Home > All journals > European Foreign Affairs Review > 29(3) >
$15.00 - Rental (PDF) *
$29.00 - Article (PDF) *
Wannes Verstraete
European Foreign Affairs Review
Volume 29, Issue 3 (2024) pp. 361 – 378
https://doi.org/10.54648/eerr2024016
Abstract
The world is entering an era of nuclear disorder. Therefore, this article aims to examine the European engagement with nuclear weapon questions at the beginning of this disorder. The research questions are: in what ways does Europe engage with nuclear issues? And how to make sense of the divergence and ambivalent stances among European states on nuclear weapons? The review identified engagement regarding non-proliferation and divergence on disarmament at the EU level, but mostly disengagement with nuclear deterrence questions outside of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), apart from short-lived discussions on the so-called ‘Eurodeterrent’. Regarding the former observation, it becomes increasingly hard to forge common positions on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament within an EU context. The latter observation is exemplified by recurring but ephemeral debates on a European nuclear deterrent. To understand the divergence and ambivalent stances, several factors are of importance, varying from the primacy of national interest to geography. Consequently, while the world is entering an era of nuclear disorder, Europeans should start a strategic dialogue on the necessity of nuclear weapons without undermining transatlantic relations.
Keywords
Nuclear Weapons, Deterrence, Eurodeterrent, Non-Proliferation, Disarmament, European Security, Trans-Atlantic Security, European Union, NATO.
Extract
The EU has concluded many international agreements with third states. Since the EU is not a state, it cannot act as a party before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), either as an applicant or as a defendant, which means that the enforcement of these agreements must be regulated through Dispute Settlement provisions in the agreements themselves (though, depending on the subject of the dispute, a procedure within the framework of the WTO is also possible). However, the Court of Justice might have opened the door for a new enforcement possibility in its Venezuela v. Council judgment, where it ruled that Venezuela – a third state – could have legal standing before the Court on the basis of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU. This article will analyse whether third states could have access to the Court, in order to seek annulment of an EU legal act that potentially violates a provision of an international agreement that the third state had previously concluded with the EU. It will do so by looking at the ratio decidendi of the Court in Venezuela v. Council, and by analysing the conditions of direct and individual concern, the potential exclusionary effects of Dispute Settlement provisions in international agreements, and the need for direct effect of these agreements. For a variety of reasons, the article will mostly focus on Free Trade Agreements (FTAs).