Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (99)
- Part of a Book (57)
- Review (21)
- Book (19)
- Conference Proceeding (14)
- Contribution to a Periodical (12)
- Public lecture (11)
- Part of a commentary (10)
- Interview (2)
- Contribution to online periodical (1)
Language
- German (177)
- English (68)
- Other Language (2)
Has Fulltext
- no (247) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (247)
Keywords
- Europäische Union (5)
- Verwaltungsrecht (3)
- EU (2)
- Europäischen Union (2)
- Zollunion (2)
- delegated acts (2)
- differentiation (2)
- implementing acts (2)
- ACCC (1)
- Aarhus convention (1)
Institute
- Lehrstuhl für Öffentliches Recht, insbesondere Europarecht und Völkerrecht (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Weiß) (247) (remove)
Trade relations face unprecedented challenges, which has led to an increased politicisation and contestation of trade rules. In response, the EU has changed its trade policy under the motto ‘Open Strategic Autonomy’ towards a more as-sertive policy. The EU seeks to signifi-cantly expand its room of manoeuvre and to gain more autonomy by strengthening the en-forcement of its trade rights and by ensuring more effectively, including unilaterally, a level playing field. This re-orientation engenders several new or amended trade policy instru-ments, but meets with reservations as the renewed politicisation of EU trade policy will have internal consequences and raise demands for more democratic accountability of the Euro-pean Commission. The new policy instruments will enlarge its leeway in trade policy. The future of the EU's multilateral, rule- instead of power-oriented political stance becomes unclear, which might undermine its negotiation posi-tion in WTO reform and collide with the EU's respect for international law. The tensions of the EU's new hybrid approach with its international commitments even more fuel demands for increased accountability of the Commission as a safeguard against employing the new powers for protectionism and disrespect to international law. The contribution analyses the need for increased Commis-sion accountability in the redirected trade policy.
Welthandelsrecht
(2022)
Seit ihrer Gründung steht die Welthandelsorganisation (WTO) samt den von ihr verwalteten Übereinkommen über den Handel mit Waren (GATT), Dienstleistungen (GATS) sowie dem Schutz geistigen Eigentums (TRIPS) im Mittelpunkt der Diskussionen über Globalisierung, global governance, Umweltschutz und internationale Verteilungsgerechtigkeit.
Aus dem Inhalt: WTO in schwierigen Zeiten; Grundprinzipien des Multilateralismus; Streitbeilegungsverfahren; Regelungen über den Warenhandel und technische Handels-hemmnisse; Regionale Integration; Handelspolitische Schutzinstrumente; Internationales Währungssystem; Investitionen und Investitionsschutz; Handel mit Dienstleistungen und Schutz geistigen Eigentums; Entwicklungsländer; E-Commerce und Digital Trade; Menschen-rechte, Umwelt- und Sozialstandards; Zukunft der WTO.
Zur Neuauflage: Für die Neuauflage wurde das Werk grundlegend aktualisiert und im Hin-blick auf die krisenhaften neuen Herausforderungen für die WTO und den Multilateralismus (Anstieg des Unilateralismus, Handelskriege, Aufstieg Chinas, zunehmend geostrategische Ausrichtung der Handelspolitik, Lähmung des Appellate Body), die neuen Themen im Welt-handel (Digital Trade, E-Commerce, Gesundheitsschutz) und die einschlägige Recht-sprechungsentwicklung überarbeitet.
The Union legislator has recently amended the Aarhus Regulation with the aim of bringing it more in line with the requirements the Aarhus Convention lays down. EU State aid decisions, however, remain excluded from its scope. This exclusion raises questions that form the object of this contribution. The article argues that the arguments presented to justify the continued exclusion of State aid review are not convincing. By not complying with the re-commendations of the ACCC, the EU is in clear violation of international law. Therefore, the article deliberates over the necessary changes and possible exemptions for a sound im-plementation of the Aarhus Convention against the procedural specificities of State aid review, considering also the Commission´s recently presented options, which contain a number of problematic aspects.
This article takes the proliferation of EU soft law instruments in the management of the COVID-19 pandemic as an opportunity to analyse their effects and challenges to democracy and rule of law in the EU posed by the use of EU soft law in the implementation of EU law. A proposal will be made for a general legal framework on the adoption of administrative EU soft law in order to address them. Enhancing the legitimacy of EU governance requires a general legal framework that introduces minimum procedural, transparency and participa-tory safeguards and foresees looser rules for urgent soft measures. The article thus makes an original contribution by reconsidering the debate about EU soft law in the context of COVID-19 soft law with a view to its salience for domestic implementation of EU law and by developing core elements of a general legal framework.
Der Kommentar von Brocker/Droege/Jutzi ist die hochgelobt erste Adresse bei allen Fragen zur Landesverfassung. Die Kommentierungen verdeutlichen insbesondere dort, wo das Landesverfassungsrecht Besonderheiten gegenüber dem Grundgesetz aufweist, die Eigen-ständigkeit der Verfassungsrechtsräume.
Die Neuauflage greift alle Neuerungen der Verfassungsreform, insbesondere im Wahlrechts-schutz (Nichtanerkennungsbeschwerde politischer Parteien und Wählervereinigungen) auf.
This introductory article makes the case for studying joint institutional frameworks (JIFs) in EU bilateral agreements and provides an overview of the remaining contributions to the sympo-sium. In doing so, it addresses contemporary policy developments and theoretical debates in political science and international institutional law. It considers the rationale, design, perfor-mance as well as legitimacy of JIFs both in general and, in particular, in the EU's contractual bilateral relations. By mapping out the variety of JIFs in distinct geographical and regulatory contexts, the article develops an overarching argument about the ‘transversal’ nature of such structural frameworks, focusing on the most prevalent structural principles and rules, joint bodies and special procedures, including those not covered in detail in the other contribu-tions to this symposium.
Ex Officio Third Country Subsidies' Review: Similarities with and Differences to State Aid Procedure
(2022)
In May 2021 the European Commission tabled a draft Third Country Subsidies Regulation which stands between trade and competition policy. This new instrument establishes a review of third country subsidies with a view to addressing the competition distortion resulting from foreign subsidies granted to undertakings economically active in the EU internal market. As the new tool complements EU State aid scrutiny with a view to foreign subsidies, the present contribution compares the general procedures and provisions of the new regulation with EU State aid law. It will be shown that despite many similarities with State aid law, considerable differences remain which can be explained by looking at the different procedural and substantive context.
Durch die Konferenz zur Zukunft Europas hat die Debatte um eine Reform des EU-Primär-rechts neue Fahrt aufgenommen. Eine Vertragsreform tut not, im Interesse effektiverer, aber auch demokratischerer Beschlussfassung, erweiterter Kompetenzen und konsentierter Ver-bundgrundlagen zur Bewältigung der zahlreichen äußeren und inneren Herausforderungen.
Außenwirtschaftsbeziehungen
(2022)
Democratization of good global governance: The EU's role in the Parliamentarization of trade policy
(2022)
The quest for good governance in trade relations occurs against the backdrop of an increa-sing politicization of trade policy. In the new reality of global value chains and servitisation, regulating trade goes far beyond technical issues of reducing entrance barriers, border measures and tariffs, but becomes a comprehensive endeavour of scrutinizing and policing behind-the-border political issues. Therefore, a call for raising the legitimacy of trade policy formulation and implementation rises. Hence, parliamentarisation of trade policy is ever more necessary. The EU's constitutional development and its practice in trade policy is a good example for more parliamentary involvement, which strengthens trade policy's legi-timacy, transparency, and public awareness. Thus, the EU indeed is, despite all weaknesses,
a pacemaker and hence good global actor to the benefit of democratisation of global trade governance, being an essential factor of good governance.
Wolfgang Weiss’ contribution on “Constitutional Challenges to EU Administrative Soft Law During the Covid-19 Pandemic and Some Proposed Remedies” Studies how during the Covid-19 pandemic, as EU member states struggled to deal with the pandemic, EU officials increasingly resorted to so-called “soft law” to provide guidance to member states. He concludes that, while there are benefits to using EU soft law for crisis management and domestic implementation of EU, he raises concerns regarding their challenges for democratic legitimacy and the rule of law. He contends that these challenges should be addressed by a legislative enactment that sets forth a general framework for the adoption of EU soft law, core elements of which should be stipulations of subsidiarity vis-a-vis executive rulemaking and minimum procedural, transparency and justification requirements for the adoption of Commission soft law. Their domestic effects and reviewability should be clarified as well.
The TCA (EU-UK Trade and Copperation Agreement) establishes a very comprehensive institutional framework with Partnership Council and diverse Committees having partly substantial decision-making powers for the development of the TCA. These considerable public functions prompt legitimacy concerns as to their democratic control, which this article explores in detail. It will be shown that the exercise of public powers by TCA treaty bodies meets with a sobering legal situation regarding democratic control mechanisms over treaty body decision-making at different levels. Thus, from a constitutional perspective, the legal and legitimate transfer of powers requires additional safeguards as to their democratic legitimacy. Solutions for better control of treaty body decisions by parliaments must be developed at several levels simultaneously.
Der neue Verordnungsvorschlag der Kommission zu Drittlandssubventionen sieht eine Aufsicht durch die Europäische Kommission vor, die vergleichbar ist mit ihrer Aufsicht über staatliche Beihilfen. Dennoch bestehen erhebliche Unterschiede. Vorliegender Beitrag unternimmt einen Vergleich der Instrumente im Hinblick auf von Amts wegen eingeleitete Verfahren und analysiert Gemeinsamkeiten und Unterschiede in den Verfahren und den Untersuchungsbefugnissen.
Plebiszitäre Gesetzgebung zu völkerrechtlichen Abkommen der EU und direkte Demokratie in Bayern
(2021)
Der BayVerfGH entschied im Februar 2017 abschlägig über die Zulassung eines Volksbegehrens „Nein zu CETA“ . Es ging um Zulassung eines Volksbegehrens in Bayern, das einen Volksentscheid über das Umfassende Wirtschafts- und Handelsabkommen zwischen Kanada einerseits und der Europäischen Union und ihren Mitgliedstaaten andererseits, kurz CETA, herbeiführen wollte. Das BayStaatsministerium des Inneren sah die gesetzlichen Voraussetzungen für die Zulassung des Volksbegehrens nicht als gegeben an und legte daher dem BayVerfGH die Frage nach der Zulassung. Durch das Volksbegehren sollte ein Volksentscheid über ein Gesetz herbeigeführt werden, in dem die BayStaatsregierung angewiesen würde, im Bundesrat gegen ein Zustimmungsgesetz zu CETA zu stimmen. In dem Verfahren stellten sich eine Reihe von Rechtsfragen: - Ist Volksgesetzgebung im Rahmen von Art. 70 Abs. 4 S. 2 BayVerf überhaupt denkbar? Dabei kann unterschieden werden zwischen einer Betrachtung auf dem Boden der BayVerf und einer auf dem Boden des GG. Denn ließe man Volksgesetzgebung über Bundesratsabstimmungen der BayStaatsregierung zu, könnte ein Landesvolk in u.U. rein bundesrechtliche Fragen hineinwirken. Würde damit nicht in den Bundesverfassungsraum eingegriffen? Zumal der Bundesrat ein Bundesorgan ist, in dem die Länder durch ihre Regierungen vertreten sind und nicht durch ihre Landtage oder gar ihr Landesvolk. Kann dann eine Regelung wie Art. 70 Abs. 4 S. 2 BayVerf – unbeschadet von der Folgefrage nach der Zulässigkeit eines Plebiszits insoweit – überhaupt mit dem GG vereinbar sein? - Selbst wenn man die obigen Fragen alle beantworten würde: Wann liegen die Voraussetzungen für ein Volksbegehren im Sinne von Art. 70 Abs. 4 S. 2 BayVerf vor? Wann geht es um die Übertragung von Hoheitsrechten an die EU? Wann betrifft diese das Recht der Gesetzgebung (des Landtags)? Der BayVerfGH konnte diesen Fragen ausweichen. Er stellte das Fehlen der gesetzlichen Voraussetzungen für das Volksbegehren mit dem Argument fest, dass „ein Verfahren auf Erlass eines Bundesgesetzes [zu CETA], das nach Art. 23 Abs. 1 S. 2 GG der Zustimmung des Bundesrats bedarf, weder eingeleitet [ist] noch [seine]… Einleitung unmittelbar bevor[steht]." Die Frage, „[o]b auf der Grundlage des Art. 70 Abs. 4 S. 2 BV eine landesgesetzliche Weisung gegenüber der Staatsregierung für das Abstimmungsverhalten im Bundesrat mit dem Grundgesetz vereinbar wäre“ ließ der BayVerfGH offen, brachte aber seine Zweifel zum Ausdruck. Die vorliegende Publikation will zur Lösung der soeben angesprochenen Fragen beitragen.
Since the Treaty of Lisbon, trade policy has become an explicit part of the EU's external policy and integrated into the general framework of the EU´s external policy, but must also be in conformity with internal policies. Thus, trade policy is subject to a requirement of multiple coherence. Beyond constitutional obligations, other drivers work for the inclusion of non-genuine commercial policy objectives in trade policy, such as the orientation of contemporary trade politics towards the behind the border issues of national regulation, so that trade policy became closely intertwined with domestic regulatory policy. Therefore the actors primarily responsible for legislation, i.e. parliaments, advocate for their extended participation in determining trade policy, and rightly so for reasons of transparency, control and political inclusiveness. Parliaments thus become actors of respect for and positive consideration of non-commercial policy objectives in trade policy, which applies as well to the European Parliament (EP). Hence, an institutional design of policy formulation cycles and decision-making in EU trade policy that strives for better coherence of trade concerns with NTPOs must focus on strengthening the influence of the EP and improve its participatory rights in decision-making and its control and monitoring mechanisms. Consequently, the present paper derives proposals for improving EP´s monitoring mechanisms for the benefit of non-trade policy objectives (NTPOs) in trade policy from an analysis of weaknesses in the negotiation and implementation stage of trade policy.
The book explores the impact of WTO law on domestic regulatory autonomy. It identifies and critically analyses the mechanisms working in WTO law that cause increasing interferences with domestic law and thus restrain the regulatory autonomy of the WTO members. The book proposes ways how WTO law be conceptualized to enhance the policy space of WTO members. Therefore, the book demonstrates the flexibilities in interpreting and applying WTO core principles and provisions and explores interpretive and institutional conceptions that could serve as a pathway of allocating greater policy leeway to WTO members.
The analyses presented address the disturbing observation that even though WTO law appreciates the regulatory leeway of WTO members in several provisions across agreements, the WTO judiciary´s case law, but also other governance mechanism active in the WTO appear to narrow down the WTO members´ regulatory autonomy and to considerably limit the space for domestic policy choices. Wide spread, even scholarly perception of the WTO, and most recently the Trump administration blame the WTO, in particular its dispute settlement branch, for being biased towards free trade and unduly restraining even legitimate domestic policies, and voiding the domestic policy space needed for addressing societal concerns and global problems. A closer look at the development of GATT/WTO law, however, reveals that, in GATT era, panels were aware of the effect their interpretations had on domestic policy space, and that some of the more recent WTO dispute settlement reports show attempts to expand WTO member´s leeway again. These observations are the starting point for an indepth analysis of the different mechanisms present in WTO law which impact on domestic regulation.
Considering the new focus of the European Union (EU) trade policy on strengthening the enforcement of trade rules, the article presents the proposed amendments to the EU Trade Enforcement Regulation 654/2014. It analyzes the EU Commission proposal and the amendments suggested by the European Parliament Committee on International Trade (INTA), in particular with regard to uncooperative third parties and the provision of immediate countermeasures. The amendments will be assessed in view of their legality under World Trade Organization (WTO), Free Trade Agreement (FTA), and general international law and in view of their political implications for the EU’s multilateralist stance. Finally, the opportunity to amend Regulation 654/2014 to use it for the enforcement of FTA trade and sustainable development chapters will be explored. The analysis shows that the shift towards more effective enforcement should be pursued with due care for respecting existing international legal commitments and with more caution to multilateralism.
Außenwirtschaftsbeziehungen
(2020)
The introduction will describe the constant evolving global political context correlated to the events occurring, specifically, in the trade environment and the unprecedented challenges they pose for the EU Trade Policy. These identified and introduced challenges will be addressed in detail in the following book chapters. It will also introduce the reader to the individual contributions of the book and briefly present and anticipate the results attained.
Außenwirtschaftsbeziehungen
(2018)
Außenwirtschaftsbeziehungen
(2017)
Introduction
(2018)
EU administrative law scholarship and practice remain confused about the reach and interrelation of arts 290 and 291 TFEU, which created the categories of delegated and implementing Commission acts. The introduction of these two different instruments of executive rule-making by the Lisbon Treaty has prompted attempts in delineating them, based on constitutional theories of separation of powers or functional differentiation. These attempts have failed to a large extent, all the more since the CJEU’s relevant case law has not been helpful in constructing a proper distinction. Today, recourse to arts 290 and 291 TFEU by the legislator takes place in the tension created between the fact that the Treaties, informed by an abstract constitutional distinction between legislation and execution, appear to have created categorically different acts, and the fact that delegated and implementing rule-making procedures in practice have become increasingly similar to each other. In simplified terms, the problem is that delegated and implementing acts appear – in terms of their foundation in primary law – as fundamentally different acts that are, however, adopted in practice through similar procedures, at the same time as their content and legal effects are indistinguishable in many or even in most cases. Yet, if we accept that the creation of two forms of Commission acts was prompted by some form of legal necessity or legitimate political will, then understanding the difference between delegating and implementing acts remains paramount.
Arts. 290 and 291 TFEU are notoriously hard to differentiate. However, there is some evidence that a separation on the basis of substantive regulation through delegated acts and procedural specifications by implementing acts is forthcoming. The substantive – procedural differentiation is not very clear cut, but it affords the institutions flexibility in answering new challenges while at the same time exerting some guiding force. This Conclusion describes the separation of delegated and implementing acts along the substantive – procedural differentiation but also points to problems ahead. Thus, constitutional ambiguity, an inappropriate reliance on pre-Lisbon doctrine and the lack of a common vision continue to plague the law on EU administrative rule-making. To find a way to fulfil the promise of simplification that is part of the Lisbon reform, the EU institutions will all need to take the procedural safeguards around delegated and implementing acts more seriously.