臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本文以歐盟法院就共同外交暨安全政策權限界線劃分之判決為研究對象，試圖釐清歐盟法院在歐盟機關間訴訟所適用之法理原則，並探討歐盟法院在共同外交暨安全政策權限界線劃分中所扮演的角色。本文首先探討歐盟法院於判例法中運用之機關平衡原則，靜態的觀察歐盟法院如何詮釋歐盟機關間的互動關係，並以動態的角度觀察歐盟機關平衡的演進。
本文探討歐盟法院就法律依據選擇問題所發展的判例法學，分析歐盟措施選擇條約法律依據之法學方法。共同外交暨安全政策曾與發展合作政策，以及自由、安全與司法的區域產生競合併導致歐盟機關間之訴訟。在發展合作政策中的訴訟中，本文發現歐盟法院認識到發展與安全議題之間的關聯，並將發展合作權限之範疇擴大，相對地限制了共同外交暨安全政策。
於自由、安全與司法的區域之機關間訴訟中，本文發現歐盟法院一改過去對發展合作政策較為寬容的態度，轉向維護共同外交暨安全政策權限的完整。本文的結論是里斯本條約前後，共同外交暨安全政策皆維持決策程序和權限性質上的獨特性，但里斯本條約改變了共同外交暨安全政策與其他權限之間的法律關係，促使歐盟法院轉往權限平衡的方向發展，從擴大共同體權限的路徑轉向維持各權限之完整。雖然歐盟法院轉向權限平衡的路徑，但透過操作機關平衡原則，歐盟法院強化了歐洲議會在共同外交暨安全政策決策程序中的地位。

This thesis discusses case law of the competence regarding to the delimitation of Common Foreign and Security Policy(CFSP) established by Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The purpose of this thesis is clarifying the legal principles used by CJEU and the role of CJEU in the institutional litigation of European Union. First, this thesis explores the principle of institutional balance from two aspects. One is the static observation of how CJEU interprets institutional relationship between EU institutions, and the other one is the dynamic observation of the evolution of institutional balance. Second, this thesis explores the case law regarding to the choice of legal basis, and discusses the choice of legal basis of EU measures.
In this thesis, we found that court cases of institutional litigation of CFSP overlapped with Development policy.and Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ). This thesis found that CJEU recognized the nexsus between security and development then broadened the Development policy competence. With regard to AFSJ overlapped with CFSP cases, the approach of CJEU turned to balance the competence and narrowed AFSJ competence.
CFSP remain as a sui generis competence before or after Lisbon treaty. In this thesis we found Lisbon treaty changed the relationship with other community competences and CJEU turned to balance of competence approach to preserve the integrity of CFSP competence. Although CJEU narrowed the community competence, CJEU use principle of institution balance to enhance the European Parliament’s role in CFSP decision procedure.

第一章 緒 論 1
壹、研究緣起與問題意識 1
一、 研究緣起 1
二、 問題意識 4
三、 主要研究問題 9
四、 研究重要性 9
五、 章節內容概述 10
六、 研究方法 11
七、 研究架構 12
八、 研究假設 12
九、 研究對象 12
貳、 相關理論回顧與文獻探討 14
一、 整合理論回顧 14
二、 歐盟法院相關文獻回顧 17
三、 歐盟對外權限之發展 20
第二章 機關平衡與法律依據選擇 25
壹、 機關平衡的概念 25
一、 概論 25
二、 歐盟機關平衡的發展 27
貳、案例法學中的法律依據選擇方法 28
一、 權限範圍的判斷 29
二、 事實的認定 32
第三章 共同外交暨安全政策之法律與制度分析 39
壹、 共同外交暨安全政策之條約規範 39
一、 共同外交暨安全政策之目的 39
二、 共同外交暨安全政策決策機關與程序 41
三、 共同外交暨安全政策措施之法律效果 48
四、 共同外交暨安全政策之性質 51
貳、 共同外交與安全政策與共同政策之區隔 55
一、 里斯本條約之前 55
二、 里斯本條約之後 59
第四章 發展合作政策與共同外交暨安全政策的競合 61
壹、 發展合作政策的法律與制度分析 61
一、 緒論 61
二、 發展合作政策的性質 62
三、 發展合作政策的政策目標與立法程序 64
四、 發展合作政策的邊界 66
貳、 菲律賓邊界任務案與ECOWAS案 67
一、 安全與發展鏈結 67
二、 菲律賓邊界任務案 69
三、 ECOWAS案 74
四、 判決評析 81
第五章 自由、安全與司法的區域與共同外交暨安全政策的競合 83
壹、 自由、安全與司法的區域制度分析 83
一、 緒論 83
二、 簡析AFSJ 84
三、 AFSJ的對外領域 86
貳、 AFSJ與共同外交暨安全政策的權限劃分 90
一、 限制性措施的劃分:C-130/10 Parliament v Council 90
二、 境外刑事司法領域 100
三、 判決評析 109
第六章、結論 112
參考文獻 116
附件一 判決概覽表 122

壹、中文參考文獻（依姓氏筆畫順序排列）
一、專書與專書論文
1.王玉葉. (2003). 歐洲法院. In 黃偉峰 (Ed.), 歐洲聯盟的組織與運作 (增訂二版 ed., pp. 343-413). 台北: 五南圖書出版股份有限公司.
2.吳志光. (2015). 歐盟法院的訴訟類型. In 洪德欽 and 陳淳文 (Eds.), 歐盟法之基礎原則與實務發展(上). 國立臺灣大學: 國立臺灣大學出版中心.
3.洪德欽. (2015). 歐盟法的淵源. In 洪德欽與陳淳文 (Ed.), 歐盟法之基礎原則與實務發展（上）: 國立臺灣大學出版中心.
4.苑倚曼、邱崇宇. (2015). 簡析歐洲聯盟與非加太國家雙邊關系的趨勢與挑戰. In 張亞中 (Ed.), 歐洲聯盟的全球角色 (pp. 566-615). 台北: 國立台灣大學出版中心.
5.張亞中 (Ed.) (2015). 歐盟的全球政治角色：目標與限制 (一版 ed.). 台北: 國立台灣大學出版中心.
6.張亞中. (2003). 歐洲聯盟的演進. In 黃偉峰 (Ed.), 歐洲聯盟的組織與運作 (增訂二版 ed., pp. 30-31). 台北: 五南圖書出版股份有限公司.
7.張福昌. (2011). 歐盟 司法與內政合作 反恐議題解析. 台北: 臺灣商務印書.
8.陳麗娟. (1996). 歐洲共同體法導論. 台北: 五南圖書出版有限公司.
9.盧倩儀. (2003). 歐洲整合理論. In 黃偉峰 (Ed.), 歐洲聯盟的組織與運作 (增訂二版 ed., pp. 83-105). 台北: 五南圖書出版股份有限公司.
二、期刊論文
1.甘逸驊. (2016). 里斯本條約架構下的歐盟安全政策合作之嘗試. 東吳政治學報, 34(2), 61-107.
2.吳建輝. (2012). 歐盟對外經貿法之發展：法律與政策變遷. 歐美研究, 四十二卷(第四期), 753-839.
3.吳萬寶. (2011). 論歐盟共同外交暨防衛政策與境外任務. 歐洲國際評論, 七, 1-27.
4.周旭華. (2000). 歐洲共同體對外貿易關係權力劃分問題. 美歐季刊, 14(4), 433-470.
5.黃偉峰. (2003). 歐盟政治研究中理論方法之分類與比較. 人文及社會科學及勘, 十五卷(第四期), 539-594.
三、學位論文
1.吳建輝. (2004). 從歐洲法院與會員國法院的互動看法院在區域統合的角色. (碩士論文), 國立台灣大學, 台北.
2.楊華鴻. (2002). 歐洲共同體司法制度之研究-以歐洲法院之發展為中心. (碩士), 淡江大學,
3.葉力豪. (2008). 歐洲法院組織及任務之研究. (碩士), 南華大學,

貳、英文參考文獻（依英文字母順序排列）
一、英文專書與專書論文
1.Baere, G. D. (2008). Constitutional Principles of EU External Relations. United States: Oxford University Press.
2.Cappelletti, Mauro, Seccombe, M., and Weiler, J. (Eds.). (1986). Integration through Law: Europe and the American Federal Experience. Vol. 1, Methods, Tools and Institutions. Berlin: De Gruyter.
3.Dashwood, A., and Hillion, C. (2000). The General law of E.C. external relations. London: Sweet and Maxwell.
4.Eeckhout, P. (2004). External relations of the European Union : legal and constitutional foundations. New York: Oxford University Press.
5.Hinarejos, A. (2009). Judicial Control in the European Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
6.Hoffmann, S. (2008). International Relations of the European Union. In. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Retrieved from http://sk.sagepub.com/navigator/international-relations-of-the-european-union. doi:10.4135/9781446262191
7.Keukeleire, S., and Delreux, T. (2014). The Foreign Policy of the European Union (2 ed.): Palgrave.
8.Keukeleire, S., and MacNaughtan, J. (2008). The Foreign Policy of the European Union. New York: PALGRAVE MACMILLAN.
9.Möller, C. (2013). The Three Branches A Comparative Model of Separation of Powers: Oxford University Press.
10.Schütze, R. (2014). Foreign Affairs and the EU Constitution: Selected Essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11.Shapiro, M., and Stone Sweet, A. (2002). On Law, Politics, and Judicialization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
12.Stone Sweet, A. (1999). Judicialization and the Construction of Governance. Comparative Political Studies, 32(2), 147-184. doi:10.1177/0010414099032002001
13.Stone Sweet, A. (2004). The judicial Construction of Europe: Oxford university press.
14.Tridimas, T. (2006). The General Principles of EU Law (1 ed.): Oxford. Oxford university press.
15.Wessel, R. A. (1999). The European Union''s Foreign and Security Policy A Legal Institutional Perspective: Kluwer Law International.
二、英文期刊論文
1.Alter, K. J. (1996). The European Court''s political power. West European Politics, 19(3), 458-487. doi:10.1080/01402389608425146
2.Alter, K. J. (1998). Who are the "Masters of the Treaty"?: European Governments and the European Court of Justice. International Organization, 52(1), 121-147.
3.Bartels, L. (2007). The Trade and Development Policy of the European Union. The European Journal of International Law, 18(5), 715-756.
4.Bieber, R. (1984). The Settlement of Institutional Conflicts on the Basis of Article 4 of the EEC Treaty. Common Market Law Review, 21(3), 509.
5.Blockmans, S., and Wesel, R. A. (2009). The European Union and Crisis Mangement: Will the Lisbon Treaty Make the EU More Effective ? Journal of Conflic and Security Law, 14(NO.2), 265-308.
6.Brkan, M. (2011). The Role of the European Court of Justice in the Field of Common Foreign and Security Policy After the Treaty of Lisbon: New Challenges for the Future. In P. J. Cardwell (Ed.), EU External Relations Law and Policy in the Post-Lisbon Era (pp. 97-115). The Hague: T. M. C. Asser Press.
7.Burley, A.-M., and Mattli, W. (1993). Europe Before the Court: A Political Theory of Legal Integration. International Organization, 47(1), 41-76. doi:10.1017/S0020818300004707
8.Carrubba, C. J., Gabel, M., and Hankla, C. (2008). Judicial Behavior under Political Constraints: Evidence from the European Court of Justice. American Political Science Review, 102(4), 435-452. doi:10.1017/S0003055408080350
9.Clifford, J. C. (2003). The European Court of Justice, Democracy, and Enlargement. European Union Politics, 4(1), 75-100. doi:10.1177/1465116503004001582
10.Costa, O. (2003). The European Court of Justice and democratic control in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy, 10(5), 740-761. doi:10.1080/1350176032000124069
11.Crombez, C. (1997). The Co-Decision Procedure in the European Union. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 22(1), 97-119. doi:10.2307/440293
12.Cullen, H., and Charlesworth, A. (1999). Diplomacy by other means: The use of legal basis litigation as a political strategy by the European Parliament and Member States. Common Market Law Review, 36(6), 1243-1270. doi:10.1023/A:1018797131303
13.Dashwood, A. (2008). Article 47 TEU and the relationship between first and second pillar competences. In A. Dashwood and M. Maresceau (Eds.), Law and Practice of EU External Relations: Salient Features of a Changing Landscape (pp. 70-103). New York: Cambridge University Press.
14.Duffield, M., and Donini, A. (2014). Global Governance and the New Wars: The Merging of Development and Security: Zed Books.
15.Engbrink, S. D. (2017). The European Union’s External Action: Coherence in European Union Foreign Policy Despite Separate Legal Orders? Legal Issues of Economic Integration, 44(no.1), 5-48.
16.Erkelens, L., and Blockmans, S. (2012). Setting up the European External Action Service: an act of institutional balance. European Constitutional Law Review, 8(2), 246-279. doi:10.1017/S1574019612000168
17.Garrett, G. (1992). International Cooperation and Institutional Choice: The European Community''s Internal Market. International Organization, 46(2), 533-560.
18.Garrett, G., Kelemen, R. D., and Schulz, H. (1998). The European Court of Justice, National Governments, and Legal Integration in the European Union. International Organization, 52(1), 149-176. doi:10.1162/002081898550581
19.Golub, J. (1996). The politics of judicial discretion: Rethinking the interaction between national courts and the Eurpean court of justice. West European Politics, 19(2), 360-385. doi:10.1080/01402389608425138
20.Hass, E. B. (1961). International Integration: The European and the Universal Process. International Organization, 15(3), 366-392.
21.Hettne, B. (2010). Development and Security: Origins and Future. Security Dialogue, 41(1), 31-52. doi:10.1177/0967010609357040
22.Itzcovich, G. (2012). Legal Order, Legal Pluralism, Fundamental Principles. Europe and Its Law in Three Concepts. European Law Journal, 18(3), 358-384. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0386.2012.00604.x
23.Jacqué, J.-P. (2004). The Principle of Institutional Balance. Common Market Law Review, 41, 383-491.
24.Kardasheva, R. (2009). The Power to Delay: The European Parliament''s Influence in the Consultation Procedure*. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 47(2), 385-409. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5965.2009.00809.x
25.Koutrakos, P. (2008). Legal Basis and Delimitation of Competence in EU External Relations. In EU Foreign Relations Law - Constitutional Fundamentals (pp. 171-198): Hart Publishing.
26.Lenaerts, K. (1990). Constitutionalism and the Many Faces of Federalism. The American Journal of Comparative Law, 38(2), 205-263. doi:10.2307/840100
27.Lenaerts, K., and Verhoeven, A. (2001). Institutional Balance as a Guarantee for Democracy in EU Governance. In C. Joerges and R. Dehousse (Eds.), Good Governance in Europe''s Integrated Market (pp. 47): Oxford.
28.McCown, M. (2003). The European Parliament before the bench: ECJ precedent and EP litigation strategies. Journal of European Public Policy, 10(6), 974-995. doi:10.1080/1350176032000148397
29.Merket, H. (2012). The European External Action Service and the Nexus between CFSP/CSDP and Development Cooperation. European Foreign Affair Review, 17(no.4), 625-652.
30.Merket, H. (2013). The EU and the security-development nexus: Bridging the legal divide (Vol. 18).
31.Mitrany, D. (1948). The Functional Approach to World Organization. International Affairs, 24(3), 350-363.
32.Moravcsik, A. (1991). Negotiating the Single European Act: national interests and conventional statecraft in the European Community. International Organization, 45(1).
33.Piris, J.-C. (2010). The Lisbon Treaty A Legal and Political Analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.
34.Prechal, S. (1998). Institutional Balance: A Fragile Principle with Uncertain Contents. In N. M. Blokker, T. Heukels, and M. M. T. A. Brus (Eds.), The European Union After Amsterdam (pp. 280): Kluwer Law International.
35.Rosas, A. (2015). EU External Relation: Exclusive Competence Revisited. Fordham International Law Journal, 38(4), 1074-1096.
36.Rosén, G. (2014). A Budgetary Advance The European Parliament’s Growing Role in EU Foreign Policy. ARENA Working Paper 9.
37.Vooren, B. V., and Wessel, R. A. (2014). EU External Relations Law Texts,Cases and Marterials (Vol. Cambridge University Press): Cambridge.
38.Walker, N. (2004). In Search of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice: A Constitutional Odyssey. In N. Walker (Ed.), Europe''s Area of Freedom, Security, and Justice: Oxford University Press.
39.Wasserfallen, F. (2010). The judiciary as legislator? How the European Court of Justice shapes policy-making in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy, 17(8), 1128-1146. doi:10.1080/13501763.2010.513559
40.Wessel, R. A. (2004). Good Governance and EU Foreign Security and Defence Policy. CES Working Paper, No. 2/04(Enschede: University of Twente, Centre for European Studies (CES).).
41.Wessel, R. A. (2008). The EU as a Party to International Agreement: Shared Competences, Mixed Responsibilities In A. Dashwood and M. Maresceau (Eds.), Law and Practice of EU External Relations. New York: Cambridge University Press.
42.Wessel, R. A. (2009). The Dynamics of the European Union Legal Order:An Increasingly Coherent Framework of Action and Interpretation. European Constitutional Law Review(5), 117-142.
43.Wessel, R. A. (2015). The legal dimension of European foreign policy. Paper presented at the Handbook of European Foreign Policy, London.
44.Wessel, R. A., and Hertog, L. d. (2013). EU Foreign, Security and Defence Policy: A Competence-Responsibility Gap? In M. D. Evans and P. Koutrakos (Eds.), The International Responsibility of the European Union: European and International Perspectives: Hart Publishing.
45.Witte, B. D. (2000). Institutional Principles: A Special Category of General Principles of EC Law. In U. Bernitz and J. Nergelius (Eds.), General Principles of European Community Law (1 ed., pp. 143-159). Hague: Kluwer law International.
46.Youngs, R. (2008). Fusing Security and Development: Just Another Euro‐platitude? Journal of European Integration, 30(3), 419-437. doi:10.1080/07036330802142079

三、網路文獻
1.Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (2015), SIPRI Yearbook 2015. Retrieved form: https://www.sipri.org/yearbook/2015