Between Sollen and Sein : The CJEU’s reliance on international law in the interpretation of economic agreements covering occupied territories
This contribution focuses on the Court of Justice of the European Union (Court or CJEU) reliance on international law in cases involving economic agreements covering occupied territories. In its earlier case law, the Court adopted a formalistic approach by ignoring the broader international legal fr...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Leiden journal of international law 2020-06, Vol.33 (2), p.371-389 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 389 |
---|---|
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 371 |
container_title | Leiden journal of international law |
container_volume | 33 |
creator | Kassoti, Eva |
description | This contribution focuses on the Court of Justice of the European Union (Court or CJEU) reliance on international law in cases involving economic agreements covering occupied territories. In its earlier case law, the Court adopted a formalistic approach by ignoring the broader international legal framework of the dispute in an effort to achieve conformity with international law, while at the same time avoiding being drawn into political storms. The article continues by identifying an even more worrisome trend in the Court’s latest judgments in the Front Polisario and Western Sahara Campaign UK cases. In these two cases the Court showed its willingness to stretch the international rules of treaty interpretation to a breaking point in order to avoid pronouncing on the politically sensitive question of the de facto application of the EU’s agreements with Morocco in the territory of Western Sahara. The article concludes by asserting that the Court’s line of argumentation brings another dimension to the Völkerrechtsfreundlichkeit debate. The classical, binary understanding of the Court’s approach as ‘open/hostile’ to international law only provides us with a partial picture of how international law was actually used in these cases. The Court’s apparent willingness to rely on international law as a heuristic device to reinforce an outcome that radically departs from the logic and structure of international law and international legal argumentation requires a more in-depth engagement with both the content of the international law rules invoked in those judgments and with the Court’s use of such rules. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1017/S0922156520000059 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2394774235</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2394774235</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c273t-8bbb6cda6a3d4258978e630ad0e44c96293e86dd2c53db83429db0da46993eec3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNplkDtOAzEQhi0EEiFwADpL1Ateex82HUThpUgUSeqV154ERxt7sR0iOm5AzfU4CU6gY5pfmu-bkWYQOs_JZU7y-mpKBKV5WZWU7KoUB2iQFzXPRCX4IRrscLbjx-gkhFVSBCd8gD5vIW4BLJ66rkshrcZTMBZf49kL4NHTeP798RWwh85IqwA7i42N4K2MxlnZ4U5uUwfHZO9B7yHuGXYLDMpZtzYKy6UHWIONASv3Bt7YJXZKbXoDGqcpb6LzBsIpOlrILsDZXw7R_G48Gz1kk-f7x9HNJFO0ZjHjbdtWSstKMl3QkouaQ8WI1ASKQomKCga80pqqkumWs4IK3RIti0okAooN0cXv3t671w2E2KzcJh3VhYYyUdR1QVmZrPzXUt6F4GHR9N6spX9vctLs_t78-zv7AdrqeJw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2394774235</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Between Sollen and Sein : The CJEU’s reliance on international law in the interpretation of economic agreements covering occupied territories</title><source>PAIS Index</source><source>HeinOnline Law Journal Library</source><source>Cambridge University Press Journals Complete</source><creator>Kassoti, Eva</creator><creatorcontrib>Kassoti, Eva</creatorcontrib><description>This contribution focuses on the Court of Justice of the European Union (Court or CJEU) reliance on international law in cases involving economic agreements covering occupied territories. In its earlier case law, the Court adopted a formalistic approach by ignoring the broader international legal framework of the dispute in an effort to achieve conformity with international law, while at the same time avoiding being drawn into political storms. The article continues by identifying an even more worrisome trend in the Court’s latest judgments in the Front Polisario and Western Sahara Campaign UK cases. In these two cases the Court showed its willingness to stretch the international rules of treaty interpretation to a breaking point in order to avoid pronouncing on the politically sensitive question of the de facto application of the EU’s agreements with Morocco in the territory of Western Sahara. The article concludes by asserting that the Court’s line of argumentation brings another dimension to the Völkerrechtsfreundlichkeit debate. The classical, binary understanding of the Court’s approach as ‘open/hostile’ to international law only provides us with a partial picture of how international law was actually used in these cases. The Court’s apparent willingness to rely on international law as a heuristic device to reinforce an outcome that radically departs from the logic and structure of international law and international legal argumentation requires a more in-depth engagement with both the content of the international law rules invoked in those judgments and with the Court’s use of such rules.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0922-1565</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1478-9698</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1017/S0922156520000059</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cambridge: Cambridge University Press</publisher><subject>Agreements ; Case law ; Colonies & territories ; Conformity ; Court decisions ; International law ; International trade ; Judicial reviews ; Military occupations ; Radicalism ; Rule of law</subject><ispartof>Leiden journal of international law, 2020-06, Vol.33 (2), p.371-389</ispartof><rights>2020 This article is published under (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c273t-8bbb6cda6a3d4258978e630ad0e44c96293e86dd2c53db83429db0da46993eec3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c273t-8bbb6cda6a3d4258978e630ad0e44c96293e86dd2c53db83429db0da46993eec3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27866,27924,27925</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Kassoti, Eva</creatorcontrib><title>Between Sollen and Sein : The CJEU’s reliance on international law in the interpretation of economic agreements covering occupied territories</title><title>Leiden journal of international law</title><description>This contribution focuses on the Court of Justice of the European Union (Court or CJEU) reliance on international law in cases involving economic agreements covering occupied territories. In its earlier case law, the Court adopted a formalistic approach by ignoring the broader international legal framework of the dispute in an effort to achieve conformity with international law, while at the same time avoiding being drawn into political storms. The article continues by identifying an even more worrisome trend in the Court’s latest judgments in the Front Polisario and Western Sahara Campaign UK cases. In these two cases the Court showed its willingness to stretch the international rules of treaty interpretation to a breaking point in order to avoid pronouncing on the politically sensitive question of the de facto application of the EU’s agreements with Morocco in the territory of Western Sahara. The article concludes by asserting that the Court’s line of argumentation brings another dimension to the Völkerrechtsfreundlichkeit debate. The classical, binary understanding of the Court’s approach as ‘open/hostile’ to international law only provides us with a partial picture of how international law was actually used in these cases. The Court’s apparent willingness to rely on international law as a heuristic device to reinforce an outcome that radically departs from the logic and structure of international law and international legal argumentation requires a more in-depth engagement with both the content of the international law rules invoked in those judgments and with the Court’s use of such rules.</description><subject>Agreements</subject><subject>Case law</subject><subject>Colonies & territories</subject><subject>Conformity</subject><subject>Court decisions</subject><subject>International law</subject><subject>International trade</subject><subject>Judicial reviews</subject><subject>Military occupations</subject><subject>Radicalism</subject><subject>Rule of law</subject><issn>0922-1565</issn><issn>1478-9698</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNplkDtOAzEQhi0EEiFwADpL1Ateex82HUThpUgUSeqV154ERxt7sR0iOm5AzfU4CU6gY5pfmu-bkWYQOs_JZU7y-mpKBKV5WZWU7KoUB2iQFzXPRCX4IRrscLbjx-gkhFVSBCd8gD5vIW4BLJ66rkshrcZTMBZf49kL4NHTeP798RWwh85IqwA7i42N4K2MxlnZ4U5uUwfHZO9B7yHuGXYLDMpZtzYKy6UHWIONASv3Bt7YJXZKbXoDGqcpb6LzBsIpOlrILsDZXw7R_G48Gz1kk-f7x9HNJFO0ZjHjbdtWSstKMl3QkouaQ8WI1ASKQomKCga80pqqkumWs4IK3RIti0okAooN0cXv3t671w2E2KzcJh3VhYYyUdR1QVmZrPzXUt6F4GHR9N6spX9vctLs_t78-zv7AdrqeJw</recordid><startdate>20200601</startdate><enddate>20200601</enddate><creator>Kassoti, Eva</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope><scope>DPSOV</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>KC-</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M2L</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20200601</creationdate><title>Between Sollen and Sein : The CJEU’s reliance on international law in the interpretation of economic agreements covering occupied territories</title><author>Kassoti, Eva</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c273t-8bbb6cda6a3d4258978e630ad0e44c96293e86dd2c53db83429db0da46993eec3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Agreements</topic><topic>Case law</topic><topic>Colonies & territories</topic><topic>Conformity</topic><topic>Court decisions</topic><topic>International law</topic><topic>International trade</topic><topic>Judicial reviews</topic><topic>Military occupations</topic><topic>Radicalism</topic><topic>Rule of law</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Kassoti, Eva</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>Access via ABI/INFORM (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><collection>Politics Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Politics Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Political Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Leiden journal of international law</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Kassoti, Eva</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Between Sollen and Sein : The CJEU’s reliance on international law in the interpretation of economic agreements covering occupied territories</atitle><jtitle>Leiden journal of international law</jtitle><date>2020-06-01</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>33</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>371</spage><epage>389</epage><pages>371-389</pages><issn>0922-1565</issn><eissn>1478-9698</eissn><abstract>This contribution focuses on the Court of Justice of the European Union (Court or CJEU) reliance on international law in cases involving economic agreements covering occupied territories. In its earlier case law, the Court adopted a formalistic approach by ignoring the broader international legal framework of the dispute in an effort to achieve conformity with international law, while at the same time avoiding being drawn into political storms. The article continues by identifying an even more worrisome trend in the Court’s latest judgments in the Front Polisario and Western Sahara Campaign UK cases. In these two cases the Court showed its willingness to stretch the international rules of treaty interpretation to a breaking point in order to avoid pronouncing on the politically sensitive question of the de facto application of the EU’s agreements with Morocco in the territory of Western Sahara. The article concludes by asserting that the Court’s line of argumentation brings another dimension to the Völkerrechtsfreundlichkeit debate. The classical, binary understanding of the Court’s approach as ‘open/hostile’ to international law only provides us with a partial picture of how international law was actually used in these cases. The Court’s apparent willingness to rely on international law as a heuristic device to reinforce an outcome that radically departs from the logic and structure of international law and international legal argumentation requires a more in-depth engagement with both the content of the international law rules invoked in those judgments and with the Court’s use of such rules.</abstract><cop>Cambridge</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><doi>10.1017/S0922156520000059</doi><tpages>19</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0922-1565 |
ispartof | Leiden journal of international law, 2020-06, Vol.33 (2), p.371-389 |
issn | 0922-1565 1478-9698 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2394774235 |
source | PAIS Index; HeinOnline Law Journal Library; Cambridge University Press Journals Complete |
subjects | Agreements Case law Colonies & territories Conformity Court decisions International law International trade Judicial reviews Military occupations Radicalism Rule of law |
title | Between Sollen and Sein : The CJEU’s reliance on international law in the interpretation of economic agreements covering occupied territories |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-24T13%3A42%3A02IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Between%20Sollen%20and%20Sein%20:%20The%20CJEU%E2%80%99s%20reliance%20on%20international%20law%20in%20the%20interpretation%20of%20economic%20agreements%20covering%20occupied%20territories&rft.jtitle=Leiden%20journal%20of%20international%20law&rft.au=Kassoti,%20Eva&rft.date=2020-06-01&rft.volume=33&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=371&rft.epage=389&rft.pages=371-389&rft.issn=0922-1565&rft.eissn=1478-9698&rft_id=info:doi/10.1017/S0922156520000059&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2394774235%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2394774235&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |