European Political Cooperation: 1 July 1987 - 31 December 1988: I. Recognition

Renaud Dehousse¹

European Political Cooperation has become known as the joint foreign policy of the now twelve Member States of the European Community. It manifests itself through a variety of documents: official declarations, speeches delivered on behalf of the Twelve in international fora, answers to questions by members of the European Parliament, etc. The range of topics treated in those documents is generally underestimated for the documents themselves are not easily accessible.

The purpose of this regular survey, which will appear once a year, is not to give the positions assumed by the Twelve on all international issues, since this is already provided for in the European Political Cooperation Documentation Bulletin, edited by the European University Institute in collaboration with the Institut für Europäische Politik, which publishes all public domain documents on issues covered by EPC.² Nor does this contribution purport to offer an overview of the activities of the Twelve in the framework of political cooperation.

The focus of this survey is more limited: Our ambition is to report the opinions expressed jointly by the Member States of the European Community on matters of international law or on the legal dimension of given international issues, since those statements, which express the opinio iuris of the Community and its Member States, represent evidence of an emerging "state" practice. Attention will also be paid to the institutional evolution of European Political Cooperation.

I. Recognition

1. Cyprus

On 27 September 1987, the Danish Foreign Minister, Mr Ellemann-Jensen, speaking on behalf of the Twelve at the 42nd session of the UN General Assembly, reiterated their refusal to recognize the state established in the zone occupied by Turkish forces:

... we reaffirm our strong backing for the independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and unity of the Republic of Cyprus in accordance with the relevant United Nations resolutions. We stand fully by our previous statements and reject any action which purports to establish an independent state within Cyprus. We also express our support to the Secretary-General in his mission of good offices and ask those concerned to cooperate with him in the search for a solution to this problem of international concern and to refrain from words or actions that might adversely affect the prospects of a solution by peaceful means.³

2. Cambodia

In reply to question No. H-1034-88 by Mr Iversen, MEP, who invited them to recognize the Hun Sen government, established after the Vietnamese invasion, and to break relations with the Pol Pot regime, the Foreign Ministers stated on 9 March 1988:

The Twelve are following closely the recent developments in Cambodia. They have expressed their position on many occasions. They have also made clear their support for the courageous initiatives of Prince Sihanouk. In their statement during the UN General Assembly last year they said: "The present regime in Phnom Penh has no claim to legitimacy. However, the Twelve have no intention of contributing to the re-establishment of the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia. We share the collective abhorrence felt by the world community at the terrible abuses inflicted on the Cambodian people by Pol Pot and [the] Khmer rouge. But this provides no justification for Vietnam's illegal occupation and its imposition of an illegitimate regime."⁴ No partner has diplomatic relations either with Pol Pot or the resistance coalition.⁵

3. Baltic States

In her question No. H-175/88, Ms Boot, MEP, asked the Foreign Ministers in what way they had raised the Baltic question at the Vienna CSCE Conference. She noted that in her view the problem should be treated differently from the issue of other nationalities in the Soviet Union, since the majority of Western States had not recognized Soviet annexation.

In her reply, Ms Adam-Schwaetzer, President-in-Office of the Foreign Ministers, underlined that

The problem of the Baltic States as such and the question of other nationalities in the Soviet Union have not been explicitly raised by the Twelve in Vienna... The Twelve have discussed the situation in the Baltic States on several occasions since the beginning of the year. It was agreed that there is no reason for a change of mind on the annexation of the Baltic States by the Soviet Union and that political developments in these states will continue to be followed closely.
But I would add that there are two things we need to bear in mind: the legal situation - on this, as I have just said, the position of the Twelve has not changed - and the situation of the people in these areas. We are trying to ease the latter situation by means of a satisfactory final document at the current follow-up conference in Vienna.⁶

4. Palestine

Also of interest is the careful wording of the statement adopted on 21 November 1988 after the proclamation of the State of Palestine by the Palestinian National Council:

The Twelve attach particular importance to the decisions adopted by the Palestinian National Council in Algiers, which reflect the will of the Palestinian people to assert their national identity and which include positive steps towards the peaceful settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
They welcome in this respect the acceptance by the Palestinian National Council of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 as a basis for an international conference, which implies acceptance of the right of existence and of security for all states of the region, including Israel. Respect for this principle goes together with that of justice for the peoples of the region, in particular the right of self-determination of the Palestinian people with all that this implies. For the Twelve it constitutes a necessary condition for the establishment of just, lasting and comprehensive peace in the Near East, as they have repeatedly asserted since the Declaration of Venice. The Twelve also express their satisfaction that the Palestine National Council has explicitly condemned terrorism.
The Twelve appeal to all parties concerned, while abstaining from any act of violence and any action which could further aggravate the tense situation in the Near East, to take this opportunity and contribute to the peace process in a positive way with a view to a just, global and lasting solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This solution can only be achieved through an international peace conference under the auspices of the United Nations, which represents the suitable framework for the necessary negotiations between the parties directly concerned.⁷

Later on, in reply to a question by Mr Dessylas, MEP, the President-in-Office of the Council of Ministers confirmed that "(t)he question of the granting of recognition to the Palestinian State has legal and political implications which have not yet been discussed in the Political Cooperation framework."⁸

1 European University Institute.

2 This publication being by far the most exhaustive source of documentation on EPC, it will be our main reference. Unless otherwise indicated, all documents quoted in this section come from this source.

3 EPC Bulletin, Doc. 87/333, at 112. The same views were expressed in a number of answers to questions of members of the European Parliament; see, e.g., Documents 87/481 and 88/087.

4 Statement at the Plenary Session of the UNGA on 13 October 1987, EPC Bulletin, Doc. 87/370.

5 EPC Bulletin, Doc. 88/063.

6 14 June 1988, EPC Bulletin, Doc. 88/150.

7 EPC Bulletin, Doc. 88/447.

8 Doc. 88/512, 13 December 1988.

© 1990-2004 European Journal of International Law
All comments and suggestions should be sent to webmaster
This site is part of the Academy of European Law online, a joint partnership of the Jean Monnet Center at NYU School of Law and the Academy of European Law at the European University Institute.
This file was last modified: Thursday, April 23, 1998 01:03PM