ABSTRACT

Over the past few years, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has issued several judgments on the international agreements between the European Union (EU) and Morocco and their territorial scope, including the non-self-governing territory of Western Sahara. This study examines cases C-104/16 P and C-266/16 concerning, respectively, the Agricultural Agreement and the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the EU and the Kingdom of Morocco, both of which have revealed a tug-of-war between the judiciary and the legislative and executive powers of the EU regarding the Western Sahara conflict. While the highest European legal authority stated that Western Sahara has a separate and distinct status from Morocco, the Parliament, Commission, and Council have persisted in their long-standing position of viewing the conflict as a result of postcolonial relations between France and Spain, on the one hand, and the Alawite kingdom, on the other. This article analyses the two cases at both the procedural and political levels, in addition to their consequences with regard to the positioning of the actors involved to show that, in the case of the Western Sahara conflict, EU economic and geopolitical interests have prevailed over the application of European and international law.

摘要

过去几年，欧盟法院（CJEU）就欧盟（EU）与摩洛哥之间的国际协定及其领土范围（包括西撒哈拉非自治领土）作出了多项判决. 本研究审查了分别涉及欧盟与摩洛哥王国之间的农业协定和渔业伙伴关系协定的 C-104/16 P 和 C-266/16 案件，这两个案件都揭示了欧盟与摩洛哥王国之间的拉锯战。欧盟关于西撒哈拉冲突的司法和立法和行政权力。虽然欧洲最高法律当局表示西撒哈拉与摩洛哥具有不同的地位，但议会、委员会、和理事会一直坚持他们的长期立场，即一方面将冲突视为法国和西班牙之间的后殖民关系，另一方面是阿拉维王国之间的后殖民关系。本文从程序和政治层面分析了这两个案例，以及它们对所涉行为者定位的影响，以表明在西撒哈拉冲突案例中，欧盟的经济和地缘政治利益高于欧洲和国际法的适用。