Marking the 50th anniversary of the influential ERTA doctrine, this book analyses and contextualises the entire breadth of the jurisprudence of EU external relations law through a systematic, case-by-case account of the field. The entire framework of EU external relations law has been built from the ground up by the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union. At the beginning of the field's emergence, the legal questions to be answered concerned the division of powers and competence between, firstly, the Member States and that of the Union; and secondly, the division of powers and competence between the different institutions of the Union. Questions on such matters continue to be asked, but more contemporarily, new legal questions have arisen that have been in need of adjudication, including questions concerning the autonomy of Union law; the relationship between the Union and other international organisations; the relationship between Union law and international law; the scope and breadth of international agreements; amongst others. The book features established academic scholars, judges, agents of institutions and Member States, and legal practitioners in the field of EU external relations law, analysing over 90 cases in which the Court has legally shaped the theory and practice of the external dimension of legal Europe.

The Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) of the European Union is a highly exceptional component of the EU legal order. This constitutionalised foreign policy regime, with legal, diplomatic, and political DNA woven throughout its fabric, is a distinct sub-system of law on the outermost sphere of European supranationalism. When contrasted against other Union policies, it is immediately clear that EU foreign policy has a special decision-making mechanism, making it highly exceptional. In the now depillarised framework of the EU treaties, issues of institutional division arise from the legacy of the former pillar system. This is due to the reality that of prime concern in EU external relations is the question of 'who decides?' By engaging a number of legal themes that cut across foreign affairs exceptionalism, executive prerogatives, parliamentary accountability, judicial review, and the constitutionalisation of European integration, the book lays bare how EU foreign affairs have become highly legalised, leading to ever-greater coherence in how Europe exerts itself on the global stage. In this first monograph dedicated exclusively to the law of the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy in modern times, the author argues that the legal framework for EU foreign affairs must adapt in a changing world so as to ensure the EU treaties can cater for a more assertive Europe in the wider world. Cited in Opinion of Advocate General Evgeni Tanchev, Case C-730/18 P, SC v Eulex Kosovo, ECLI:EU:C:2020:176, Court of Justice of the European Union (First Chamber), 5 March 2020; Opinion of Advocate General Gerard Hogan, Case C-134/19 P, Bank Refah Kargaran v Council of the European Union, ECLI:EU:C:2020:396, Court of Justice of the European Union (Grand Chamber), 28 May 2020; and, Opinion of Advocate General Evgeni Tanchev, Case C-283/20, CO, ME, GC and 42 Others v MJ (Head of Mission), European Commission, European External Action Service (EEAS), Council of the European Union, Eulex Kosovo, ECLI:EU:C:2021:781, Court of Justice of the European Union (Fifth Chamber), 30 September 2021.

Marking the 50th anniversary of the influential ERTA doctrine, this book analyses and contextualises the entire breadth of the jurisprudence of EU external relations law through a systematic, case-by-case account of the field. The entire framework of EU external relations law has been built from the ground up by the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union. At the beginning of the field’s emergence, the legal questions to be answered concerned the division of powers and competence between, firstly, the Member States and that of the Union; and secondly, the division of powers and competence between the different institutions of the Union. Questions on such matters continue to be asked, but more contemporarily, new legal questions have arisen that have been in need of adjudication, including questions concerning the autonomy of Union law; the relationship between the Union and other international organisations; the relationship between Union law and international law; the scope and breadth of international agreements; amongst others. The book features established academic scholars, judges, agents of institutions and Member States, and legal practitioners in the field of EU external relations law, analysing over 90 cases in which the Court has legally shaped the theory and practice of the external dimension of legal Europe.

In this book, leading scholars of EU law, judges, and practitioners unpack the judicial reasoning offered by the UK Advocates General in over forty cases at the Court of Justice, which have influenced the shape of EU law. The authors place the Opinions in the wider context of the EU legal order, and mix praise with critique in order to determine the true contribution of the UK Advocates General, before hearing the concluding reflections by the UK Advocates General themselves. The role of Advocates General at the Court of Justice of the European Union remains notoriously under-researched. With a few notable exceptions, not much ink has been spilled on analysing their contribution to the judicial discourse that emerges from the Court's Palais in Luxembourg. More generally, their impact on the shaping of EU law is only sporadically explored. This book fills the lacunae by offering an in-depth analysis of the way in which the UK Advocates General contributed to development of EU law during 47 years of the UK's membership of the EU. During their terms of office, Advocates General Jean-Pierre Warner (1973-1981), Gordon Slynn (1981-1988), Francis Jacobs (1988-2006), and Eleanor Sharpston (2006-2020) delivered over 1400 Opinions. This staggering contribution of the four individuals and their cabinets of legal secretaries was supplemented by an Opinion of a then Judge of the Court of First Instance, David Edward, who was called to act as an Advocate General in two joined cases in what is now the General Court. With the last UK Advocate General departing from the Court of Justice in September 2020, an important era has ended. With this watershed moment, it is apt to take a look back and critically analyse the contribution to development of EU law made by the UK Advocates General, and to elucidate the lasting impact they have had on the nature of EU law.

The Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) of the European Union is a highly exceptional component of the EU legal order. This constitutionalised foreign policy regime, with legal, diplomatic, and political DNA woven throughout its fabric, is a distinct sub-system of law on the outermost sphere of European supranationalism. When contrasted against other Union policies, it is immediately clear that EU foreign policy has a special decision-making mechanism, making it highly exceptional. In the now depillarised framework of the EU treaties, issues of institutional division arise from the legacy of the former pillar system. This is due to the reality that of prime concern in EU external relations is the question of 'who decides?' By engaging a number of legal themes that cut across foreign affairs exceptionalism, executive prerogatives, parliamentary accountability, judicial review, and the constitutionalisation of European integration, the book lays bare how EU foreign affairs have become highly legalised, leading to ever-greater coherence in how Europe exerts itself on the global stage. In this first monograph dedicated exclusively to the law of the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy in modern times, the author argues that the legal framework for EU foreign affairs must adapt in a changing world so as to ensure the EU treaties can cater for a more assertive Europe in the wider world. Cited in Opinion of Advocate General Evgeni Tanchev, Case C-730/18 P, SC v Eulex Kosovo, ECLI:EU:C:2020:176, Court of Justice of the European Union (First Chamber), 5 March 2020; Opinion of Advocate General Gerard Hogan, Case C-134/19 P, Bank Refah Kargaran v Council of the European Union, ECLI:EU:C:2020:396, Court of Justice of the European Union (Grand Chamber), 28 May 2020; and, Opinion of Advocate General Evgeni Tanchev, Case C-283/20, CO, ME, GC and 42 Others v MJ (Head of Mission), European Commission, European External Action Service (EEAS), Council of the European Union, Eulex Kosovo, ECLI:EU:C:2021:781, Court of Justice of the European Union (Fifth Chamber), 30 September 2021.