One of the most legally complex and politically sensitive issues in the Brexit debate has been the design of dispute settlement procedures. This debate has illustrated how concepts of justice are understood in the context of dispute settlement. Justice in international dispute settlement is commonly framed in terms of fairness, particularly regarding procedure. The chapter first discusses how cases dealing with Brexit before the Court of Justice of the European Union have prioritised justice for the EU and the UK, rather than justice for the citizens of Europe and the individuals who are affected by Brexit. It then shows how the design of dispute settlement mechanism in the Withdrawal Agreement between the EU and the UK has been designed to ensure fairness to the parties. These processes provide little scope for justice to be realised by individuals, whose rights will be affected by the UK’s withdrawal from the Union. The chapter questions whether inter-state arbitration is the best method to ensure justice in a complex process such as the withdrawal of a Member State from the European Union.
The chapter discusses the challenges facing the European Union as it seeks to become a more active player in the field of cybersecurity. It outlines the concept of cybersecurity and the various approaches to cybersecurity governance. It then discusses the EU’s approach to cybersecurity issues, focusing on three elements: cybercrime, network and information security, and cyber defence. Although a relative newcomer on the scene, the EU has made strides towards establishing a coherent policy framework across these areas. The EU is also developing a role in cyber defence, a field that has been largely left to the Member States. The chapter finally analyses the external dimension of cybersecurity policy and argues that the EU can influence the development of international norms. EU policy must also deal with the political and diplomatic dimension, especially as threats of state-sponsored cyber-attacks increase.
This article discusses how the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) deals with international law issues. While the EU and the Court itself are often presented as being ‘friendly’ towards international law, recent cases have shown a trend towards a more guarded approach by the Court. The article first examines recent literature on the CJEU's relationship with international law which demonstrates an oscillation between ‘openness’ towards international law and an approach that emphasises the autonomy of the EU legal order. It then discusses what rules exist to guide the Court in determining its relationship with international law. To what extent do the EU Treaties, the legal traditions of the Member States or international law itself determine how the CJEU should deal with international law issues? The next part examines how the CJEU has dealt with international law in practice. The CJEU has progressively developed tools to limit the effect of international law, as it attempts to strike a balance between respect for international law and the need to safeguard the integrity of the EU legal order. It discusses some recent cases where the CJEU dealt with key international law issues in order to demonstrate how this relationship is shaped in practice. The final part seeks to understand why the Court seems to oscillate between an open and a closed approach to international law. It is posited that this can partly be explained by whether the Court is acting in its capacity as an international or a domestic court.
Ramses A. Wessel and Jed Odermatt
This introductory chapter explains the reasons behind the EU’s engagement with other international institutions. From a legal perspective, these reasons often relate to the division of competences between the Union and its Member States. The chapter addresses these competences as well as the challenges the EU faces on the basis of both its own rules and the rules of other international organizations. These rules result in a variety of ways in which the EU’s position in other institutions takes shape, from full membership to observer. The question of EU influence is only partly related to its formal position and is often linked to the Union’s ambitions to ‘uphold and promote its values and interests’ in the wider world.
Jed Odermatt and Ramses A. Wessel
How does the Union, which seeks to support and support multilateralism and international institutions, respond to the changing international environment? The EU’s engagement with international institutions is closely linked to the challenges the EU faces, both at home and internationally. In the wake of the global financial crisis and the European debt crisis, the EU became more active in a wide range of international economic bodies, including the G20, which have influenced the EU’s responses to the crisis. In fields such as migration, terrorism, climate change, human rights and global health, the EU has acted with and through international institutions to address such challenges. Yet multilateralism also involves a commitment to a set of internationally recognized norms in order for these institutions to function: the sovereign equality of states, the principle of nonintervention, prohibition of the use of force in international relations and a commitment to respect for international human rights. The EU’s support for multilateralism, therefore, goes beyond supporting the key institutions of global governance, but also takes in certain values that underlie them.