The draft protocol on the creation of the Court of Justice of Mercosur – a new milestone in the judicialization of regional integration law

  • Werner Miguel Kühn EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35 Belliard Street, Brussels B-1040, Belgium

Abstract

Several years have passed since Parlasur submitted a draft protocol to the Member States of Mercosur for approval, en­visaging the creation of a permanent Court of Justice for this South American integration system. Repeated calls for a reform of Mercosur’s dispute settlement mechanism have remained unheard ever since, as the national governments’ focus of at­tention has shifted to the economic and political difficulties this regional integration system had to face. The recent election of a new government in Argentina has raised hopes that the reform would be finally implemented. The present article will explain the reasons for the necessity of this reform. It will further provide an account of the key features of the draft protocol, which intends to remedy the shortcomings of the dispute settlement mechanism currently in place, while highlighting the influence European and Latin American integration law has had. The conclusion to be drawn is that the draft protocol con­stitutes a milestone in the judicialization of regional integration law and that a failure to make it legally binding would have to be considered a missed opportunity for regional economic integration.

Author Biography

Werner Miguel Kühn, EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35 Belliard Street, Brussels B-1040, Belgium

doctor of law; senior officer

References

  1. Rey Caro E. Crisis Institucional en el Mercosur – El Laudo No 1/12 del Tribunal Permanente de Revisión. Revista de la Facultad. 2013. Vol. 4, No. 2 Nueva Serie II. P. 27–38.
  2. Perotti A. El proyecto de creación de la Corte de Justicia del Mercosur: Estado de las negociaciones. Foro de Derecho Mercantil. Bogotá, 2009. No 25. P. 115–121.
  3. Karliuk M. The Eurasian Economic Union: An EU-like legal order in the post-Soviet space? WP BRP 53/LAW/2015, National Research University Higher School of Economics, 2015. P. 15–16.
  4. Ispolinov A. First judgements of the Court of the Eurasian Economic Community: Reviewing Private Rights in a New Regional Agreement. Legal issues of economic integration. 2013. Vol. 40. P. 225–246.
  5. Atela V., Gajate R., Ramírez L. Las retenciones a las exportaciones ante el ordenamiento jurídico del Mercosur. La CSJN va al Tribunal Permanente de Revisión. Análisis desde el Derecho Constitucional, de la Integración y del Internacional Económico. Anales de la Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Sociales. 2010. No. 7. P. 272–289.
  6. Chediak González J., Benítez Rodríguez P. Acerca de la competencia consultiva del Tribunal Permanente de Revisión del Mercosur y de la experiencia del poder judicial del Uruguay en la tramitación de opiniones consultivas. Revista de la Secretaría del Tribunal Permanente de Revisión. 2014. Vol. 2, No. 4. P. 83–91.
  7. Rey Caro E. Reforzamiento institucional del Mercosur: El Tribunal Permanente de Revisión. Anuario Argentino de Derecho Internacional. 2004. Vol. 13. P. 193–205.
  8. Ruíz Díaz Labrano R. Mercosur, necesidad de un tribunal de carácter supranacional. Azpilcueta. 1999. No. 14. P. 29–37.
  9. Scotti L., Klein Vieira L. La creación de un tribunal de justicia: Un paso ineludible para el fortalecimiento del Mercosur. In: Scotti L. Balances y perspectivas a 20 años de la constitución del Mercosur. Buenos Aires, 2013. P. 151–170.
  10. Bellocchio L. Resolución de Controversias en el Mercosur “Hacia una Corte de Justicia para el Bloque”. Congreso de Derecho Público “Democracia y Derechos”. P. 1–13.
  11. Peña-Pinon M. Une cour de justice pour le Mercosur? Vraies-fausses avancées vers une institutionnalisation renforcée. Revue québécoise de droit international. 2012. Vol. 25. P. 119–154.
  12. Deluca S. El Mercosur necesita su Maastricht. Pensar en Derecho. 2012. No. 1. P. 247–265.
  13. Perotti A. Algunos desafíos que presenta la constitución de un Tribunal de Justicia Comunitario. El Derecho. 2011. P. 8.
  14. Lenaerts K., Maselis I., Gutman K. EU Procedural Law. Oxford, 2014.
  15. Blockmans S., Kostanyan H., Vorobiov I. Towards a Eurasian Economic Union: The challenge of integration and unity. CEPS Special Report. No. 75.
  16. Sletnes O. The EFTA Surveillance Authority and the Surveillance of the EEA Agreement. In: The EEA and the EFTA Court. London, 2014.
  17. Dragneva R., Wolczuk K. Eurasian Economic Integration: Institutions, Promises and Faultlines. The Geopolitics of Eurasian Economic Integration, Special Report 19. LSE IDEAS, 2014. P. 8–15.
  18. Sasaki Otani M. A. El sistema de sanciones por incumplimiento en el ámbito de la Comunidad Andina. Anuario Mexicano de Derecho Internacional. 2012. Vol. XII. P. 301–337.
  19. Salazar Grande C. E., Ulate Chacón E. N. Manual de Derecho Comunitario Centroamericano. 2 nd ed. Salvador, 2013.
  20. Kühn W. M. El Tribunal Andino reconoceporprimeravez el concepto de responsabilidad extracontractual porlosactos de susórganoscontrarios al derecho comunitario. Política Internacional. July-September 2008.
  21. Außervertragliche Haftung der Andengemeinschaft – eine Urteilsbesprechung auseuroparechtlicher Sicht. European Law Reporter. October 2008.
  22. Salas G. Responsabilidad internacional del Mercosur. Responsabilidad internacional. Córdoba, 2008. P. 133–161.
  23. Perotti A. Elementos básicos para la constitución de un Tribunal de Justicia del Mercosur. La Ley. 2008. Vol. LXXII, No. 251.
  24. Borovikov E., Danilow I. B2B: Balancing the Court of the Eurasian Economic Union. The Moscow Times, published on 17 March 2015. URL: http://www.themoscowtimes.com/article/b2b-balancing-the-court-of-the-eurasian-economic-union/517551.html (date of access: 02.06.2016).
  25. History of the Eurasian integration. In: Eurasian Economic Integration: Facts and figures. 2015. Vol. 1. P. 6–9.
  26. Atilgan C., Baumann G., Brakel A., et al. The Eurasian Union – An integration project under the microscope. Konrad Adenauer Stiftung International Reports. 2014. Vol. 2. P. 8–48.
  27. Kühn W. M. Reflexiones sobre una posible convergencia regional con la participación de la ComunidadAndina y el Mercosur – Lecciones de la experience integracionistaeuropea. Política Internacional. July-September 2013. No. 109. P. 192.
  28. Danilov I. The Court of the Eurasian Economic Union. Gent, 31 October 2014.
Published
2018-10-16
Keywords: supranationality, procedural law, dispute settlement mechanisms, comparative law, Mercosur, Andean Com­munity, Central American Integration System, European Union, European Free Trade Association, Eurasian Economic Union
How to Cite
Kühn, W. M. (2018). The draft protocol on the creation of the Court of Justice of Mercosur – a new milestone in the judicialization of regional integration law. Journal of the Belarusian State University. International Relations, 2, 55-71. Retrieved from https://journals.bsu.by/index.php/internationalRelations/article/view/1317
Issue
No 2 (2017): Journal of the Belarusian State University. International Relations
Section
International Law

The authors who are published in this journal agree to the following:

  1. The authors retain copyright on the work and provide the journal with the right of first publication of the work on condition of license Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial. 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0).
  2. The authors retain the right to enter into certain contractual agreements relating to the non-exclusive distribution of the published version of the work (e.g. post it on the institutional repository, publication in the book), with the reference to its original publication in this journal.
  3. The authors have the right to post their work on the Internet (e.g. on the institutional store or personal website) prior to and during the review process, conducted by the journal, as this may lead to a productive discussion and a large number of references to this work. (See The Effect of Open Access.)