Legal and Political Interpretation of Articles 224 and 225 of the Treaty of Rome

Regular price €112.99
Quantity:
In stock with our UK publisher. 14-28 days
Delivery/Collection within 10-20 working days
14 days return policy Shipping & Delivery
A01=Constantin Stefanou
A01=Helen Xanthaki
Advocate General Darmon
Author_Constantin Stefanou
Author_Helen Xanthaki
Category=JP
ECJ Judge
ECJ judicial review
ECJ's Activism
ECJ's Approach
ECJ's Jurisdiction
ECJ's Power
ECJ's View
ECJ’s Activism
ECJ’s Approach
ECJ’s Jurisdiction
ECJ’s Power
ECJ’s View
emergency powers
eq_bestseller
eq_isMigrated=1
eq_isMigrated=2
eq_nobargain
eq_non-fiction
eq_society-politics
EU Company
EU legal response to national crises
EU Obligation
EU Trade
EU's Legislator
EU's Progress
European Union law
EU’s Legislator
EU’s Progress
Future EU Membership
integration policy analysis
NATO Obligation
NATO's Ability
NATO’s Ability
state security measures
Title III
UK Port
UK's Position
UK's Secretary
UK’s Position
UK’s Secretary
unilateral action in treaties
Wider Issues

Product details

  • ISBN 9781138608535
  • Weight: 450g
  • Dimensions: 148 x 216mm
  • Publication Date: 12 Jun 2019
  • Publisher: Taylor & Francis Ltd
  • Publication City/Country: GB
  • Product Form: Hardback
Secure checkout Fast Shipping Easy returns

First published in 1997. Article 224 is one of the most powerful Articles of the Treaty of Rome, allowing a member state to take unilateral measures and to suspend some or all its Treaty-based obligations in times of what can loosely be described as serious internal turmoil or external threat. It is for this reason that the very next Article of the Treaty, Article 225, allows the Commission or a member state to challenge invocation of Art.224, before the European Court of Justice (ECJ), on grounds of improper use. In practice, the use of Art.224, by a member state presents multiple problems. The obvious connection with defence and security issues has inhibited the ECJ which still has not given and authentic interpretation of this Article. As the recent former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) cases (Greek referral for the embargo on FYROM) indicate, unless the use of Art.224 is blatantly flippant, the ECJ is not in a position to challenge a member state’s unilateral measures.

Constantin Stefanou, Helen Xanthaki

More from this author