What does this research mean for the field?

The Court of Justice's contextual expansion of jurisdiction over mixed international agreements is driven by the need to fill gaps in judicial protection and ensure EU legal autonomy, and can be systematized through a proposed principles-based approach. Novelty: ClaimNovelty.METHODOLOGICAL. Consensus alignment: ConsensusAlignment.NEUTRAL.

What question did this study set out to answer?

This article addresses the unclear jurisdictional interface of mixed agreements involving the EU and its Member States.

June 12, 2026Open Access

The Interpretation of Mixed International Agreements: Lifting the Jurisdictional Fog

Key Points

This article addresses the unclear jurisdictional interface of mixed agreements involving the EU and its Member States.
Explores existing case law regarding mixed agreements and jurisdiction.
Identifies inconsistencies in judicial interpretations.
Proposes a concrete approach to clarify the Court's jurisdiction in mixity contexts.
Highlights the lack of clarity in current court rulings on mixed agreements.
Suggests common principles to establish jurisdiction effectively.
Discusses the Court's expansion of jurisdiction as a response to gaps in judicial protection.

Abstract

Abstract The article explores the complex interface between international agreements concluded jointly by the European Union and its Member States (mixed agreements) and the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice. Case law remains unclear and appears fraught with inconsistencies. The article aims to mitigate the uncertainty and identify common principles, proposing a concrete approach to establishing the Court’s jurisdiction in the mixity context. It further explains the underpinnings of the Court’s highly contextual expansion of its jurisdiction. This is understood — though not uncritically—as an effort to fill gaps in judicial protection and ensure the autonomy of the EU legal order.

Ask AI

Helpful

Bookmark

View Full Paper