Beyond Pluralism and Autonomy: Systemic Harmonization As a Paradigm for the Interaction of EU Law and International Law

IF 0.3 Q3 LAW
Katja S. Ziegler
{"title":"Beyond Pluralism and Autonomy: Systemic Harmonization As a Paradigm for the Interaction of EU Law and International Law","authors":"Katja S. Ziegler","doi":"10.1093/YEL/YEW024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The EU’s relationship with international law as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) has taken a sharp constitutional turn in Opinion 2/13 which emphasized the autonomy of the EU legal order. Against the background of an analysis that the CJEU adopted an increasingly restrictive and closed approach to international law, which culminated in elevating autonomy to something akin to a constitutional principle, this article explores an alternative to the EU’s approach to international law, which could be an ‘old new’ paradigm for the interaction of EU law and international law. It examines how and how far the mechanisms of interpretation can be used as a tool to facilitate a more open and harmonious relationship between the EU and the international legal order. The article argues that a procedural requirement to engage openly can avoid conflicts between legal orders, such as the EU and the international legal order. The principle of ‘systemic integration’ provides the legal basis for this interpretative method. Against the backdrop of a fundamentally open approach, not all divergence or conflict is negative; on the contrary, it can be the source of mutual influence, enrichment and cross-fertilization, and re-affirmation of international law as a coherent legal system. It could help develop the EU legal order and derive legitimacy for such developments through openness and interaction. Systemic integration is thus the antipode of invoking the ‘autonomy’ of a legal order. The article reviews the relationship between international and EU law in relation to forms (mechanisms) and paradigms of interaction which reflect a more open or closed approach of EU law towards international law (II). It then briefly reflects on the benefits and disadvantages of the more open or closed paradigms (III) to proceed to explore in detail the paradigm and mechanisms of systemic harmonization as a basic model for the interaction of EU and international law which avoids conflicts but allows room for constitutionalization and affirmation of the international legal order and its law-making processes (IV). The concluding section reflects on risks and opportunities of systemic harmonization (V).","PeriodicalId":41752,"journal":{"name":"Croatian Yearbook of European Law & Policy","volume":"86 1","pages":"667-711"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2016-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Croatian Yearbook of European Law & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/YEL/YEW024","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

The EU’s relationship with international law as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) has taken a sharp constitutional turn in Opinion 2/13 which emphasized the autonomy of the EU legal order. Against the background of an analysis that the CJEU adopted an increasingly restrictive and closed approach to international law, which culminated in elevating autonomy to something akin to a constitutional principle, this article explores an alternative to the EU’s approach to international law, which could be an ‘old new’ paradigm for the interaction of EU law and international law. It examines how and how far the mechanisms of interpretation can be used as a tool to facilitate a more open and harmonious relationship between the EU and the international legal order. The article argues that a procedural requirement to engage openly can avoid conflicts between legal orders, such as the EU and the international legal order. The principle of ‘systemic integration’ provides the legal basis for this interpretative method. Against the backdrop of a fundamentally open approach, not all divergence or conflict is negative; on the contrary, it can be the source of mutual influence, enrichment and cross-fertilization, and re-affirmation of international law as a coherent legal system. It could help develop the EU legal order and derive legitimacy for such developments through openness and interaction. Systemic integration is thus the antipode of invoking the ‘autonomy’ of a legal order. The article reviews the relationship between international and EU law in relation to forms (mechanisms) and paradigms of interaction which reflect a more open or closed approach of EU law towards international law (II). It then briefly reflects on the benefits and disadvantages of the more open or closed paradigms (III) to proceed to explore in detail the paradigm and mechanisms of systemic harmonization as a basic model for the interaction of EU and international law which avoids conflicts but allows room for constitutionalization and affirmation of the international legal order and its law-making processes (IV). The concluding section reflects on risks and opportunities of systemic harmonization (V).
超越多元与自治:欧盟法与国际法互动的系统协调范式
欧盟法院(CJEU)在第2/13号意见中解释了欧盟与国际法的关系,该意见强调了欧盟法律秩序的自主性。在分析欧洲法院对国际法采取了越来越严格和封闭的方法,最终将自治提升到类似宪法原则的程度的背景下,本文探讨了欧盟对国际法方法的另一种选择,这可能是欧盟法和国际法相互作用的“新旧”范式。它探讨了解释机制如何以及在多大程度上可以作为一种工具来促进欧盟与国际法律秩序之间更加开放和和谐的关系。本文认为,公开参与的程序性要求可以避免法律秩序之间的冲突,例如欧盟与国际法律秩序之间的冲突。“系统整合”原则为这种解释方法提供了法律依据。在从根本上开放的背景下,并非所有分歧和冲突都是负面的;相反,它可以成为相互影响、丰富和相互促进的源泉,并重新肯定国际法是一个连贯的法律制度。它可以帮助发展欧盟的法律秩序,并通过开放和互动为这种发展获得合法性。因此,系统整合是援引法律秩序的“自主性”的对立面。本文从互动的形式(机制)和范式方面回顾了国际法与欧盟法之间的关系,这些形式(机制)和范式反映了欧盟法对国际法的更开放或更封闭的态度(II)。然后简要地反思了更开放或更封闭的范式(III)的利弊,进而详细探讨了作为欧盟与国际法互动的基本模式的系统协调范式和机制为国际法律秩序及其立法过程的宪法化和肯定提供了空间(四)。结语部分反映了系统协调的风险和机遇(五)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
25 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信