nach oben

Erschienen in:

2017 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

International Trade Agreements and Democratic Participation

verfasst von : Mattias Wendel

Erschienen in: European Yearbook of International Economic Law 2017

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

The following contribution focuses on the question whether the negotiations on the two major transatlantic free trade agreements CETA (EU-Canada) and TTIP (EU-US) have so far corresponded to the principles of democratic participation, transparency, and public accessibility. Specific attention is drawn to the citizen’s democratic participation through forms of participatory or direct democracy.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Vorheriges Kapitel Front-Loading Trade Policy-Making in the European Union: Towards a Trade Act

Nächstes Kapitel Sincere Cooperation in the Common Commercial Policy: Lisbon, a “Joined-Up” Union, and “Brexit”

Further analysis sees in Bungenberg and Hermann (2011). For the Federal Constitutional Court’s critical analysis of the common commercial policy see Herrmann (2010).

CETA negotiations have already been concluded. The agreement was signed in Brussels on 30 October 2016. The consolidated version is available under http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-10973-2016-INIT/en/pdf (last accessed 1 March 2017).

TTIP negotiations are still ongoing.

With regard to the likewise emotionally charged European constitutional debate cf. Craig (2001), p. 125.

For a discussion from the perspective of legal studies see Mayer and Ermes (2014), p. 237 et seqq.; Mayer F, Stellt das geplante Freihandelsabkommen der EU mit Kanada (Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA) ein gemischtes Abkommen dar?, legal opinion for the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy, 28 August 2014, https://www.bmwi.de/BMWi/Redaktion/PDF/C-D/ceta-gutachten-einstufung-als-gemischtes-abkommen,property=pdf,bereich=bmwi2012,sprache=de,rwb=true.pdf (last accessed 1 March 2017); Cremona (2015), p. 351 et seqq.; Treier and Wernicke (2015), p. 334 et seqq.; Hoffmeister (2015), p. 35 et seqq.

On this point of view see Streinz (2016).

Participatory Democracy is here used as an umbrella term under which forms of direct democracy can be subsumed.

Cf. Article 207(3), third subparagraph TFEU. Commission internally, this falls under the jurisdiction of the Directorate General for Trade (DG Trade). Until November 2014, Karel de Gucht acted as EU Trade Commissioner, since then the position is filled by Cecilia Malmström.

Article 207(3) second subparagraph TFEU. The TTIP mandate is available under http://www.bmwi.de/BMWi/Redaktion/PDF/S-T/ttip-mandat,property=pdf,bereich=bmwi2012,sprache=de,rwb=true.pdf (last accessed 1 March 2017).

European Commission, C(2014) 6501 final.

The individual action was brought to the General Court on 19 November 2014. The lawsuit was pending for two and a half years as case T-754/14, Efler and others v Commission. The GC finally decided on 10 May 2017 - after the final version of this contribution has been submitted. The judgment, which could only be taken into account during the process of proof reading, is in line with the argument developped here. As suggested here, the GC concluded that the Commission infringed EU law by refusing to register the ECI proposal. The plaintiff’s application can be accessed online (in German), https://stip-ttip.org/de/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2014/11/EuGH-Klageschrift_Kempen_EBI.pdf, and in English, http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=162026&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1435962 (both last accessed 21 July 2017).

Ruffert (2016a), para. 11 et seq.

Following Article 1(2) TEU.

Cf. Huber (2012a), para. 42 et seq.

More on this see Wendel (2014), p. 81 et seqq.

Article 14(3) TEU, Articles 22 and 223 TFEU, Articles 39 and 40 CFR.

Articles 24, second subparagraph and Article 227 TFEU, Article 44 CFR.

Article 11(4) TEU, Article 24, first subparagraph TFEU.

Article 41 CFR.

Article 24, fourth subparagraph TFEU, Article 41(4) CFR.

Article 15 TFEU, Article 42 CFR.

Article 228 TFEU, Article 43 CFR.

For an overview over the various theories on democratic participation see, from a political scientific perspective, Schmidt (2010), p. 236 et seqq.

For the latter cf. the classification of Ruffert (2016b), paras. 3–5.

Franzius and Preuß (2011), p. 24; Huber (1999), p. 27; Huber (2012a), para. 44, in opposition to BVerfGE 123, 267 – Treaty of Lisbon, para. 194 et seq. Which deconstructs the genuine value of this reservoir of legitimation.

See also von Bogdandy (2009), p. 13.

On terminology cf. the respective classification of Article 10(3) TEU and Article 11(4)TEU in Huber (2012a), para. 42: “Grundsatz der partizipativen Demokratie”; Huber (2012b), para. 33: “direktdemokratische Komponente”; Franzius and Preuß (2011), p. 24: “partizipative Demokratie”, with reference to Article 10(3) TEU and p. 119: “direkte Demokratie”, with reference toArticle 1(4) TEU; Ruffert (2016a), para. 10: “Teilhabe”; Ruffert (2016b), para. 14: “Element direkter Demokratie”. Additionally, the citizen’s initiative can be subsumed under participatory democracy, see for instance Kadelbach (2009), p. 611.

Specified in Article 7(1) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011, according to which the signatories of a citizens’ initiative must come from at least a quarter of the Member States. Additionally, according to Article 7(2), the signatories must in at least a quarter of the Member States reach a minimum number that differs from one Member State to the other as it is determined by multiplying the number of Members of the European Parliament “EP” elected in the respective Member State by 750 (sic).

Cf. the expositions by Meyer, member of convention and known as spiritus rector of the ECI, in Meyer (2014), Präambel, para. 34. On the history of development see also Kaufmann (2011), p. 201 et seqq.

Cf. Mayer (2013), p. 80 et seqq.

For a general overview see Tiedemann (2012), p. 80 et seqq.

In the meantime, the number of (registered) ECI’s has risen significantly, cf. the list of ECI’s at http://ec.europa.eu/citizens-initiative/public/initiatives/ongoing/details/2012/000003 (last accessed 1 March 2017).

Cf. Nettesheim (2015a), para. 41; Huber (2012b), paras. 1–5; Ruffert (2016b), para. 6.

Huber (2012b), para. 32.

Mayer (2013), p. 147.

Franzius and Preuß (2011), p. 120.

Cf. Article 190(1), first subparagraph TFEU: “non-legislative acts of general application”.

See, however, the opinion of the Federal Constitutional Court, BVerfGE 123, 267 – Treaty of Lisbon, para. 290.

In that sense Mader (2013), p. 358 et seq.; Epiney (2005), p. 49 et seq.; Huber (2012b), para. 42.

See also Nettesheim (2015b), para. 27. With a more cautious outcome see also Biervert (2012), para. 3.

Neither can the Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 be considered disproportionate when taking into account the open wording in Article 11(4) TEU and the legislator’s similarly wide prerogative of evaluation.

See Ruffert (2016b), para. 19; Franzius and Preuß (2011), p. 121.

Cf. Obwexer and Villotti (2010), p. 118; Guckelberger (2010) p. 753.

ECI(2012)000003, otherwise known as “Water and sanitation are a human right! Water is a public good, not a commodity”.

For more details on effects of this ECI see Sule (2014), p. 727 et seqq.

European Commission, C(2014) 6501 final.

Article 4(2) of the Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 additionally requires that the citizens’ committee has been formed and the contact persons have been designated (lit. 1), that the proposed citizens’ initiative is not manifestly abusive, frivolous or vexatious (lit. c) and that it is not manifestly contrary to the values of the Union (lit. d). However, the ECI in questions unproblematically fulfilled these requirements.

European Commission, C(2014) 6501 final, p. 2.

See now GC, judgment of 10 May 2017, case T‑754/14, Efler et al. v. Commission, paras. 35 et seq. Cf. before Rathke H, Mehr Partizipation wagen!, JuWiss-Blog, 23 September 2014, https://www.juwiss.de/114-2014/ (last accessed 1 March 2017).

Mögele (2012), para. 5.

Cf. Lorenzmeier (2011), para. 25.

Cf. again Rathke H, Mehr Partizipation wagen!, JuWiss-Blog, 23 September 2014.

See Guckelberger (2010), p. 752. Huber (2012b), para. 39 is using the same starting point but excludes an ECI aiming at Commission activities outside the area of (secondary) legislation, for instance in the EU’s external representation (para. 41).

Cf. the second recital of the Regulation (EU) No 211/2011: “The procedures and conditions required for the citizens’ initiative should be clear, simple, user-friendly and proportionate to the nature of the citizens’ initiative so as to encourage participation by citizens and to make the Union more accessible. They should strike a judicious balance between rights and obligations.”

Cf. the TTIP-mandate, http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-11103-2013-DCL-1/en/pdf (last accessed 1 March 2017).

See on that committee Weiß (2015), para. 96.

More detail see Sect. 3.2.

The document in question is a draft text preparing the EU’s position in its negotiations with the United States, see http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2015/Sept./tradoc_153807.pdf (last accessed 1 March 2017).

European Commission, C(2014) 6501 final, p. 2.

See the written observations on behalf of the applicant, published 9 November 2014, https://stop-ttip.org/de/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2014/11/EuGH-Klageschrift_Kempen_EBI.pdf (last accessed 1 March 2017), para. 43 et seq. The GC followed this line of argument in its judgment of 10 May 2017, case T‑754/14, Efler et al. v. Commission,paras. 44 et seq.

Regarding CETA the request for preliminary injunctions has been rejected in the meantime by the General Court and the Court of Justice, see GC, order of 23 May 2016, case T-754/14 R, Efler et al. v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2016:306, and CJEU, order of 29 September 2016, case C-400/16 P(R), Efler et al. v Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2016:735.

European Commission, C(2014) 6501 final, p. 2 et seq.

GC, judgment of 10 May 2017, case T‑754/14, Efler et al. v. Commission. The admissibility was not problematic with a view to Article 263(4) TFEU as the Commission’s decision not to register the ECI directly addresses the organisers of the ECI.

Cf. the Commission’s online presence regarding TTIP, which has undergone considerable expansion in recent times, including a leaflet dealing with ten TTIP-myths, https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2015/march/tradoc_153266.pdf (last accessed 1 March 2017).

See Streinz (2016).

Cf. Pernice (2015), p. 521.

In more detail on the principle of transparency see Sobotta (2001) as well as Riemann (2004), p. 29 et seqq.

See the first recital of the Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, OJ 2001 L 145/43.

Appropriately Kadelbach (2015), para. 71.

See opinion of AG Maduro to CJEU, case C-64/05 P, Kingdom of Sweden v Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2007:433, para. 41 et seqq.

On the special quality of dual legal sources see Wendel (2014), para. 34 et seqq.

Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council, and Commission documents. The regulation cannot be discussed in detail here. For further information see Meltzian (2004), p. 173 et seqq.; Marsch (2005), p. 639 et seqq.; Bartelt and Zeitler (2003), p. 489 et seqq.; Kranenborg (2008), p. 1083 et seqq.

CJEU, opinion 2/13, Accession to the ECHR II, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2454.

GC, case T-331/11, Besselink v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2013:419, para. 31. See also previously in the context of counter-terrorism CJEU, case C-266/05 P, Sison, ECLI:EU:C:2007:75, para. 63.

GC, case T-331/11, Besselink v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2013:419, paras. 32–34 and 51.

GC, case T-331/11, Besselink v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2013:419, paras. 73 and 108.

GC, case T-331/11, Besselink v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2013:419, para. 73.

See http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1230 (last accessed 1 March 2017). As regards the significance of the documents, however, this does not allow for reliable conclusions.

See Hoffmeister (2015), p. 38 et seq.

Hoffmeister (2015), p. 40.

The mandate had already been leaked by some members of the EP.

See the text of the agreement as signed on 30 October 2016, http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-10973-2016-INIT/en/pdf(last accessed 1 March 2017).

This question cannot be dealt with in detail here. For the contrary positions on whether the free trade agreements are to be seen as mixed agreements see (affirmative) Meyer (2014) and (negative) Hoffmeister (2015), p. 54 et seqq.

European Commission, C(2014) 9052 final.

Another relevant question is in how far the Commission is entitled to publish documents from which indirect conclusions about the negotiation mandate may be drawn. This is still largely a grey area in positive law so that general duties of loyalty remain pretty much the only maxim still operable.

More details see http://trade.ec.europa.eu/consultations/index.cfm#_tab_2015 and http://trade.ec.europa.eu/consultations/index.cfm#_tab_2016 (both last accessed 1 March 2017).

Aptly put in Huber (2012b), para. 9.

Nettesheim (2015b), para. 10.

Ruffert (2016b), para. 8.

As a reply to the Commission’s notification, she submitted a catalogue of no less than ten requests on the improvement of the transparency of TTIP negotiations, http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/cases/decision.faces/en/58668/html.bookmark (last accessed 1 March 2017).

See, as mentioned above, Article 207(3), third subparagraph, second sentence TFEU and Article 218(10) TFEU.

European Parliament, resolution of 8 July 2015 containing the European Parliament’s recommendations to the European Commission on the negotiations for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), 2014/2228(INI).

For a detailed discussion of manifestations, meaning, and potential for reform see Hindelang (2014), p. 39 et seqq.

See already as well as Pernice (2014), p. 161 and (regarding the former approach) Stöbener (2015), p. 372.

Bartelt S, Zeitler H (2003) Zugang zu Dokumenten in der EU. Europarecht 38(3):487–503

Biervert B (2012) Art. 11 EUV. In: Schwarze J (ed) EU-Kommentar, 3rd edn. Nomos, Baden-Baden

Bungenberg M, Hermann C (2011) Die gemeinsame Handelspolitik der Europäischen Union nach Lissabon. Nomos, Baden-BadenCrossRef

Craig P (2001) Constitutions, constitutionalism and the European Union. Eur Law J 7(2):125–150CrossRef

Cremona M (2015) Negotiating the transatlantic trade and investment partnership (TTIP). Common Mark Law Rev 52(2):351–362

Epiney A (2005) Europäische Verfassung und Legitimation durch die Unionsbürger. In: Kadelbach S (ed) Europäische Verfassung und direkte Demokratie. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 33–56

Franzius C, Preuß K (2011) Die Zukunft der europäischen Demokratie. Nomos, Baden-Baden

Guckelberger A (2010) Die Europäische Bürgerinitiative. Die Öffentliche Verwaltung 63(18):745–754

Herrmann C (2010) Die gemeinsame Handelspolitik der Europäischen Union im Lissabon-Urteil. Europarecht Beiheft 1:193–210

Hindelang S (2014) Study on Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) and Alternatives of Dispute Resolution in International Investment Law. In: European Parliament (ed) Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) Provisions in the EU’s International Investment Agreements, vol 2. Studies, pp 39–131

Hoffmeister F (2015) Wider die German Angst – Ein Plädoyer für die transatlantische Handels- und Investitionspartnerschaft (TTIP). Archiv des Völkerrechts 53(1):35–67CrossRef

Huber P (1999) Demokratie ohne Volk oder Demokratie der Völker. In: Drexl J, Kreuzer KF, Scheuing DH (eds) Europäische Demokratie. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 27–57

Huber P (2012a) Artikel 10 EUV. In: Streinz R (ed) EUV/AEUV, 2nd edn. Beck, München

Huber P (2012b) Artikel 11 EUV. In: Streinz R (ed) EUV/AEUV, 2nd edn. Beck, München

Kadelbach S (2009) Unionsbürgerschaft. In: von Bogdandy A, Bast J (eds) Europäisches Verfassungsrecht, 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin, pp 611–656CrossRef

Kadelbach S (2015) Unionsbürgerrechte. In: Ehlers D (ed) Europäische Grundrechte und Grundfreiheiten, 4th edn. de Gruyter, Berlin, pp 797–838

Kaufmann B (2011) Direkte Demokratie auf transnationaler Ebene. Zur Entstehungsgeschichte der Europäischen Bürgerinitiative. In: Feld L, Huber PM, Jung O, Welzel C, Wittreck F (eds) Jahrbuch für direkte Demokratie 2010. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 201–222CrossRef

Kranenborg H (2008) Access to documents and data protection in the European Union: on the public nature of personal data. Common Mark Law Rev 45(4):1079–1114

Lorenzmeier S (2011) Art. 218 AEUV. In: Grabitz E, Hilf M, Nettesheim M (eds) Das Recht der Europäischen Union. Beck, München, loose leaf

Mader O (2013) Bürgerinitiative, Petitionsrecht, Beschwerde zum Bürgerbeauftragten. Europarecht 48(3):348–371

Marsch N (2005) Das Recht auf Zugang zu EU-Dokumenten. Die Öffentliche Verwaltung 58(15):639–644

Mayer F (2013) Direkte Demokratie und die Europäische Union. In: Efler M, Mörschel T (eds) Direkte Demokratie auf Bundesebene. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 147–160CrossRef

Mayer F, Ermes M (2014) Rechtsfragen zu den Freihandelsabkommen CETA und TTIP. Zeitschrift für Rechtspolitik 47(8):237–240

Meltzian D (2004) Das Recht der Öffentlichkeit auf Zugang zu Dokumenten der Gemeinschaftsorgane. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin

Meyer J (2014) Charta der Grundrechte der Europäischen Union, 4th edn. Nomos, Baden-Baden

Mögele R (2012) Art. 218 AEUV. In: Streinz R (ed) EUV/AEUV, 2nd edn. Beck, München

Nettesheim M (2015a) Art. 10 EUV. In: Grabitz E, Hilf M, Nettesheim M (eds) Das Recht der Europäischen Union. Beck, München, loose leaf

Nettesheim M (2015b) Art. 11 EUV. In: Grabitz E, Hilf M, Nettesheim M (eds) Das Recht der Europäischen Union. Beck. München, loose leaf

Obwexer W, Villotti J (2010) Die Europäische Bürgerinitiative. Journal für Rechtspolitik 18(3):108–121CrossRef

Pernice I (2014) Study on International Investment Protection Agreements and EU Law. In: European Parliament (ed) Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) Provisions in the EU’s International Investment Agreements, vol 2. Studies, pp 132–166

Pernice I (2015) Politisierung der EU nach der Europawahl – Politik zwischen TTIP und TTU. Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 25(14):521–522

Riemann F (2004) Die Transparenz der Europäischen Union. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin

Ruffert M (2016a) Art. 10 EUV. In: Calliess C, Ruffert M (eds) EUV/AEUV, 5th edn. Beck, München

Ruffert M (2016b) Art. 11 EUV. In: Calliess C, Ruffert M (eds) EUV/AEUV, 5th edn. Beck, München

Schmidt M (2010) Demokratietheorien, 5th edn. VS Verlag, WiesbadenCrossRef

Sobotta C (2001) Transparenz in den Rechtssetzungsverfahren der Europäischen Union. Nomos, Baden-Baden

Stöbener P (2015) Investitionsschutzrecht: Neue Vorschläge der Kommission zu TTIP. Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 26(10):372

Streinz R (2016) Repräsentative Demokratie und parlamentarische Kontrolle. In: Bungenberg M, Herrmann C (eds) Die gemeinsame Handelspolitik der Europäischen Union. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 71–92CrossRef

Sule S (2014) “Recht auf Wasser” – Zur ersten der Europäischen Kommission vorgelegten Europäischen Bürgerinitiative nach dem Lissabonner Vertrag. Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 25(19):725–729

Tiedemann M (2012) Die sekundärrechtliche Ausgestaltung der europäischen Bürgerinitiative durch die Verordnung (EU) Nr. 211/2011. Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 31(2):80–85

Treier V, Wernicke S (2015) Die Transatlantische Handels- und Investitionspartnerschaft (TTIP) – Trojanisches Pferd oder steiniger Weg zum Olymp. Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 25(9):334–339

von Bogdandy A (2009) Grundprinzipien. In: von Bogdandy A, Bast J (eds) Europäisches Verfassungsrecht, 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin, pp 13–71CrossRef

Weiß W (2015) Art. 207 AEUV. In: Grabitz E, Hilf M, Nettesheim M (eds) Das Recht der Europäischen Union. Beck, München, loose leaf

Wendel M (2014) § 18 Unionsbürgerrechte, Freizügigkeit. In: Grabenwarter C (ed) Europäischer Grundrechteschutz. Enzyklopädie Europarecht, vol 2. Nomos, Baden-Baden

Titel: International Trade Agreements and Democratic Participation
verfasst von: Mattias Wendel
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Buch: European Yearbook of International Economic Law 2017
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-58831-5

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-319-58832-2

Copyright-Jahr: 2017
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58832-2_3

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Premium Partner