens 2: Local Ecological 8 What would it mean for Amsterdam to thrive within its natural habitat? Lens 3: Global Ecological 10 What would it mean for Amsterdam to respect the health of the whole planet? Lens 4: Global Social 12 What would it mean for Amsterdam to respect the wellbeing of people worldwide? The City Portrait as a tool for transformative action 14 1. From public portrait to city selfie 16 2. New perspectives on policy analysis 17 Principles for putting the Doughnut into practice 18 References 20 8 WAYS TO TURN THE CITY PORTRAIT How can Amsterdam be a home to thriving people, INTO TRANSFORMATIVE ACTION AMSTERDAM BECOMING in a thriving place, while respecting the wellbeing A THRIVING CITY of all people, and the health of the whole planet? MIRROR Reflect on the current Cities have a unique role and opportunity to shape humanity’s The Amsterdam City Doughnut is intended as a stimulus for state of the city through chances of thriving in balance with the living planet this cross-departmental collaboration within the City, and for the portrait’s holistic century. As home to 55% of the world’s population, cities connecting a wide network of city actors in an iterative process perspective account for over 60% of global energy use, and more than of change, as set out in the eight ‘M’s on the right.
    [Show full text]
  • The Development of International Police Cooperation Within the EU
    American University International Law Review Volume 14 | Issue 3 Article 1 1999 The evelopmeD nt of International Police Cooperation within the EU and Between the EU and Third Party States: A Discussion of the Legal Bases of Such Cooperation and the Problems and Promises Resulting Thereof Jacqueline Klosek Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/auilr Part of the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Klosek, Jacqueline. "The eD velopment of International Police Cooperation within the EU and Between the EU and Third Party States: A Discussion of the Legal Bases of Such Cooperation and the Problems and Promises Resulting Thereof." American University International Law Review 14, no. 3 (1999): 599-656. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington College of Law Journals & Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in American University International Law Review by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNATIONAL POLICE COOPERATION WITHIN THE EU AND BETWEEN THE EU AND THIRD PARTY STATES: A DISCUSSION OF THE LEGAL BASES OF SUCH COOPERATION AND THE PROBLEMS AND PROMISES RESULTING THEREOF JACQUELINE KLOSEK* INTRODUCTION .............................................. 600 I. TRADITIONAL BILATERAL, REGIONAL, AND MULTILATERAL BASES OF TRANSNATIONAL POLICE COOPERATION ................................... 603 A. THE UNITED STATES ....................................... 603 B. THE M IDDLE EAST ........................................ 606 C. CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE ........................... 609 D. INTERNATIONAL AND MULTILATERAL EFFORTS ............ 610 II. EUROPEAN EFFORTS AT TRANSNATIONAL POLICE COOPERATION ............................................ 611 A . T REvI ....................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Future of European Education: a Political Strategy & Four Action Areas
    Eur J Futures Res (2014) 2:49 DOI 10.1007/s40309-014-0049-2 ORIGINAL ARTICLE The future of European education: A political strategy & four action areas Alfonso Diestro Fernández Received: 15 October 2014 /Accepted: 17 November 2014 /Published online: 16 December 2014 # The Author(s) 2014. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com Abstract The European integration project is confronting Introduction one of the greatest challenges in its recent history. The pro- found current financial crisis is jeopardising both trust in the Nobody can now ignore that Europe is currently facing a huge process of integration and the support of European Union predicament; this obliges Europe to reinvent itself once again citizens. This paper aims to show the need to find transversal if the region wishes to realise the original aspirations that solutions to the immediate and future challenges that the motivated the current project of building and integrating Eu- European integration project faces. These solutions could rope, establishing a closer union between its peoples and its emerge from the retrieval of the idea of including a European regions. In the present context, characterised by the econom- Dimension in Education, as a joint political strategy of the ical crisis, the political programmes of only one way and the European Union and the Council of Europe, given that two political disaffection of the citizens with the European project, separate, but convergent, trends have been identified. Special it is a matter of urgency to find new proposals, also for importance will be placed on the four action points that the educational politics, across a new process of deliberation European dimension could adopt (curricular and teaching between institutions and Members States.
    [Show full text]
  • The European Union in Transition: the Treaty of Nice in Effect; Enlargement in Sight; a Constitution in Doubt
    Fordham International Law Journal Volume 27, Issue 2 2003 Article 1 The European Union in Transition: The Treaty of Nice in Effect; Enlargement in Sight; A Constitution in Doubt Roger J. Goebel∗ ∗ Copyright c 2003 by the authors. Fordham International Law Journal is produced by The Berke- ley Electronic Press (bepress). http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ilj The European Union in Transition: The Treaty of Nice in Effect; Enlargement in Sight; A Constitution in Doubt Roger J. Goebel Abstract This Article is intended to provide an overview of this transitional moment in the history of the European Union. Initially, the Article will briefly review the background of the Treaty of Nice, and the institutional structure modifications for which it provides, which paves the way for enlargement. Next it will describe the final stages of the enlargement process. Finally, the Article will set out the principal institutional innovations and certain other key aspects of the draft Constitution, the most important issues concerning them, and the current impasse. THE EUROPEAN UNION IN TRANSITION: THE TREATY OF NICE IN EFFECT; ENLARGEMENT IN SIGHT; A CONSTITUTION IN DOUBT Rogerj Goebel* INTRODUCTION Once again the European Union' (the "EU" or the "Union") is in a stage of radical evolution. Since the early 1990's, the EU has anticipated an extraordinary increase in its constituent Member States2 through the absorption of a large number of Central European and Mediterranean nations. Since the late 1990's, the Union has been negotiating the precise terms for their entry with a dozen applicant nations and has been providing cooperative assistance to them to prepare for their accession to the Union and in particular, its principal con- stituent part, the European Community.3 As this enlargement of the Union came more clearly in sight, the political leadership and the present Member States, joined by the Commission, con- * Professor and Director of the Center on European Union Law, Fordham Univer- sity School of Law.
    [Show full text]
  • Perspectives for Reform in the European Union Nicolai Von Ondarza
    Introduction Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik German Institute for International and Security Affairs Comments Blocked for Good by the Threat of Treaty Change? WP S Perspectives for Reform in the European Union Nicolai von Ondarza The European Union faces a fundamental dilemma. On the one hand, pressure to reform its structures is growing. The hard negotiations with Greece in summer 2015 have revived the debate on deepening the Eurozone, while at the same time London is pushing to roll back integration, at least for itself. On the other hand, national governments reject any moves that would require a treaty change (such as transfer of powers) as politically impossible. Legal options for evading the dilemma and developing the Union by “covert integration” do exist, but these require unanimous political agreement among all the national governments – and would in the medium term require treaty changes to restore transparency and democratic legitimacy. The traumatic process of negotiating and bought itself some time for reform, the vola- ratifying the EU Constitutional Treaty and tile negotiations with Greece in summer the Treaty of Lisbon has left deep marks. 2015 again spotlighted the persistence of Ever since, national governments have con- grave deficits in its economic and political sistently avoided initiating significant treaty structures. In response, France in summer amendments, including at the height of 2015 proposed strengthening the Eurozone the euro crisis. Even in projects such as the with a finance minister with a budget and banking union, they have instead turned a parliament of its own. Concurrently, in to treaties outside the EU framework. June 2015 the presidents of five European Despite this reservation – or perhaps institutions (Commission, Council, ECB, precisely because of it – pressure to tackle Eurogroup and European Parliament) pub- reform of primary law is growing.
    [Show full text]
  • The European Union: Where Is It Now?
    Duquesne Law Review Volume 34 Number 4 Conference Proceedings: The Duquesne University School of Law Instititue for Judicial Education's and the Supreme Court of Article 9 Pennsylvania Conference on Science and the Law 1996 The European Union: Where Is It Now? John P. Flaherty Maureen E. Lally-Green Follow this and additional works at: https://dsc.duq.edu/dlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation John P. Flaherty & Maureen E. Lally-Green, The European Union: Where Is It Now?, 34 Duq. L. Rev. 923 (1996). Available at: https://dsc.duq.edu/dlr/vol34/iss4/9 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Duquesne Scholarship Collection. It has been accepted for inclusion in Duquesne Law Review by an authorized editor of Duquesne Scholarship Collection. The European Union: Where is it Now? Hon. John P. Flaherty* Maureen E. Lally-Green** TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction .............................. 926 Part One: A Brief History Lesson .............. 927 A. The Late 1940's through 1958 ............. 928 1. General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GAAT) (1947) ..................... 928 2. Benelux Customs Convention (1948) ...... 928 3. Council of Europe (1948) ............... 929 4. Organization for European Economic Cooperation (OEEC) (1948) ............ 930 * BA Duquesne University; J.D. University of Pittsburgh; Justice, the Su- preme Court of Pennsylvania (to be elevated to the position of Chief Justice of Penn- sylvania, July 1996). ** B.S. Duquesne University; J.D. Duquesne University; Professor of Law, Duquesne University School of Law. Both authors have been instrumental in the development of an academic pro- gram between the Duquesne University School of Law and the Law School of Uni- versity College Dublin in Dublin, Ireland on the topic of the law of the European Union.
    [Show full text]
  • Implementing the Protocol 36 Opt
    September 2012 Opting out of EU Criminal law: What is actually involved? Alicia Hinarejos, J.R. Spencer and Steve Peers CELS Working Paper, New Series, No.1 http://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk http://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/publications/working_papers.php Centre for European Legal Studies • 10 West Road • Cambridge CB3 9DZ Telephone: 01223 330093 • Fax: 01223 330055 • http://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Protocol 36 to the Lisbon Treaty gives the UK the right to opt out en bloc of all the police and criminal justice measures adopted under the Treaty of Maastricht ahead of the date when the Court of Justice of the EU at Luxembourg will acquire jurisdiction in relation to them. The government is under pressure to use this opt-out in order to “repatriate criminal justice”. It is rumoured that this opt-out might be offered as a less troublesome alternative to those are calling for a referendum on “pulling out of Europe”. Those who advocate the Protocol 36 opt-out appear to assume that it would completely remove the UK from the sphere of EU influence in matters of criminal justice and that the opt-out could be exercised cost-free. In this Report, both of these assumptions are challenged. It concludes that if the opt-out were exercised the UK would still be bound by a range of new police and criminal justice measures which the UK has opted into after Lisbon. And it also concludes that the measures opted out of would include some – notably the European Arrest Warrant – the loss of which could pose a risk to law and order.
    [Show full text]
  • The Political Context of Eu Accession in Hungary
    European Programme November 2002 THE POLITICAL CONTEXT OF EU ACCESSION IN HUNGARY Agnes Batory Introduction For the second time since the adoption of the Maastricht Treaty – seen by many as a watershed in the history of European integration – the European Union (EU) is set to expand. Unlike in 1995, when the group joining the Union consisted of wealthy, established liberal democracies, ten of the current applicants are post-communist countries which recently completed, or are still in various stages of completing, democratic transitions and large-scale economic reconstruction. It is envisaged that the candidates furthest ahead will become members in time for their citizens to participate in the next elections to the European Parliament due in June 2004. The challenge the absorption of the central and east European countries represents for the Union has triggered a need for internal institutional reform and new thinking among the policy-makers of the existing member states. However, despite the imminence of the ‘changeover’ to a considerably larger and more heterogeneous Union, the domestic profiles of the accession countries have remained relatively little known from the west European perspective. In particular, the implications of enlargement in terms of the attitudes and preferences of the new (or soon to be) players are still, to a great extent, unclear. How will they view their rights and obligations as EU members? How committed will they be to the implementation of the acquis communautaire? In what way will they fill formal rules with practical content? BRIEFING PAPER 2 THE POLITICAL CONTEXT OF EU ACCESSION IN HUNGARY Naturally, the answers to these questions can only government under the premiership of Miklós Németh be tentative at this stage.
    [Show full text]
  • Explaining the Treaty of Amsterdam: Interests, Influence, Institutions*
    Journal of Common Market Studies Vol. 37, No. 1 March 1999 pp. 59–85 Explaining the Treaty of Amsterdam: Interests, Influence, Institutions* ANDREW MORAVCSIK and KALYPSO NICOLAÏDIS Harvard University Abstract This article offers a basic explanation of the process and outcome of negotiat- ing the Treaty of Amsterdam. We pose three questions: What explains the national preferences of the major governments? Given those substantive national preferences, what explains bargaining outcomes among them? Given those substantive bargains, what explains the choice of international institu- tions to implement them? We argue in favour of an explanation based on three elements. Issue-specific interdependence explains national preferences. Inter- state bargaining based on asymmetrical interdependence explains the out- comes of substantive negotiation. The need for credible commitments explains institutional choices to pool and delegate sovereignty. Other oft-cited factors – European ideology, supranational entrepreneurship, technocratic consider- ations, or the random flux and non-rational processes of ‘garbage can’ decision-making – play secondary roles. Remaining areas of ambiguity are flagged for future research. * We would like to thank Simon Bulmer, Noreen Burrows, Stanley Crossick, Richard Corbett, Franklin Dehousse, Youri Devuyst, Geoffrey Edwards, Nigel Evans, Stephen George, Simon Hix, Karl Johansson, Nikos Kotzias, Sonia Mazey, John Peterson, Constantino Papadopoulos, Michel Petite, Eric Philippart, Jeremy Richardson, Brendon Smith, Alexander Stubb, Helen Wallace, William Wallace, Alison Weston and Neil Winn for assistance and conversations. In the current version we have cited only essential sources, for example those underlying direct quotations. An extended version can be found in Moravcsik and Nicolaïdis (forthcoming). © Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1999, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA 60 ANDREW MORAVCSIK AND KALYPSO NICOLAÏDIS I.
    [Show full text]
  • (2001/C 235 E/018) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3750/00 by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Council
    C 235 E/14 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.8.2001 (2001/C 235 E/018) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3750/00 by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Council (1 December 2000) Subject: Incorporation of the WEU within the EU On 13 November 2000, the Defence Ministers of the Western European Union (WEU) and the Foreign Ministers of the European Union met in Marseilles with the future of the WEU as the main topic on the agenda. At this joint ministerial session the decision was taken to incorporate the WEU’s activities within the EU, and this decision was ratified. As is well known, Turkey (together with other countries outside the European Union) participates in the WEU as an associate member and staff (both military and political) with Turkish nationality are involved in its activities. The same is true of Eurocontrol (the body responsible for air traffic control in Europe) in which Turkey participates as a full member and where Turks serve as senior and top-ranking administrative officials. The EU is moving towards a decision to absorb this body and create a new service along the lines of the above body to coordinate air traffic in our continent in a more efficient and organised manner. According to reports in the European press, this service will also be given responsibility for control over Member States’ F.I.R. areas which are currently reserved for defence purposes only and which are to be transferred to civil aviation. Could the Council provide information on the future status of officials of all types with nationality of countries
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution of a Common EU Foreign, Security and Defence Policy
    Chronology: The Evolution of a Common EU Foreign, Security and Defence Policy March 1948: Belgium, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and the UK sign the Brussels Treaty of mutual defence. April 1949: The US, Canada and ten West European countries sign the North Atlantic Treaty . May 1952: The European Defence Community treaty is agreed by the six ECSC member states. It would have created a common European army, and permitted West Germany’s rearmament. In August 1954, the French National Assembly rejects the treaty. October 1954: The Western European Union (WEU) is created on the basis of the Brussels Treaty, and expanded to include Italy and West Germany. West Germany joins NATO. December 1969: At their summit in The Hague , the EC heads of state or government ask the foreign ministers to study ways to achieve progress in political unification. October 1970: The foreign ministers approve the Luxembourg Report , setting up European Political Cooperation. They will meet every six months, to coordinate their positions on international problems and agree common actions. They will be aided by a committee of the directors of political affairs (the Political Committee ). July 1973: The foreign ministers agree to improve EPC procedures in the Copenhagen Report . They will meet at least four times a year; the Political Committee can meet as often as necessary. European Correspondents and working groups will help prepare the Political Committee’s work. The Commission can contribute its views to proceedings. October 1981: Measures approved in the London Report include the crisis consultation mechanism: any three foreign ministers can convene an emergency EPC meeting within 48 hours.
    [Show full text]
  • Basic Documents Page 1 of 2
    EUROCORPS - Basic Documents Page 1 of 2 08/30/2005 - 03:06 pm Home Organisation Missions History Press Gallery Links Contact About us Basic Documents Basic Documents This page contains brief descriptions of the basic documents that are considered of major importance for Principles of understanding Eurocorps' birth, composition and/or use. Employment Possible missions SFOR 1998 KFOR 2000 News Press releases Eurogazette ISAF VI La Rochelle Report: The "La Rochelle Report" is the founding act of the Eurocorps. This document defines the Eurocorps as a European multinational army corps that does not belong to the integrated military structure of the North Atlantic Alliance (NATO). It further describes more precisely the missions, subordination, employment possibilities, structure, and organisation of the Eurocorps, as well as a number of financial and legal aspects. Initially a French-German initiative, the Eurocorps was declared open for membership by other WEU-countries. The Petersberg and Rome Declarations: The Petersberg Declaration, made on the occasion of a Western European Union Summit on June 19, 1992, defined the WEU's role as the defence part of the European Union (cp. Maastricht Treaty, Amsterdam Treaty) and as an instrument to strengthen the Atlantic Alliance's European pillar. In support of this decision, the Corps member states decided on May 19, 1993 in Rome, to put the Eurocorps at the WEU's disposal. Three types of employment are envisaged: { the Eurocorps is to be prepared to carry out humanitarian aid missions and population
    [Show full text]