straightforward, in practice the fact that the European Union’s environmental competences are shared is a potential ground for interminable inter-institutional
disputes.”
27
One can add that France could, in the same way as it does in regional fisheries
management organisations, be represented independently of the Union on behalf of
its territories not belonging to the European Common Space. However, such a
possibility would complicate the discussions, and could be seen as undermining
the principle of cooperation in good faith, since the matter at stake is international
negotiation, and not competences of representation in international organizations.
2.2 The Tension Between Shared and Exclusive Competences
of the EU and Its Member States and Key Issues
Regarding the Participation in International Institutions
and the Exercise of Mixed Competences
The external representation of the EU raised some questions and inter-institutional
conflicts in other institutions, which could be anticipated in order to avoid such
tensions and difficulties in the case of the future ILBI. In order to avoid difficulties of
coordination, the Council of the EU already elaborated some guidelines, collected in
the document EU Statements in multilateral organizations – General Arrangements
dealing with the elaboration of positions and declarations of the Union.
28 It states:
“[g]iven the sensitivity of representation and potential expectations of third parties, it
is essential that, in conformity with current practice, the preparation of statements
relating to the sensitive area of competences of the EU and its Member States should
remain internal and consensual.” The decision adds, furthermore, that “[s]tatements
will reflect EU positions agreed in conformity with the decision making procedures
as foreseen in the Treaties”, and that “[s]hould the statement refer exclusively to
actions undertaken by or responsibilities of the EU in the subject matter concerned
including in the CFSP, it will be prefaced by ‘on behalf of the European Union’.”
These guidelines are extremely useful in the context of mixed agreements and
institutions dealing with marine biodiversity conservation and sustainable use.
Nonetheless difficulties may still arise and have been encountered recently in two
different instances: first, before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea
(ITLOS), and second, in the context of the Commission for the Conservation of
Antarctic Marine Living Resources CCAMLR),
29 illustrating partly the
27 De Baere (2013), p. 642.
28 See Council of the EU, EU Statements in multilateral organizations – General Arrangements,
2 October 2011, doc. 15901/11. See Flaesch-Mougin (2013), p. 571.
29 In another field, such difficulties have also explicitly emerged, as it is the case for the negotiations
of the convention on mercury. De Baere (2012), pp. 640–655.
386
P. Ricard
disputes.”
27
One can add that France could, in the same way as it does in regional fisheries
management organisations, be represented independently of the Union on behalf of
its territories not belonging to the European Common Space. However, such a
possibility would complicate the discussions, and could be seen as undermining
the principle of cooperation in good faith, since the matter at stake is international
negotiation, and not competences of representation in international organizations.
2.2 The Tension Between Shared and Exclusive Competences
of the EU and Its Member States and Key Issues
Regarding the Participation in International Institutions
and the Exercise of Mixed Competences
The external representation of the EU raised some questions and inter-institutional
conflicts in other institutions, which could be anticipated in order to avoid such
tensions and difficulties in the case of the future ILBI. In order to avoid difficulties of
coordination, the Council of the EU already elaborated some guidelines, collected in
the document EU Statements in multilateral organizations – General Arrangements
dealing with the elaboration of positions and declarations of the Union.
28 It states:
“[g]iven the sensitivity of representation and potential expectations of third parties, it
is essential that, in conformity with current practice, the preparation of statements
relating to the sensitive area of competences of the EU and its Member States should
remain internal and consensual.” The decision adds, furthermore, that “[s]tatements
will reflect EU positions agreed in conformity with the decision making procedures
as foreseen in the Treaties”, and that “[s]hould the statement refer exclusively to
actions undertaken by or responsibilities of the EU in the subject matter concerned
including in the CFSP, it will be prefaced by ‘on behalf of the European Union’.”
These guidelines are extremely useful in the context of mixed agreements and
institutions dealing with marine biodiversity conservation and sustainable use.
Nonetheless difficulties may still arise and have been encountered recently in two
different instances: first, before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea
(ITLOS), and second, in the context of the Commission for the Conservation of
Antarctic Marine Living Resources CCAMLR),
29 illustrating partly the
27 De Baere (2013), p. 642.
28 See Council of the EU, EU Statements in multilateral organizations – General Arrangements,
2 October 2011, doc. 15901/11. See Flaesch-Mougin (2013), p. 571.
29 In another field, such difficulties have also explicitly emerged, as it is the case for the negotiations
of the convention on mercury. De Baere (2012), pp. 640–655.
386
P. Ricard