{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014705882352941176, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00980392156862745, 'mean_word_length': 4.768361581920904, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Exclusive or Shared Competence in the Common Commercial Policy : From Amsterdam to Nice

This paper is an analysis of the EC's Common Commercial Policy (CCP) since the Amsterdam Treaty until the Nice Treaty. It explains the CCP’s evolution since the 1996 Amsterdam Intergovernmental Conference, taking into account the most recent constitutional developments of division of competencies between the EC and its Member States. I conclude that the increasing demands at Nice for greater transparency and simplicity have not been met by the new version of Article 133 EC and that most EU Member States did not bring the scope of the EC’s commercial policy in line with the scope of international economic law as it evolved from the conclusion of the WTO Agreement. The European Parliament was the big loser in the new Article 133 EC since it was not given any new rights at the Nice summit. The Treaty of Nice, thus, only represents a small step forward in strengthening the EC’s capacity to act on the international sphere.