Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Part of a Book (28)
- Article (27)
- Public lecture (5)
- Book (4)
- Contribution to a Periodical (4)
- Review (4)
- Conference Proceeding (2)
- Working Paper (1)
Language
- English (75) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (75)
Keywords
- Europäische Union (4)
- 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) (75) (remove)
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 present contribution analyses the Opinion 1/17 of the CJEU on CETA, which, in a surprisingly uncritical view of conceivable conflicts between the competences of the CETA Investment Tribunal on the one hand and those of the CJEU on the other hand, did not raise any objections. In first reactions, this opinion was welcomed as an extension of the EU's room for manoeuvre in investment protection. The investment court system under CETA, however, is only compatible with EU law to a certain extent, which the Court made clear in the text of the opinion, and the restrictions are likely to confine the leeway for EU external contractual relations. Due to their fundamental importance, these restrictions, derived by the CJEU from the autonomy of the Union legal order form the core subject of this contribution. In what follows, the new emphasis in the CETA opinion on the external autonomy of Union law will be analyzed first (II). Subsequently, the considerations of the CJEU on the delimitation of its competences from those of the CETA Tribunal will be critically examined. The rather superficial analysis of the CJEU in the CETA opinion is in contrast to its approach in earlier decisions as it misjudges problems and therefore only superficially leads to a clear delimitation of competences (III.). An exploration of the last part of the CJEU's autonomy analysis will follow, in which the CJEU tries to respond to the criticism of regulatory chill (IV). Here, by referring to the unhindered operation of the EU institutions in accordance with their constitutional framework, the CJEU identifies the new restrictions for investment protection mechanisms just mentioned, which takes back the previous comprehensive affirmation of jurisdiction of the CETA Tribunal in one point and which raises many questions about its concrete significance, consequence, and scope of application.
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.