ABSTRACT
This chapter canvasses the positions of the intervening states in the Kadi II trial, before the Court of Justice. It does not feature the various positions of the intervening states before the General Court. The richness of the arguments of the appellants before the Court of Justice suggests that the analysis be focused solely on that phase. Certain common argumentative grounds shared by all the appellants, some states insisted on the necessity to recognize full immunity from jurisdictional review to European Union (EU) measures that blindly replicate the content of Security Council resolutions. The opinion that the contested regulation should enjoy full and absolute immunity from judicial review is the contention of the most categorical nature among those brought forward by the intervening states. Allowing states to act in areas that have long been devoted to the exclusive competence of the Union would be more than simply bypassing a discrete standoff that derives from incompatibility of two sets of obligations.
