Last updated 27/06/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 March 2019
The need to fulfil treaty obligations in good faith bases both the principle of pacta sunt servanda under Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and the principle of loyalty under Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union. This article seeks to understand the precise relationship between the two principles. It argues that the principles are different embodiments of the same root concept. In particular, it argues that loyalty is a more sophisticated and specific version of the concept, since it establishes that the relevant states and institutions must take account of each other's efforts to fulfill their obligations faithfully. While the Court of Justice of the European Union has observed the consequent need for greater flexibility when determining Member State liability, it has not done so consistently, especially in the context of EU external relations. Lastly, this article proposes that the presented conceptualization of loyalty and pacta sunt servanda could help us understand how other international subsystems might develop the basic concepts in general international law.
1 Malcolm N. Shaw, International Law 103 (2008).Google Scholar
2 For example, in Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mex. v. U.S.), 2004 I.C.J. 16 (Mar. 31), the U.S. was found to have violated its international obligations on consular relations by failing to allow Mexican prisoners to access consular assistance, irrespective of whether the domestic law on due process had been followed. An exception to this general rule exists under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, art. 46, May 23, 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331 [hereinafter VCLT]. This provision allows a state to argue that its consent to be bound has been taken in violation of its internal law to conclude treaties.Google Scholar
3 For consistency, the term “loyalty” will be used predominantly, but “duty of cooperation” and “sincere cooperation” will be used where appropriate.Google Scholar
4 Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union, art. 4(3), Feb. 7, 1992, 2012 O.J. (C 326) 13 [hereinafter TEU].Google Scholar
5 For a recent, in-depth overview of loyalty in the EU legal order, see Klamert, Marcus, The Principle of Loyalty in EU Law (2014).Google Scholar
6 Although these terms overlap, for present purposes, a supranational system is one characterized by law-making institutions placed “above” the organization's constituent states, which integrate with the state legal systems and produce continuous restrictions upon state sovereignty. A transnational system is one that exists across state borders, irrespective of whether its constituent actors are public or private in nature.Google Scholar
7 James Crawford, Brownlie's Principles of International Law 450 (2013).Google Scholar
8 Gott, Virginia L., The National Socialist Theory of International Law, 32 Am. J. Int'l L. 701, 713 (1938).Google Scholar
9 Hyland, Richard, Pacta Sunt Servanda: A Meditation, 34 Va. J. Int'l L. 405, 424 (1994).Google Scholar
10 Spiermann, Ole, Twentieth Century Internationalism in Law, 18 Eur. J. Int'l L. 785, 789 (2007).Google Scholar
11 Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v. Slovakia), 1997 I.C.J. 7 (Sept. 25).Google Scholar
12 D'Amato, Anthony, Good Faith, in Encyclopedia of Public International Law 599 (Rudolf Bernhardt ed., 1992).Google Scholar
13 VCLT art. 60.Google Scholar
14 VCLT art. 61.Google Scholar
15 VCLT art. 62.Google Scholar
16 Border and Transborder Armed Actions, Jurisdiction and Admissibility (Nicar. v. Hond.), 1988 I.C.J. 105 (Dec. 20).Google Scholar
17 Land and Maritime Boundary Between Cameroon and Nigeria, Preliminary Objections (Cameroon v. Nigeria), 1998 I.C.J. 275 (June 11), available at http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/94/7473.pdf.Google Scholar
18 Nicar. v. Hond., 1998 I.C.J. ¶ 94; Cameroon v. Nigeria, 1998 I.C.J. ¶ 39.Google Scholar
19 Nuclear Tests (Austl. v. Fr.), 1974 I.C.J. 253 (Dec. 20); Nuclear Tests (N.Z. v. Fr.), 1974 I.C.J. 457 (Dec. 20).Google Scholar
20 The relevant extracts from these statements are included and discussed in N.Z. v. Fr., 1974 I.C.J. ¶¶ 35–44.Google Scholar
21 Austl. v. Fr., 1974 I.C.J. ¶ 46.Google Scholar
22 D'Amato, supra note 12, at 601.Google Scholar
23 Thirlway, Hugh, Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice 1960–89, Part One, 60 British Yearbook Int'l L. 1, 10 (1989).Google Scholar
24 Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, G.A. Res. 2625 (XXV), U.N. Doc. A/RES/25/2625, ¶ 1 (Oct. 24, 1970).Google Scholar
25 Rubin, Alfred P., The International Legal Effects of Unilateral Declarations, 71 Am. J. Int'l L. 1, 10–11 (1977).Google Scholar
26 North Sea Continental Shelf (Ger. v. Den. & Neth.), 1969 I.C.J. 3, ¶ 30 (Feb. 20); Land and Maritime Boundary Between Cameroon and Nigeria, Preliminary Objections (Cameroon v. Nigeria), 1998 I.C.J. 275, ¶ 57 (June 11).Google Scholar
27 D'Amato, supra note 12, at 601.Google Scholar
28 Case 6/64, Costa v. E.N.E.L., 1964 E.C.R. 588.Google Scholar
29 Case 26/62, NV Algemene Transport—en Expeditie Onderneming van Gend en Loos v. Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen, 1963 E.C.R. 105.Google Scholar
30 Costa, Case 6/64 at 588.Google Scholar
31 Van Gend en Loos, Case 26/62 at 129.Google Scholar
32 Costa, Case 6/64 at 455.Google Scholar
33 Id. Google Scholar
34 Id. Google Scholar
35 For some of the many examples, see Prinssen, J.M. & Schrauwen, A., Direct Effect: Rethinking a Classic of EC Legal Doctrine (2002); Witte, Bruno de, Direct Effect, Supremacy and the Nature of the Legal Order, in The Evolution of EU Law 323 (Craig, Paul & Gráinne de Burca eds., 2011); Alter, Karen J., Establishing the Supremacy of European Law: The Making of an International Rule of Law in Europe (2001); MacCormick, Neil, Questioning Sovereignty: Law, State and Nation in the European Commonwealth (1999).Google Scholar
36 Nicol, Danny, Democracy, Supremacy and the “Intergovernmental” Pillars of the European Union, Pub. L. 218, 221 (2009).Google Scholar
37 Spiermann, supra note 10, at 807.Google Scholar
38 Puder, Markus G., Supremacy of the Law and Judicial Review in the European Union: Celebrating Marbury v. Madison with Costa v. ENEL, 36 Geo. Wash. Int'l L. Rev. 567, 577 (2004).Google Scholar
39 Madison, Marbury v., 5 U.S. 137 (1803).Google Scholar
40 Junker, Kirk W., Conference Conclusions “… And Beyond”: Judicial Review in the European Union, 45 Duq L. Rev. 599, 611 (2007).Google Scholar
41 Case 106/77, Amminstrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v. Simmenthal, 1978 E.C.R. 629, para. 26.Google Scholar
42 Puder, suora note 38, at 579.Google Scholar
43 Nuclear Tests (Austl. v. Fr.), 1974 I.C.J. 253 (Dec. 20); Nuclear Tests (N.Z. v. Fr.), 1974 I.C.J. 457 (Dec. 20).Google Scholar
44 Andres Delgado Casteleiro & Joris Larik, The Duty to Remain Silent: Limitless Loyalty in EU External Relations?, 36 Eur. L. Rev. 524, 526 (2011).Google Scholar
45 Case 26/62, NV Algemene Transport—en Expeditie Onderneming van Gend en Loos v. Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen, 1963 E.C.R. 105, 129.Google Scholar
46 Id. at 129–30. The prohibition in question was “perfectly suited by its nature to produce direct effects in the legal relations between the member-States and their citizens.” Id. at 130.Google Scholar
47 Id.; Case 8/81, Ursula Becker v. Finanzamt Münster-Innenstadt, 1982 E.C.R. 53, para. 25.Google Scholar
48 Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, art. 288, Oct. 26, 2012, 2012 O.J. (C 326) 47 [hereinafter TFEU].Google Scholar
49 Case 152/84, Marshall v. Southampton & South West Hampshire AHA, 1986 E.C.R. 723, para. 48; Case 91/92, Faccini Dori v. Recreb Srl, 1994 E.C.R. I-3325, para. 20.Google Scholar
50 Case 14/83, Von Colson v. Land Nordrhein-Westfahlen, 1984 E.C.R. 1891.Google Scholar
51 Case C-194/94, CIA Sec. Int'l SA v. Signalson SA, 1996 E.C.R. 172.Google Scholar
52 Id. at paras. 48–55.Google Scholar
53 By “EU primary law,” the author means the highest sources of EU law, as opposed to EU secondary law, which must derive from and comply with these sources. The Treaties are examples of EU primary law, whereas Regulations are examples of EU secondary law.Google Scholar
54 Case C-144/04, Mangold v. Helm, 1 C.M.L.R. 43 (2006).Google Scholar
55 Id. The Directive in question was Council Directive 2000/78, 2000 O.J. (L 303) 16.Google Scholar
56 Gesetz über Teilzeitarbeit und befristete Arbeitsverträge und zur Änderung und Aufhebung arbeitsrechtlicher Bestimmungen [Law on Part-Time Working and Fixed-Term Contracts Amending and Repealing Provisions of Employment Law], Dec. 21, 2000, BGBl. 1 at 1966, para. 14(3) [hereinafter the TzBfG]. This provision had been amended by The First Law for the Provision of Modern Services on the Labour Market, Dec. 23, 2002, BGBl. 1 at 14607 [hereinafter the Law of 2002].Google Scholar
57 Case 148/78, Pubblico Ministero v. Ratti, 1 C.M.L.R. 96, paras. 39–47 (1980).Google Scholar
58 Mangold, Case C-144/04 at 43.Google Scholar
59 Id. at 75–78.Google Scholar
60 Duke v. GEC Reliance Ltd. [1988] A.C. 618 (HL) (appeal taken from Eng.).Google Scholar
61 Fontanelli, Filippo, General Principles of the EU and a Glimpse of Solidarity in the Aftermath of Mangold and Kücükdeveci, 17 Eur. Public L. 225, 229-30 (2011).Google Scholar
62 For a more recent application of Mangold, see Case C-555/07, Kücükdeveci v. Swedex GmbH & Co. KG, 2010 E.C.R. I-365.Google Scholar
63 Case C-6/90, Francovich v. Italy, 1991 E.C.R. I-5357.Google Scholar
64 Id. Google Scholar
65 Council Directive 80/987, 1980 O.J. (L 283) 23 (EC).Google Scholar
66 Francovich, Case C-6/90 at paras. 26–27.Google Scholar
67 Id. at para. 40.Google Scholar
68 Id. at para. 36.Google Scholar
69 Int'l Law Comm'n, Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, in Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of its Fifty-Third Session, UN GAOR, 56th Sess., Supp. No. 10, ch. IV.E.1, art. 4(1), U.N. Doc. A/56/10 (2001) [hereinafter ILC Articles].Google Scholar
70 Joined Cases C-46/93, Brasserie du Pecheur SA v. Germany & C-48/93, R v. Secretary of State for Transport Ex parte Factortame Ltd., 1996 E.C.R. I-1029, para. 51 (emphasis added).Google Scholar
71 Id. at para. 56.Google Scholar
72 ILC Articles, supra note 69, art. 12.Google Scholar
73 VCLT art. 62.Google Scholar
74 ILC Articles, supra note 69, art. 23.Google Scholar
75 ILC Articles, supra note 69, art. 24.Google Scholar
76 ILC Articles, supra note 69, art. 25.Google Scholar
77 Crawford, supra note 7, at 590–91.Google Scholar
78 Binder, Christina, Stability and Change in Times of Fragmentation: The Limits of Pacta Sunt Servanda Revisited, 25 Leiden J. Int'l L. 909, 912 (2012).Google Scholar
79 Fisheries Jurisdiction (U.K. v. Ice.), 1973 I.C.J. 7, 65 (July 12).Google Scholar
80 New Zealand v. France, 82 I.L.R. 500 (U.N. Secretary-General Arbitration) (1990).Google Scholar
81 Id. at para. 77.Google Scholar
82 New Zealand, 82 I.L.R. at ¶ 79.Google Scholar
83 Case C-494/01, Comm'n v. Ireland, 2005 E.C.R. I-3331, para. 174.Google Scholar
84 Case C-7/68, Comm'n v. Italy, 1969 C.M.L.R. 1.Google Scholar
85 Case C-236/99, Comm'n v. Belgium, 2000 E.C.R. I-5657.Google Scholar
86 TEU art.4(3).Google Scholar
87 Joined Cases C-46/93, Brasserie du Pecheur SA v. Germany & C-48/93, R v. Secretary of State for Transport Ex parte Factortame Ltd., 1996 E.C.R. I-1029, paras. 51–57. The CJEU lists factors for courts to consider at paragraph 56.Google Scholar
88 Case C-392/93, R v. HM Treasury Ex p British Telecommunications Plc, 1996 E.C.R. I-1631.Google Scholar
89 Id. at para. 43.Google Scholar
90 Case C-224/01, Köbler v. Austria, 2003 E.C.R. I-10239, paras. 53–59. These requirements have since been confirmed in Case C-173/03, Traghetti del Mediterraneo SpA (In Liquidation) v. Italy, 2006 E.C.R. I-5177.Google Scholar
91 Scott, Helen & Barber, N.W., State Liability Under Francovich for Decisions of National Courts, 120 L. Quarterly Rev. 403, 406 (2004).Google Scholar
92 Davis, Roy W., Liability in Damages for a Breach of Community Law: Some Reflections on the Question of Who to Sue and the Concept of “the State”, 31 Eur. L. Rev. 69, 77–78 (2006).Google Scholar
93 Case C-22/70, Comm'n v. Council, 1971 E.C.R. 263, para. 17.Google Scholar
94 Id. at paras. 21–22.Google Scholar
95 TFEU art. 3(2).Google Scholar
96 Case C-266/03, Comm'n v. Luxembourg, 2005 E.C.R. I-4805; Case C-459/03, Comm'n v. Germany, 2005 E.C.R. I-6985.Google Scholar
97 Luxembourg, Case C-266/03; Germany, Case C-459/03.Google Scholar
98 Luxembourg, Case C-266/03 at para. 60; Germany, Case C-459/03 at para. 66.Google Scholar
99 Id. Google Scholar
100 Casteleiro & Larik, supra note 44, at 531–32.Google Scholar
101 Case C-46/93, Brasserie du Pecheur SA v. Germany, 1996 E.C.R. I-1029, para. 51.Google Scholar
102 Case C-224/01, Köbler v. Austria, 2003 E.C.R. I-10239Google Scholar
103 Case C-459/03, Comm'n v. Ireland, 2006 E.C.R. I-4635.Google Scholar
104 The principal areas of shared competence between the EU and Member States are listed under TFEU art. 4(2). A mixed agreement is an agreement “to which both the EU and the Member States are contracting parties on the basis that their joint participation is required, because not all matters covered by the agreement fall exclusively within” EU or Member State competence. Paul Craig & Gráinne de Burca, EU Law: Text, Cases, and Materials 334 (5th ed. 2011).Google Scholar
105 Ireland, Case C-459/03 at para. 169.Google Scholar
106 Id. at paras. 179–82.Google Scholar
107 Case C-45/07, Comm'n v. Greece, 2009 E.C.R. I-701.Google Scholar
108 Id. The legal basis for this was the EU's objective of setting common transport policy. Under the current TFEU, arts. 90–91 & 100.Google Scholar
109 Greece, Case C-45/07.Google Scholar
110 Id. at paras. 25–26.Google Scholar
111 Case C-246/07, Comm'n v. Sweden, 2010 E.C.R. I-3317.Google Scholar
112 Id. Google Scholar
113 Id. at paras. 72–73; TFEU art. 4(1) & (2).Google Scholar
114 Sweden, Case C-246/07 at para. 76.Google Scholar
115 Id. at para. 105.Google Scholar
116 Id. at para. 89Google Scholar
117 Id. at paras. 103–05.Google Scholar
118 Case C-459/03, Comm'n v. Germany, 2005 E.C.R. I-6985.Google Scholar
119 Baere, Geert De, “O, Where is Faith? O, Where is Loyalty?” Some Thoughts on the Duty of Loyal Co-Operation and the Union's External Environmental Competences in the Light of the PFOS Case, 36 Eur. L. Rev. 405 (2011).Google Scholar
120 Id. at 417.Google Scholar
121 Case C-45/07, Comm'n v. Greece, 2009 E.C.R. I-701.Google Scholar
122 VCLT art. 31(1).Google Scholar
123 In determining whether a provision has been breached, the treaty should be interpreted by reference to the circumstances prevailing at the time of its conclusion. Cameroon v. Nigeria, 2002 I.C.J. 303, 346 (Oct. 10).Google Scholar
124 For one official acknowledgement of the EU's aim to strengthen its position as a global actor, see Presidency Conclusions, Laeken Council of the European Union, Laeken Declaration on the Future of the European Union, SN 300/1 ADD 1, Annex I, at 2 (Dec. 14, 2001), available at http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_DOC-01-18_en.htm [hereinafter Laeken Declaration]. In particular, see the section headed “Europe's New Role in a Globalised World.” Id. at 3.Google Scholar
125 Smith, Karen E., Speaking with One Voice? European Union Co-ordination on Human Rights Issues at the United Nations, 44 J. Common Mkt. Studs. 113, 116 (2006).Google Scholar
126 For an extensive analysis of EU coordination at the UN, see Degrand-Guillaud, Anne, Actors and Mechanisms of EU Coordination at the UN, 14 Eur. Foreign Aff. Rev. 405 (2009); Degrand-Guillard, Anne, Characteristics of and Recommendations for EU Coordination at the UN, 14 Eur. Foreign Aff. Rev. 607 (2009).Google Scholar
127 Laeken Declaration, supra note 124; Smith, supra note 125.Google Scholar
128 Casteleiro & Larik, supra note 44, at 541.Google Scholar
129 Case C-6/90, Francovich v. Italy, 1991 E.C.R. I-5357.Google Scholar
130 Case C-46/93, Brasserie du Pecheur SA v. Germany, 1996 E.C.R. I-1029; Köbler v. Austria, 2003 E.C.R. I-10239.Google Scholar
131 For an extensive analysis of such legal orders and the general debate over whether they are truly “self-contained” subsystems within international law, see Simma, Bruno & Pulkowski, Dirk, Of Planets and the Universe: Self-Contained Regimes in International Law, 17 Eur. J. Int'l L. 483 (2006).Google Scholar
132 An early and prominent debate in this area occurred in the 1970s between scholars who supported a “state-centered” view of global politics and those who supported a “society-dominated” view. For examples of works that contributed to this debate, see Transnational Relations and World Politics (Nye, Joseph S., Jr. & Robert O. Keohane eds., 1972); Mansbach, Richard W., Yale H. Ferguson & Donald E. Lampert, The Web of World Politics: Non-State Actors in the Global System (1976).Google Scholar
133 D'Amato, supra note 12, at 599.Google Scholar
134 Sartori, Giovanni, Concept Misformation in Comparative Politics, 64 Am. Pol. Sci. Rev. 1040 (1970).Google Scholar
135 Id. at 1046.Google Scholar
136 Case C-162/96, A Racke GmbH & Co v. Hauptzollamt Mainz, 1998 E.C.R. I-3655, para. 49.Google Scholar
137 Case T-115/94, Opel Austria GmbH v. Council, 1997 E.C.R. I-39, para. 90.Google Scholar
138 Konstadinides, Theodore, When in Europe: Customary International Law and EU Competence in the Sphere of External Action, 13 German L.J. 1177, 1179 (2012).Google Scholar
139 The General Assembly of the OAS was established under the Protocol of Amendment to the Charter of the Organization of American States, art. XIII, Feb. 27, 1967, 119 U.N.T.S. 3. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights was established under G.A. Res. 448, Statute of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (Oct. 1, 1979).Google Scholar
140 For some recent examples, see Murray, Philomena, Comparative Regional Integration in the EU and East Asia: Moving Beyond Integration Snobbery, 47 Int'l Pol. 308 (2010); Acharya, Armitav, Comparative Regionalism: A Field Whose Time Has Come?, 47 Int'l Spectator 3 (2012).Google Scholar
141 Haas, E.B., International Integration: The European and Universal Process, 15 Int'l Org. 366, 378 (1961).Google Scholar
142 Archarya, supra note 140, at 11.Google Scholar
143 Murray, supra note 140, at 309.Google Scholar
144 This connection between coherence in the sense of constructing an integrated whole that is consistent with itself and legitimacy is inspired by Dworkin's interpretivist concept of “law as integrity.” Ronald Dworkin, Law's Empire 225 (1986).Google Scholar
145 TEU art. 3(5).Google Scholar
146 This quotation, which provided the title for this article, is from Alfred, Lord Tennyson's The Ancient Sage, line 39 (1885).Google Scholar
You have
Access
