National Parliaments and International Agreements Concluded By the EU: Exploring the Legal Bumps in a Rocky Relationship

The temporary refusal of the Walloon government to sign the EU-Canada Comprehensive and Economic Trade Agreement in October 2016 triggered a discussion on the tension between effectiveness and legitimacy of EU external action and parliamentary oversight in international affairs. In particular, the question was raised if the involvement of the national parliaments of 28 Member States is desirable and/or required when concluding an international agreement to ensure democratic legitimacy. This discussion took place in parallel with important judicial developments, in particular with Opinion 2/15 of the Court of Justice which dealt with the question of whether the EU had the competence to conclude the EU-Singapore FTA on its own, or whether the Member States had to be taken on board by concluding a mixed agreement. Because mixed agreements need to be ratified by all the Member States, in most cases requiring the consent of the national parliaments, this paper will analyse some important legal questions related to the involvement of national parliaments in mixed agreements. First, the legal and political reasons to opt for the mixed formula are explored. In addition, the role of the European Parliament and the different national parliaments in the conclusion of mixed agreements is briefly analysed. Then, three legal questions or dilemmas related to national parliaments and mixed agreements are addressed; whether there is a duty on the national parliaments to ratify, what exactly do national parliaments need to ratify and what is their role in with regard to the provisional application of such agreements.