'Where appropriate': A dangling modifier, or a reduced clause?

Hello, evryone

This is a sentence taken from the EU Parliament's briefing on the protection from dumped and subsidised imports, which is issued on the official EU Parliamentary website—

Parliament's amendments as regards compliance with social and environmental standards will be taken into account, to the extent that when an appropriate representative country has to be chosen to construct undistorted costs and prices, ‘preference shall be given, where appropriate, to countries with an adequate level of social and environmental protection' . 

Is where appropriate in this sentence a reduced clause or a dangling modifier?

Would you please share your opinions?

Can 'instead of' be followed by a prepositional phrase? I find in the dictionary that 'instead' is an adverb while 'instead of' is an preposition. Grammar books say that prepositions should be followed by noun phrases, pronouns, or gerunds. However the following excerpt puzzles me, which is from a passage written by L. G. Alexander, a prominent British educator in teaching English: All at once it was night. The track was grassy and even in daylight showed up hardly at all against the moor, so it was difficult to keep on it now. If only I had been a smoker with matches always to hand, or if my torch had been in my pocket [*instead of in the suitcase,*] I could have walked with more assurance. The part I bracket is where I want your attention. Perhaps I would say 'instead of the suitcase', but is 'instead of in the suitcase' proper grammar-wise?

Relative clause or coordinative clause? Could you please help me analyse these two sentences? The first one is from the essay Finding Fossil Man by Robin Place— These legends are useful because they can tell us something about migrations of people who lived long ago, but none could write down what they did. Is "none could write down what they did" a relative clause or coordinate clause? The second one is from The French Foreign Legion by Edgar O'Ballance— For some time Paris had been swarming with countless other discharged foreign soldiers who had served in the French army at various times under the Empire and the Republic, many of whom were in needy circumstances and open to suggestion, whilst others were openly looking for trouble and always ready to take part in any disturbance. Is "whilst others were openly looking for trouble and always ready to take part in any disturbance" a relative clause or coordinate clause? Would you please share your ideas?Another one from The Story of the French Foreign Legion: The Royal Ordinance decreed that there should be a legion formed of foreigners for service outside France, which was to be called the ‘Foreign Legion’ and it was to be part of the French army and under the control of the War Minister. 'And it was to be part of the French army and under the control of the War Minister' follows immediately, even without a comma, a preceding non-restrictive relative clause 'which was to be called the "Foreign Legion"'. Is it proper grammar-wise to join two different sorts of clauses, like a relative clause and a coordinate clause in this way?