Between rigid respect for international law and judicial deference: <i>Front Polisario I</i> and <i>Front Polisario II</i>

Among the many territorial or ethnic conflicts and unresolved issues of contemporary international politics, the dispute over Western Sahara rarely garners media attention. However, in October 2024, this silence was interrupted by two judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Front Polisario I and Front Polisario II . The CJEU declared that two international agreements between the EU and Morocco were invalid because they unlawfully extended their scope of application to the territory of Western Sahara, thereby violating key principles of international law: the right to self‐determination and the relative effect of treaties. This case note argues that both judgments are permeated by conflicting tendencies that the CJEU sought to reconcile. On one hand, the Court reaffirmed its commitment to international law and the legal practice of the United Nations, drawing far‐reaching legal consequences from these sources. On the other hand, judicial deference came to the fore, as the CJEU – mirroring EU political institutions – carefully avoided condemning or stigmatising Moroccan presence and actions in Western Sahara. This note argues that this deference is justifiable only if the EU's future external actions genuinely serve the interest of the people of Western Sahara, as mandated by the CJEU.