Abstract
The present chapter purports to revisit the debate on the legal nature of the EU-Turkey Statement utilising international legal norms on treaty-making. Its objective is to elaborate on the statement’s production of legal effects under international law, an aspect largely overlooked by the Court in its NF, NG and NM cases. The main argument advanced herein is that the question of authorship and legal nature of the statement, if analysed in light of international rules on treaty-making, show that the Statement is an international agreement authored by the EU and Turkey.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Council of the European Union 2016.
- 2.
Gauthier-Villars D (2020) Erdogan Says Turkey Won’t Stop Migrants Streaming Into Europe. www.wsj.com/articles/erdogan-says-turkey-wont-stop-migrants-streaming-into-europe-11582988372. Accessed 12 January 2021.
- 3.
Boffey D (2020) Clashes as thousands gather at Turkish border to enter Greece. www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/01/thousands-gather-at-turkish-border-to-cross-into-greece. Accessed 12 January 2021.
- 4.
See for example Peers S (2016) The draft EU/Turkey deal on migration and refugees: is it legal? http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2016/03/the-draft-euturkey-deal-on-migration.html. Accessed 12 January 2021; Fernandez Arribas 2016, p. 1098.
- 5.
See for example Gatti M (2016) The EU-Turkey Statement: A Treaty that Violates Democracy. www.ejiltalk.org/the-eu-turkey-statement-a-treaty-that-violates-democracy-part-1-of-2/. Accessed 13 January 2021; Cannizzaro 2016, p. 3; Den Heijer M and Spijkerboer T (2016) Is the EU-Turkey refugee and migration deal a treaty? https://eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2016/04/is-eu-turkey-refugee-and-migration-deal.html. Accessed 13 January 2021; see also Gatti and Ott who argue that both scenarios are plausible: Gatti and Ott 2019, p. 175.
- 6.
CJEU, Case T-192/16 NF v European Council, Order of the Court, 28 February 2017, ECLI:EU:T:2017:128; Case T-193/16 NG v European Council, Order of the Court, 28 February 2017, ECLI:EU:T:2017:129, and Case T-257/16 NM v European Council, Order of the Court, 28 February 2017, ECLI:EU:T:2017:130. On grounds of brevity, the paper will only refer to Case T-192/16 NF v European Council since the other two Orders are almost identical. For the sake of completeness, it is also worth noting that the appeal against the General Court’s orders was dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. See CJEU, Joined Cases C-208/17 P to C-210/17 P NF and Others v European Council, Order of the Court, 12 September 2018, ECLI:EU:2018:705.
- 7.
T-192/16 NF v European Council, above n 6, para 71. It is also worth noting that the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) also came to the same conclusion regarding the authorship of the statement. In J.R. and Others v. Greece, the ECtHR refers to the EU-Turkey statement as “an agreement concluded between the members of the European Council and the Turkish government”. See ECtHR, J.R. and Others v. Greece, Judgment, 25 January 2018, App No 22696/16, paras 7, 39. In the same vein as the CJEU, the ECtHR did not expressly address the legal nature of the statement; it refers to it as ‘agreement’ (‘accord’ in French).
- 8.
Ibid., paras 71–73.
- 9.
Ibid.
- 10.
CJEU, Case T-851/16 Access Info Europe v. European Commission, Judgment, 7 February 2018, ECLI:EU:T:2018:69, para 90. See also CJEU, Case T-852/16 Access Info Europe v Commission, Judgment, 7 February 2018, ECLI:EU:T:2018:71, para 84.
- 11.
See for example Carrera et al. 2017.
- 12.
T-192/16 NF V European Council, above n 6, para 64.
- 13.
Ibid., para 65.
- 14.
See for example Danisi C (2017) Taking the ‘Union’ out of ‘EU’: The EU-Turkey Statement on the Syrian Refugee Crisis as an Agreement Between States under International Law. www.ejiltalk.org/taking-the-union-out-of-eu-the-eu-turkey-statement-on-the-syrian-refugee-crisis-as-an-agreement-between-states-under-international-law/. Accessed 13 January 2021; Gatti M (2016) The EU-Turkey Statement: A Treaty that Violates Democracy. www.ejiltalk.org/the-eu-turkey-statement-a-treaty-that-violates-democracy-part-1-of-2/. Accessed 13 January 2021.
- 15.
Cannizzaro 2017, p. 255.
- 16.
Orakhelashvili 2008, p. 285. See also ICJ, Asylum Case (Colombia v Peru), Judgment, 20 November 1950, 1950 I.C.J. 266, p. 275.
- 17.
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, opened for signature 23 May 1969, entered into force 27 January 1980, 1155 UNTS 331 (VCLT).
- 18.
- 19.
ICJ, Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo (Kosovo Advisory Opinion), Advisory Opinion, 2010 I.C.J. Reps 997, p. 403.
- 20.
- 21.
Kosovo Advisory Opinion, above n 19, paras 101–109.
- 22.
ICJ, Competence of the General Assembly for the Admission of a State to the United Nations, Advisory Opinion, 3 March 1950, 1950 I.C.J. Reps 5, p. 8; In the Territorial Dispute between Libya and Chad, the ICJ stated that: “Interpretation must be based above all upon the text of the treaty.” See ICJ, Territorial Dispute (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Chad), Judgment, 3 February 1994, 1994 I.C.J. Rep 7, para 41.
- 23.
ILC, Draft Articles on the Law of Treaties with commentaries, Yearbook of the ILC 1966, Vol. II 187, p. 218.
- 24.
Ibid., p. 220.
- 25.
General Secretariat of the Council 2015.
- 26.
European Commission 2015.
- 27.
Gatti and Ott 2019, p. 180.
- 28.
Kolb 2017, p. 63.
- 29.
Ibid., p. 64.
- 30.
Ibid., pp. 64–65. See also Gardiner 2015, pp. 176–177.
- 31.
Permanent Court of Arbitration, Case concerning the Auditing of Accounts between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the French Republic pursuant to the Additional Protocol of 25 September 1991 to the Convention on the protection of the Rhine against Pollution by Chlorides of 3 December 1976, Arbitral Award, 12 March 2004, ICGJ 374 (PCA 2004), para 74; ICSID Tribunal, AMCO Asia Corporation v Republic of Indonesia, Decision on Jurisdiction, 25 September 1983, ICSID Case No. ARB/81/1, para 14; ICSID Tribunal, SOABI v Senegal, Award, 25 February 1988, ICSID Case No. ARB/82/1, para 4.10.
- 32.
- 33.
CJEC, Case T-115/94 Opel Austria GmbH v Council of the European Union, Judgment of the Court of First Instance, 22 January 1997, ECR II-39, para 93; see also CJEC, Case T-231/04 Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Union, Judgment, 17 January 2007, ECLI:EU:T:2007:9, para 87.
- 34.
According to Article 31(3)(b) VCLT in interpreting an agreement “there shall be taken into account, together with the context: … (b) any subsequent practice in the application of the treaty which establishes the agreement of the parties regarding its interpretation.”
- 35.
ILC, Report of the ILC on the work of its 16th session, 11 May–24 July 1964, 1964 Yearbook of the ILC, Vol II 203, para 13.
- 36.
ILC Draft Articles on the on the Law of Treaties with Commentaries, above n 23, p. 221, para 15.
- 37.
Waldock 1964, para 25 (emphasis added).
- 38.
Simma 2013, p. 46.
- 39.
See for example ICJ, Case concerning Kasikili/Seduku, Judgment, 13 December 1999, ICJ Reps 1999 p. 1045, para 50; WTO Appellate Body, Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages II, Report, 4 October 1996, WT/DS8/AB/R; WT/DS10/AB/R; WT/DS11/AB/R, pp. 12–13. See also the overview of relevant practice in ILC (2013) First Report on Subsequent Agreements and Subsequent Practice in relation to the Interpretation of Treaties, UN Doc A/CN.4/660, paras 31–41.
- 40.
Iran-US Claims Tribunal, The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America, Interlocutory Award, 9 September 2004, ITL 83-B1-FT (Counterclaim) WL 2210709 para 111.
- 41.
CJEC, Case C-52/77 Leonce Cayrol v Giovanni Rivoira & Figli, Judgment, 30 November 1977, ECLI:EU:C:1977:196, para 18; CJEC, Case C-432/92 The Queen v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte S. P. Anastasiou (Pissouri) Ltd and others, Judgment, 5 July 1994, ECLI:EU:C:1994:277, paras 43, 50; CJEU, Case C-104/16 P Council of the European Union v Front Polisario, Judgment, 21 December 2016, ECLI:EU:C:2016:973, para 120.
- 42.
CJEU, Case C-464/13 Europäische Schule München v Silvana Oberto and Barbara O´Leary, Judgment, 11 March 2015, ECLI:EU:C:2015:163, para 61.
- 43.
European Commission 2019; it is worth recalling that, even from an EU law point of view, the fact that the costs associated with carrying out the obligations undertaken under the statement are to a large extent covered by the EU budget also points towards the direction that the statement is (at the minimum also) attributable to the Union. In CJEU, Joined Cases C-181/91 and C-248/91 European Parliament v Council of the European Communities and Commission of the European Communities, Judgment, 30 June 1993, ECLI:EU:C:1993:271, para 24, the CJEC stated that: “since the contested act does not require the use of the Community budget for the part of the aid to be administered by the Commission, the budget entry made by the latter cannot have any bearing on how the act is categorized.” A contrario, since at least part of the funds associated with the implementation of the act come from the EU budget, it is arguable that the act is (also) attributable to the Union – as a matter of EU law.
- 44.
- 45.
European Commission 2018a.
- 46.
EU Parliament 2020 (emphasis added).
- 47.
European Council 2020.
- 48.
Republic of Turkey, Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2019) Press Release regarding the Conclusions adopted by the EU Foreign Affairs Council. http://www.mfa.gov.tr/no_302_-ab-dis-iliskiler-konseyi-nin-kabul-ettigi-kararlar-hk.en.mfa. Accessed 14 January 2021; Republic of Turkey, Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2016) Implementation of Turkey – EU Agreement of 18 March 2016. http://www.mfa.gov.tr/implementation-of-turkey_eu-agreement-of-18-march-2016.en.mfa. Accessed 14 January 2021.
- 49.
Gatti and Ott 2019, p. 182, note 39.
- 50.
According to the text of Article 34 VCLT: “A treaty does not create either obligations or rights for a third State without its consent.”
- 51.
Crawford 2012, p. 384.
- 52.
See CJEU, Case C-386/08 Firma Brita GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen, Judgment, 25 December 2010, ECR I-1289, paras 50–53. See also Council v Front Polisario, above n 41, paras 100–107.
- 53.
Moreno-Lax 2020, p. 44.
- 54.
See, for instance, Fernandez Arribas 2017, pp. 306–308.
- 55.
In the same vein, see Vitiello 2020, p. 138.
- 56.
VCLT, above n 17, Article 46.
- 57.
CJEC, Case C-327/91 French Republic v Commission of the European Communities, Judgment, 09 August 1994, EU:C:1994:305, para 25.
- 58.
CJEC, Joined cases C-317/04 and C-318/04, European Parliament v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities, Judgment, 30 May 2006, ECLI:EU:C:2006:346.
- 59.
Ibid., para 73.
- 60.
Ibid., paras 71–74.
- 61.
CJEU, Joined cases C-103/12 and C-165/12, European Parliament, European Commission v. Council of the European Union, Judgment, 26 November 2014, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2400 (Venezuelan Fishing Rights).
- 62.
Ibid., paras 72–73.
- 63.
T-851/12 Access Info v Europe, above n 10, paras 84 and 90; See also Gatti and Ott 2019, p. 188.
- 64.
EC Legal Service 2016, p. 3. The EP has reportedly adhered to this view as well: see Danisi C (2017) Taking the ‘Union’ out of ‘EU’: The EU-Turkey Statement on the Syrian Refugee Crisis as an Agreement Between States under International Law. www.ejiltalk.org/taking-the-union-out-of-eu-the-eu-turkey-statement-on-the-syrian-refugee-crisis-as-an-agreement-between-states-under-international-law/. Accessed 13 January 2021; Nielsen N (2016) EU-Turkey deal not binding, says EP legal chief. https://euobserver.com/justice/133385. Accessed 15 January 2021; Gatti and Ott 2019, p. 189.
- 65.
Authors positing that the statement is a binding act include: Cannizzaro 2016, pp. 3–4; Spijkerboer 2016, p. 553; Corten and Dony (2016) Accord politique ou juridique: quelle est la nature du “machin” conclu entre l’UE et la Turquie en matière d’asile? [Political or legal agreement: what is the nature of the “thing” concluded between the EU and Turkey on asylum?]. http://eumigrationlawblog.eu/accord-politique-ou-juridique-quelle-est-la-nature-du-machin-conclu-entre-lue-et-la-turquie-en-matiere-dasile/. Accessed 15 January 2021; Den Heijer M and Spijkerboer T (2016) Is the EU-Turkey refugee and migration deal a treaty? https://eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2016/04/is-eu-turkey-refugee-and-migration-deal.html. Accessed 13 January 2021; by contrast, some see it instead as a mere political commitment: Babicka K (2016) EU-Turkey Deal seems to be schizophrenic. http://migrationonline.cz/en/eu-turkey-deal-seems-to-be-schizophrenic. Accessed 15 January 2021; Batalla 2016, p. 2; Koenig and Walter-Franke 2017, p. 2; Fernandez Arribas 2016, p. 1098; Lehner 2018, p. 2; Peers S (2016) The draft EU/Turkey deal on migration and refugees: is it legal? http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2016/03/the-draft-euturkey-deal-on-migration.html. Accessed 12 January 2021.
- 66.
ILC, Reports of the International Law Commission on the second part of its seventeenth session and on its eighteenth session, Document A/6309/Rev.1, Yearbook of the ILC 1966, Vol II, pp. 188–189; Kolb 2017, p. 19; Fitzmaurice 2002, p. 145; Gatti and Ott 2019, p. 187; Aust 1986, p. 794; Kassoti 2015, p. 133; Klabbers 1996, p. 67; Sondaal 1988, p. 183; Jennings and Watts 1996, p. 1202; Fawcett 1953, pp. 385–386; ICJ, International Status of South West Africa, Separate Opinion of Judge Read, 11 July 1950, 1950 I.C.J. Rep 128, pp. 164 and 170.
- 67.
Klabbers 1994, p. 998.
- 68.
Aust 1986, p. 787: “informal instrument” means an instrument which is not a treaty because the parties to it do not intend it to be legally binding”. See also Hollis 2012, p. 33, who describes treaties as “agreements between states, intended to establish non-legal commitments of an exclusively political or moral nature”.
- 69.
ICJ, Aegean Sea Continental Shelf, Judgment, 19 December 1978, 1977 I.C.J. Rep 3, (Greece v. Turkey) paras 100–105; ICJ, Case concerning maritime delimitation and territorial questions between Qatar and Bahrain, Judgment, 1 July 1994 (Qatar v Bahrain), para 23; PCA, Philippines v China, Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 1 October 2015, Case No 2013–19, para 213; See also Fitzmaurice 2003, p. 168; Aust 2012, pp. 23–24;
- 70.
Qatar v Bahrain, above n 69, para 23; ICJ, Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand), Judgment, 26 May 1961, 1961 I.C.J. Rep 17, p. 31.
- 71.
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Chad, above n 22, para 28ff.
- 72.
Greece v Turkey, above n 69, para 96
- 73.
Qatar v Bahrain, above n 69, para 23.
- 74.
ICJ, Maritime Delimitation in the Indian Ocean (Somalia v Kenya), Judgment, 2 February 2017, 2017 I.C.J. Rep 3, para 42.
- 75.
ICJ, Case Concerning the Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v Nigeria), Judgment, 10 October 2002, 2002 I.C.J. Rep 303, para 264.
- 76.
CJEC, Opinion 1/75 OECD Understanding on a Local Cost Standard, Opinion of the Court, 11 November 1975, EU:C:1975:145, p. 1360; CJEC, Case C-327/91 French Republic v Commission, above n 57, para 27; CJEC, C-233/02 French Republic v Commission of the European Communities, Judgment, 23 March 2004, ECLI:EU:C:2004:173, para 43; CJEC, Opinion 2/92 Participation in the Third Revised Decision of the OECD on national treatment, Opinion of the Court, 24 March 1995, EU:C:1995:83, para 8; CJEU, Opinion 1/13 Convention on the civil aspects of International Child Abduction, Opinion of the Court 14 October 2014, EU:C:2014:2303, para 37; Venezuelan Fishing Rights, above n 61, para 83; CJEU, C-103/12 Parliament and Commission v Council (Venezuelan Fishing Rights), Opinion of AG Sharpston, 15 May 2014, ECLI:EU:C:2014:334, para 79;
- 77.
Klabbers 1996, p. 215.
- 78.
Ibid., p. 77; see also Fawcett 1953, pp. 381–400.
- 79.
Fitzmaurice 2002, p. 164.
- 80.
Aust 1986, pp. 800–804.
- 81.
Klabbers 1996, p. 80.
- 82.
Ibid., p. 85.
- 83.
Ibid., p. 88; Widdows 1979, p. 143.
- 84.
Aust 1986, p. 810.
- 85.
Qatar v Bahrain, above n 69, para 29; see also Klabbers 1996, p. 84.
- 86.
- 87.
Ibid., p. 77; see also Widdows 1979, pp. 117–149.
- 88.
Ibid., p. 78, citing ICJ, South West Africa (Liberia v. South Africa), Joint Dissenting Opinion of Sir Percy Spender and Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice, 21 December 1962, 1962 I.C.J. Rep 465, p. 519.
- 89.
A similar elaboration was offered in Ott 2017, p. 28.
- 90.
- 91.
Gatti and Ott 2019, p. 189.
- 92.
Council of the European Union 2016.
- 93.
- 94.
ILC, Reports of the International Law Commission on the second part of its seventeenth session and on its eighteenth session, Document A/6309/Rev.1, Yearbook of the ILC 1966, Vol II, pp. 188–188; see also Fitzmaurice 2002, p. 167.
- 95.
Qatar v Bahrain, above n 69, para 25.
- 96.
- 97.
Spijkerboer 2016, p. 554.
- 98.
Cannizzaro 2016, p. 4.
- 99.
Spijkerboer 2016, p. 554.
- 100.
ICJ, Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Greenland and Jan Mayen (Denmark v. Norway) Judgment, 14 June 1993, 1993 I.C.J. Rep 38, pp. 70–71, where the Court stated that the “interdependence of mutual obligations does not necessarily create a bilateral engagement, and therefore not all interdependent obligations are treaties”. See also Vara 2019, p. 28, who points out that the JWF with Afghanistan “establishes mutual commitments to manage the return of irregular Afghan nationals from the EU, which are similar to the obligations included in international readmission agreements'” but it is not intended to create legal rights”.
- 101.
The subsequent practice of the parties holds probative value in relation to their intent. See Dörr 2018, p. 595; see also Philippines v China, above n 69; PCA, Russian Claim for Interest on Indemnities (Russia v Turkey), Award, 11 November 1912, 11 RIAA 421, 433.
- 102.
Gatti and Ott 2019, p. 196, note 104.
- 103.
European Commission 2017a, p. 5.
- 104.
European Commission 2018b.
- 105.
Council Decision 2016/1754 of 29 September 2016 amending Decision (EU) 2015/1601 establishing provisional measures in the area of international protection for the benefit of Italy and Greece, OJ L 268/82; see also Idriz 2017, p. 12.
- 106.
Ibid., Article 1.
- 107.
Idriz 2017, p. 12.
- 108.
Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection OJ L 180, Article 8(1). See also Idriz 2017, p. 12.
- 109.
- 110.
European Council on Refugees and Exiles 2017, p. 118.
- 111.
This decree applied to claims lodged prior to 7 June 2013. See Hellenic Republic (2010) Presidential Decree No. 114 of 2010 on the establishment of a single procedure for granting the status of refugee or of beneficiary of subsidiary protection to aliens or to stateless persons in conformity with Council Directive 2005/85/EC on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status (Presidential Decree 114/2010).
- 112.
Hellenic Republic (2013) Presidential Decree No. 113/2013 Establishment of a single procedure for granting the status of refugee or of subsidiary protection beneficiary to aliens or to stateless individuals in conformity with Council Directive 2005/85/EC “on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status” (L 326/13.12.2005) and other provision (Presidential Decree 113/2013).
- 113.
Ibid., Article 18(c)(d).
- 114.
Presidential Decree 114/2010, above n 111, Article 26(1).
- 115.
Amnesty International 2017, p. 14.
- 116.
Hellenic Parliament (2016) Law No. 4375 of 2016 on the organization and operation of the Asylum Service, the Appeals Authority, the Reception and Identification Service, the establishment of the General Secretariat for Reception, the transposition into Greek legislation of the provisions of Directive 2013/32/EC, Article 60(4) (Law 4375/2016); see also Greek Council for Refugees 2020.
- 117.
Greek Council for Refugees 2016, p. 1.
- 118.
Comprising the Regional Asylum Offices of Chios, Lesvos, Leros, Rhodes and Samos, as well as the Autonomous Asylum Unit of Kos.
- 119.
Greek Council for Refugees 2019, p. 15.
- 120.
Greek Council for Refugees 2020; see also European Council for Refugees 2020, p. 32.
- 121.
European Commission 2016a, pp. 5, 7, 16; for reports on the matter, see Hellenic National Committee on Human Rights 2016, pp. 1–2; Human Rights Council 2017, para 85; Amnesty International 2017, p. 14; see a statement by certain members of the former appeal committees, harshly criticising the amendment: Keep Talking Greece (2016) Greece’s Asylum Appeals Committees denounce changes to facilitate mass deportations to Turkey. https://www.keeptalkinggreece.com/2016/06/20/greeces-asylum-appeals-committees-denounce-changes-to-facilitate-mass-deportations-to-turkey/. Accessed 21 January 2021; for comments in the literature, see Gkliati 2017, p. 116; Vitiello 2020, p. 144; for news references thereto, see: Psaropoulos J (2016) Greek Asylum System Reaches Breaking Point. https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/news/2016/03/31/greek-asylum-system-reaches-breaking-point. Accessed 26 June 2021; Kostaki I (2016) EU Council: Why Greece should consider Turkey safe for Syrian refugees. https://www.neweurope.eu/article/eu-council-greece-consider-turkey-safe-syrian-refugees/. Accessed 21 January 2021; Keep Talking Greece (2016) EU presses Greece to change asylum appeal committees that consider “Turkey is not a safe country”. https://www.keeptalkinggreece.com/2016/06/11/eu-presses-greece-to-change-asylum-appeal-committees-that-consider-turkey-is-not-a-safe-country/. Accessed 21 January 2021; Zalan E (2016) EU pushes Greece to set up new asylum committees. https://euobserver.com/migration/133841. Accessed 21 January 2021.
- 122.
Gkliati 2017, p. 116; Hellenic Parliament (2016) Article 86 Law 4399/2016, amending Article 5 Law 4375/2016. Human Rights Council 2016, para 87; Amnesty International 2017, p. 14; Keep Talking Greece (2016) Greece’s Asylum Appeals Committees denounce changes to facilitate mass deportations to Turkey. https://www.keeptalkinggreece.com/2016/06/20/greeces-asylum-appeals-committees-denounce-changes-to-facilitate-mass-deportations-to-turkey/. Accessed 21 January 2021; Hellenic National Committee on Human Rights 2016, pp. 1–2;
- 123.
Hellenic Parliament (2016) Law 4399/2016 amending Law 4375/2016, Article 86; Gkliati 2017, p. 116; Keep Talking Greece (2016) Greece’s Asylum Appeals Committees denounce changes to facilitate mass deportations to Turkey. https://www.keeptalkinggreece.com/2016/06/20/greeces-asylum-appeals-committees-denounce-changes-to-facilitate-mass-deportations-to-turkey/. Accessed 21 January 2021; Amnesty International 2017, p. 15.
- 124.
Ibid.
- 125.
- 126.
- 127.
- 128.
ECtHR, Soering v United Kingdom, Judgment, 7 July 1989, App No 14038/88, Ser A 161, para 103; ECtHR, Öcalan v Turkey, Judgment, 12 March 2003, App No 46221/99, paras 194–195; ECtHR, Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v United Kingdom, Judgment, 2 March 2010, App No 61498/08, para 120.
- 129.
Dörr 2018, p. 600.
- 130.
Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union [2012] OJ C 326, Article 4.
References
Amnesty international (2017) A blueprint for despair: human rights impact of the EU-Turkey deal. https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/EUR2556642017ENGLISH.PDF. Accessed 21 January 2021
Aust A (1986) The Theory and Practice of Informal International Instruments. ICLQ 35:787
Aust A (2012) Alternatives to Treaty-Making: MOUs as Political Commitments. In: Hollis D (ed) The Oxford Guide to Treaties, 1st edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Batalla Adam L (2016) The Refugee Card in EU-Turkey Relations: A Necessary but Uncertain Deal. http://www.iai.it/sites/default/files/gte_wp_14.pdf. Accessed 15 January 2021
Baxter R (1980) International Law in Her Infinite Variety. ICLQ 29:549
Cannizzaro E (2016) Disintegration Through Law? European Papers 1:3
Cannizzaro E (2017) Denialism as the Supreme Expression of Realism: A Quick Comment on NF v. European Council. European Papers 2:251
Carrera S, Den Hertog L, Stefan M (2017) It wasn’t me! The Luxembourg Court Orders on the EU Turkey Deal. https://www.ceps.eu/ceps-publications/it-wasnt-me-luxembourg-court-orders-eu-turkey-refugee-deal/. Accessed 13 January 2021
Castellarin E (2019) General Principles of EU Law and General International Law. In: Andenas M, Fitzmaurice M, Tanzi A, Wouters J (eds) General Principles and the Coherence of International Law. Brill/Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden
Council of the European Union (2016) EU – Turkey Statement, Press release 144/16. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/03/18/eu-turkey-statement/#. Accessed 12 January 2021
Crawford J (2012) Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Dörr O (2018) Article 31: General Rule of Interpretation. In: Dörr O, Schmalenbach K (eds) Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: A Commentary, 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin, pp 557-616
EEAS (2016) Joint Way Forward on migration issues between Afghanistan and the EU. https://eeas.europa.eu/sites/eeas/files/eu_afghanistan_joint_way_forward_on_migration_issues.pdf. Accessed 16 January 2021
EC Legal Service (2016) Reply to Request for Access to Documents by Access Info Europe. https://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/2851/response/10298/attach/2/Ares%202016%202805485%203.pdf. Accessed 15 January 2021
EU Parliament (2020) Answer given by Ms Johansson on behalf of the Commission. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2019-002685-ASW_EN.pdf. Accessed 14 January 2021
European Commission (2015) EU – Turkey Joint Action Plan. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/MEMO_15_5860. Accessed 13 January 2021
European Commission (2016a) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council and the Council: Second Report on the Progress Made in the Implementation of the EU-Turkey Statement, COM(2016) 349 final
EU Commission (2016b) Implementing the EU – Turkey Agreement: Questions and Answers. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/it/MEMO_16_1494. Accessed 14 January 2021
European Commission (2017a) Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council and the Council: 6th Report on the Progress made in the implementation of the EU-Turkey Statement, COM(2017) 323 final
EU Commission (2017b) Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council and the Council: 7th Report on the Progress made in the implementation of the EU-Turkey Statement, COM(2017) 470 final
European Commission (2018a) EU – Turkey Statement: Two years on. https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/sites/homeaffairs/files/what-we-do/policies/european-agenda-migration/20180314_eu-turkey-two-years-on_en.pdf. Accessed 14 January 2021
European Commission (2018b) EU Facility for Refugees in Turkey: the Commission proposes to mobilise additional funds for Syrian refugees. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_18_1723. Accessed 16 January 2021
European Commission (2019) EU – Turkey Statement: Three years on, March 2019. https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/sites/homeaffairs/files/what-we-do/policies/european-agenda-migration/20190318_eu-turkey-three-years-on_en.pdf. Accessed 14 January 2021
European Council (2020) Remarks by President Charles Michel after the meeting with President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Brussels. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2020/03/09/remarks-by-president-charles-michel-after-the-meeting-with-president-of-turkey-recep-tayyip-erdogan/. Accessed 14 January 2021
European Council on Refugees and Exiles (2017) Greece Country Report. https://asylumineurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/report-download_aida_gr_2016update.pdf. Accessed 21 January 2021
European Council on Refugees and Exiles (2020) Greece Country Report. https://asylumineurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/report-download_aida_gr_2019update.pdf Accessed 21 January 2021
Fawcett J (1953) The Legal Character of International Agreements. British Yearbook of International Law 30:381
Fernandez Arribas G (2016) The EU-Turkey Agreement: A Controversial Attempt at Patching Up a Major Problem. European Papers 1:1098
Fernandez Arribas G (2017) The EU-Turkey Statement, the treaty-Making Process and Competent Organs: Is the Statement an International Agreement? European Papers 2:303
Fitzmaurice M (2002) The Identification and Character of Treaties and Treaty Obligations Between States in International Law. British Yearbook of International Law 73:141
Gardiner R (2015) Treaty Interpretation, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Gatti M, Ott A (2019) The EU-Turkey Statement: Legal Nature and Compatibility with EU Institutional Law. In: Carrera S, Santos Vara J, Strik T (eds) Constitutionalising the External Dimensions of EU Migration Policies in Times of Crisis: Legality, Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights Reconsidered. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 175-201
General Secretariat of the Council (2015) Meeting of heads of state or government with Turkey, EU-Turkey statement. www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2015/11/29/eu-turkey-meeting-statement/#. Accessed 13 January 2021
Gkliati M (2017) The Application of the EU-Turkey Agreement: A Critical Analysis of the Decisions of the Greek Appeals Committees. EJLS 10:81
Greek Council for Refugees (2016) Παρατηρήσεις του Ελλθνικοφ Συμβουλίου για τουσ Πρόςφυγεσ [Remarks of the Hellenic Refugee Council on Law 4375/2016]. https://www.gcr.gr/en/news/press-releases-announcements/item/551-oi-paratiriseis-tou-esp-epi-tou-nomou-4375-2016 Accessed 21 January 2021
Greek Council for Refugees (2019) Communication from the Greek Council for Refugees in the M.S.S. group of cases v. Belgium and Greece (DH-DD(2019)515)
Greek Council for Refugees (2020) Fast-Track Border Procedure (Eastern Aegean Islands). https://asylumineurope.org/reports/country/greece/asylum-procedure/procedures/fast-track-border-procedure-eastern-aegean/#_ftn2. Accessed 21 January 2021
Guild E, Constello C, Moreno-Lax V (2017) Implementation of the 2015 Council Decisions establishing provisional measures in the area of international protection for the benefit of Italy and Greece. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/583132/IPOL_STU(2017)583132_EN.pdf. Accessed 21 January 2021
Hellenic National Committee on Human Rights [Ελληνικη Δημοκρατια - Εθνικη Επιτροπη Για Τα Δικαιωματα Του Ανθρωπου] (2016) Public Statement on the amendment that changes the composition of the Independent Appeals Committees [Δημόσια Δήλωση για την τροπολογία που αλλάζει τη σύνθεση των Ανεξάρτητων Επιτροπών Προσφυγών]. http://nchr.gr/images/pdf/apofaseis/prosfuges_metanastes/Dimosia%20dilwsi%20EEDA.pdf. Accessed 21 January 2021
Hollis D (2012) The Oxford Guide to Treaties. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Human Rights Council (2017) Report of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants on his mission to Greece, UN Doc A/HRC/35/25/Add.2
Idriz N (2017) The EU-Turkey statement or the ‘refugee deal’: the extra-legal deal of extraordinary times? TMC Asser Institute Research Paper Series 6:1
Jennings R, Watts R (eds) (1996) Oppenheim’s International Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Kassoti E (2015) The Juridical Nature of Unilateral Acts of States in International Law. Brill, Leiden
Kassoti E, Louwerse L (2016) Like Ships in the Night? The ICJ and the CJEU at the Interface. Geneva Jean Monnet Working Papers 6/2016. https://www.ceje.ch/files/3314/6122/9300/Geneva_JMWP_06-Kassoti-Louwerse.pdf Accessed 13 January 2021
Klabbers J (1994) Informal Instruments before the European Court of Justice. CMLRev 31:997
Klabbers J (1996) The Concept of Treaty. In: International Law. Kluwer Law International, The Hague
Koenig N, Walter-Franke M (2017) One year on: What lessons from the EU-Turkey ‘deal’? http://www.delorsinstitut.de/2015/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/20170317_EU-Turkey-deal-one-year-on-NK-MW.pdf. Accessed 15 January 2021
Kolb R (2017) Good Faith in International Law. Hart Publishing, Oxford
Lehner R (2018) The EU‐Turkey‐'deal': Legal Challenges and Pitfalls. EBOR DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/imig.12462
Milanovic M, Wood M (2015) The Law and Politics of the Kosovo Advisory Opinion. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Moreno-Lax V (2020) EU External Migration Policy and the Protection of Human Rights, Report requested by the European Parliament’s subcommittee on Human Rights, PE603.512. http://www.epgencms.europarl.europa.eu/cmsdata/upload/8f2a144e-8e9c-4f73-9066-5c6d5a01040c/EU_External_Migration_Policy_and_the_Protection_of_Human_Rights.pdf. Accessed 15 January 2021
Orakhelashvili A (2008) The Interpretation of Acts and Rules in Public International Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Ott A (2017) EU-Turkey Cooperation in Migration Matters: A Game Changer in a Multi-layered Relationship? CLEER Paper 2017/4. http://www.asser.nl/media/4085/cleer17-4_web.pdf. Accessed 21 January 2021
Pellet A (2018) Canons of Interpretation under the Vienna Convention. In: Klinger J, Parkhomenko Y, Salonidis C (eds) Between the Lines of the Vienna Convention? Canons and Other Principles of Interpretation in Public International Law. Kluwer Law International, The Hague
Simma B (2013) Miscellaneous Thoughts on Subsequent Agreements and Subsequent Practice. In: Nolte G (ed) Treaties and Subsequent Practice. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Sondaal H H M (1988) Some Features of Dutch Treaty Practice. NYIL 19:179
Spijkerboer T (2016) Minimalist Reflections on Europe. Refugees and Law European Papers 1:533
Thürer D (2012) Soft Law. In: Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law. https://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1469?prd=EPIL. Accessed 13 January 2021
Vara J S (2019) Soft international agreements on migration cooperation with third countries: a challenge to democratic and judicial controls in the EU. In: Carrera S, Santos Vara J, Strik T (eds) Constitutionalising the External Dimensions of EU Migration Policies in Times of Crisis: Legality, Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights Reconsidered. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
Vidmar J (2012) Conceptualising Declarations of Independence in International Law. Oxford JLS 32:153
Vitiello D (2020) Legal Narratives of the EU External Action in the Field of Migration and Asylum: From the EU-Turkey Statement to the Migration Partnership Framework and Beyond. In: Mitsilegas V, Moreno-Lax V, Vavoula N (eds) Securitising Migration Flows: Deflection, Criminalisation and Challenges for Human Rights. Brill, Leiden
Waldock (1964) Third Report on the Law of Treaties. In: 1964 Yearbook of the ILC, Vol II, A/CN.4/167 and Add 1-3
Widdows K (1979) What is an agreement in international law? British Yearbook of International Law 50:117
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kassoti, E., Carrozzini, A. (2022). One Instrument in Search of an Author: Revisiting the Authorship and Legal Nature of the EU-Turkey Statement. In: Kassoti, E., Idriz, N. (eds) The Informalisation of the EU's External Action in the Field of Migration and Asylum. Global Europe: Legal and Policy Issues of the EU’s External Action, vol 1. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-487-7_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-487-7_11
Published:
Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague
Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-486-0
Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-487-7
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)