EU MEMBERSHIP IN INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF ITS PERSONALITY

Introduction. Personality of the EU as well as of the any international organization is based on the provisions of its founding treaties. Wide range of internal powers transferred by Member States to the EU predefined its activities in the international plane including signing of international agreements and membership in international organizations. Legal infrastructure of such membership is the result of peculiarities of the EU as the union of the states, powers of the EU institutions, and phenomenon of the simultaneous membership in the IOs of the EU and Member States, as well as of legal specificity of certain IO. All these matters have become a subject of the research.

Materials and methods. Author researched case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union including last jurisprudence as well as international agreements and works of the Russian and foreign scholars. The methodological basis of the research contains general scientific and special methods.

Research results. EU competence has been largely interpreted by the CJEU which has established a concept of parallel powers. This concept was based on the doctrine of implied powers. It means that execution of the internal powers in certain sphere assumes the external powers including signing of international agreements and IO membership in the same sphere. Lisbon Treaty absorbed provisions of the CJEU case-law relating to EU external competence, and the last Court’s jurisprudence reflects the further development of the implied powers doctrine.

Discussion and conclusions. EU institutions, first of all the CJEU and the Commission, tend to consolidate the international voice of the Member States, to limit the external capacity of the Member States, and this activity results in so called ‘‘europesation’’ of the international legal order. When the evident legal base for transfer of Member State external powers to the EU institutions is lacking, the CJEU utilizes the principle of sincere cooperation stipulated in Art. 4 of the TEU. The CJEU jealously safeguards it monopoly in the EU legal order and does not permit (save to the certain exceptions) to conclude international agreements which provide for jurisdiction of other tribunals. Basing on the EU constitutional order and its autonomy rhetoric the CJEU established a general principle that all the relations between the EU Member States should stand exclusively on the EU Law.

1. Biryukov M.M. Evropeiskoe pravo: do i posle Lissabonskogo dogovora [EU Law before and after the Lisbon Treaty]. Moscow: Statut Publ. 2016. 240 p. (In Russ.)

2. Chalmers D., Davies G., Monti G. The European Union Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2010. 1116 p.

3. Cremona M. Member States as Trustees of the Community Interest: Participating in International Agreements on Behalf of the European Community. – EUI Working Paper. 2009. No. 2009/17. 26 p. URL: http://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/12881/LAW_2009_17.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (accessed date: 20.12.2018).

4. Czuczai J. The Principle of Solidarity in the EU Legal Order – Some Practical Examples after Lisbon. – The EU as a Global Actor – Bridging Legal Theory and Practice. Liber Amicorum in Honour of Ricardo Gosalbo Bono. Ed. by J. Czuczai, and F. Naert. Leiden: Brill. 2017. P. 145–165. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004347175_008

5. Entin M.L., Voinikov V.V., Torkunova E.A. Novyi etap v institutsional'no-pravovom obustroistve prostranstva svobody, bezopasnosti i pravosudiya ES [The New Stage of Institutional and Legal Foundation of the EU Area of Freedom, Security and Justice]. – Moscow Journal of International Law. 2018. No. 2. P. 102–114. (In Russ.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.24833/0869-0049-2018-2-102-114

6. Horspool M. [et al.]. European Union Law. New York: Oxford University Press. 2006. 558 p.

7. Ispolinov A. Sud Evropeiskogo Soyuza protiv prisoedineniya ES k Evropeiskoi Konventsii po pravam cheloveka (prichiny i sledstviya) [Second Veto of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the Accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights]. – Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie. 2015. No. 1 (13). P. 118–134. (In Russ.)

8. Ispolinov A. V poiskakh novoi paradigmy: Sud ES i ESPCh spustya tri goda posle Zaklyucheniya 2/13 [In search of a New Paradigm: the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights three years after Opinion No. 2/13]. – Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie. 2018. No. 2 (26). P. 16–27. (In Russ.)

9. Klabbers J. International Law. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2017. 370 p.

10. Klabbers J. Theorizing International Organizations. – Oxford Handbook of the Theory of International Law. Ed. by A. Orford and F. Hoffmann. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2016. P. 618–634.

11. Kuijper P.J. [et al.]. The Law of EU External Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2013. 1092 p.

12. Lifshits I.M. Nekotorye aspekty vzaimodeistviya mezhdunarodnogo finansovogo prava i prava Evropeiskogo soyuza [Certain Issues of Correlation between the International Financial Law and the EU Law]. – Vestnik Baltiiskogo federal'nogo universiteta im. I. Kanta. Seriya: gumanitarnye i obshchestvennye nauki. 2018. No. 2. P. 5–13. (In Russ.)

13. Mindubaev P.P. Mezhdunarodnaya pravosposobnost' mezhdunarodnykh organizatsii. Na primere ES [International Legal Personality of International Organizations. The Example of the EU]. – Zakon i pravo. 2011. No. 8. P. 82–84. (In Russ.)

14. Sangiovanni A. Solidarity in the European Union. – Philosophical Foundations of European Union Law. Ed. by J. Dickson and P. Eleftheriadis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2012. P. 384–411.

15. Sarooshi D. Legal Capacity and Powers. – Oxford Handbook of International Organizations. Ed. by J.K. Cogan, I. Hurd, I. Johnstone. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2017. P. 985–1005.

16. Shaw M. International Law. 8th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2017. 1033 p.

17. Shutze R. European Union Law. 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press. 2018. 916 p.