Court Watch
suggests both states and international organiza- tions share responsibilities in peacekeeping, and the accountability attached with such responsibil- ity. The Hague District Court’s decision is more than just a symbolic gesture to the relatives of victims; the decision reiterates that peacekeepers have both a moral and legal responsibility to pro- tect civilians when mandated by the United Na- tions to do so.
* Submitted by Christopher Bauer
United States-European Union Negotiations on TTIP Not Transparent Enough
8
On July 3, 2014, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) declared that negotiations held in secret be- tween the United States and the European Union (EU) involving the Transatlantic Trade and Invest- ment Partnership (TTIP) were insufficiently trans- parent. The ruling was victory for advocates of de- mocracy and greater government transparency, as well as Sophie in’t Veld, the European Parliament Member who filed the claim against the European Commission after her July 2009 document re- quest was rejected. In’t Veld argued that openness enables citizens to participate more closely in the decision-making process, guaranteeing greater administrative legitimacy, thus making demo- cratic society more effective and accountable. The Court agreed, making it clear that consent of the governed is imperative and should be protected. In response to the ruling, in’t Veld declared that “transparency is a prerequisite for a truly demo- cratic Europe. The European Union must develop from a Europe of diplomats, discretion, and con- fidentiality to a Europe of citizens, administrative transparency, and trust.”
The ECJ did not, however, grant in’t Veld a total victory. Rather, the European Commission is now required to justify its decision to keep negotiations secret and not release documents related to inter- national agreements. In its ruling, the Court noted that while Regulation (EC) No. 1049/2001 requires
public access to European Parliament, Council, and Commission documents upon request and the regulation extends to international activity, including the TTIP, notable exceptions related to public and private interests do exist. In particular, (EC) No. 1049/2001 Article 4 subsections 1 and 2 state the three institutions may refuse access to documents where disclosure would “undermine the protection of the public interest” in regards to international relations and legal advice.
The Court further recognized the right of the insti- tutions to protect their internal “consultations and deliberations where necessary to safeguard their ability to carry out their tasks.” In particular, negoti- ating documents may be held in secret, especially those related to negotiating strategy and positions of foreign parties to the negotiations. This makes in’t Veld’s victory a modest one. And, regardless of how much disclosure takes place from this point forward, the TTIP will undoubtedly continue.
In negotiation since July 2013, TTIP is a prospec- tive trade agreement being negotiated between the U.S. and EU. The negotiations, which entered their seventh round in September, focus on re- moving trade barriers throughout all sectors of the U.S. and EU economies. This move will allegedly make it easier to buy and sell goods and services across the Atlantic. In addition to slashing tariffs, the agreement aims to tackle other trade obsta- cles such as differences in technical regulations, and standards and approval procedures. Such veiled regulations lead to unnecessary costs with respect to time and money for companies that wish to sell their products in both U.S. and Euro- pean markets.
The benefits are claimed to be huge for all par- ties, possibly making the agreement one of the most profitable in history. Research conducted by the European Commission indicates the US economy could see a boost of $122 billion USD, the EU by $160 billion USD, and the rest of the world by $135 billion USD. Further, the EU could
ILSA Quarterly » volume 23 » issue 1 » October 2014
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36