One of the most important innovations introduced by the Lisbon Treaty in the European Union concerns the proclaimed abolition of the pillars structure. Nevertheless, the EU common foreign and security policy has maintained its eminently intergovernmental nature in relation to the other EU policies. In this field there are some differences from other areas of the EU’s external actionin the institutional involvement and procedures: the role of the representative institutions of the States continues to prevail, and the European Parliament and the Commission continue to play marginal roles. This article addresses the issue of delimitation of the common foreign and security policy, covered by the intergovernmental method, from the other EU policies, covered by so-called Community method, in order to determine specific rules and procedures, specific acts and control instruments of each policy. The article investigates two directions, based on the analysis of the case law of the Court of Justice: firstly, the identification of the criteria to connect an action under the field of the Union's material policies or within the framework of the common foreign and security policy. Secondly, the effects of the process of institutionalization of the common foreign and security policy and of its inclusion within a unified institutional framework on the specificity of this policy. On the basis of the analysis carried out, the article argue that the Court of Justice is continuing to act in favor of "Community" method, also in absence of the “acquis communautaire” clause and that the typical instruments of the “Community method” influence the EU CFSP.

La PESC e i suoi confini materiali. Il contributo delle istituzioni “minori” alla loro delimitazione

PETRALIA, GIUSEPPINA
2017

Abstract

One of the most important innovations introduced by the Lisbon Treaty in the European Union concerns the proclaimed abolition of the pillars structure. Nevertheless, the EU common foreign and security policy has maintained its eminently intergovernmental nature in relation to the other EU policies. In this field there are some differences from other areas of the EU’s external actionin the institutional involvement and procedures: the role of the representative institutions of the States continues to prevail, and the European Parliament and the Commission continue to play marginal roles. This article addresses the issue of delimitation of the common foreign and security policy, covered by the intergovernmental method, from the other EU policies, covered by so-called Community method, in order to determine specific rules and procedures, specific acts and control instruments of each policy. The article investigates two directions, based on the analysis of the case law of the Court of Justice: firstly, the identification of the criteria to connect an action under the field of the Union's material policies or within the framework of the common foreign and security policy. Secondly, the effects of the process of institutionalization of the common foreign and security policy and of its inclusion within a unified institutional framework on the specificity of this policy. On the basis of the analysis carried out, the article argue that the Court of Justice is continuing to act in favor of "Community" method, also in absence of the “acquis communautaire” clause and that the typical instruments of the “Community method” influence the EU CFSP.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11769/241470
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact