The euro area has several problems. Nevertheless, there is not only strong political support for it, but also most companies back the euro or at least do not complain. It is worthwhile to analyse which companies do profit from the euro and why most others do not oppose it. Exporting companies in the northern countries of the euro zone profit from the euro and the policies to save the common currency even if their countries and people suffer. Other companies, especially in the southern member countries, suffer themselves but fear a break-up of the euro area even more than its continuance. For small companies it is not worthwhile to lobby for other policies, while the companies worst affected already ceased to exist. All companies have to come to terms with the euro but should also prepare for the possible end of the euro zone. Companies in other European countries reconsider whether they really want their countries to join the euro area.
{"title":"The Euro from a Business Perspective","authors":"A. Dilger","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2948357","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2948357","url":null,"abstract":"The euro area has several problems. Nevertheless, there is not only strong political support for it, but also most companies back the euro or at least do not complain. It is worthwhile to analyse which companies do profit from the euro and why most others do not oppose it. Exporting companies in the northern countries of the euro zone profit from the euro and the policies to save the common currency even if their countries and people suffer. Other companies, especially in the southern member countries, suffer themselves but fear a break-up of the euro area even more than its continuance. For small companies it is not worthwhile to lobby for other policies, while the companies worst affected already ceased to exist. All companies have to come to terms with the euro but should also prepare for the possible end of the euro zone. Companies in other European countries reconsider whether they really want their countries to join the euro area.","PeriodicalId":296326,"journal":{"name":"International Institutions: European Union eJournal","volume":"106 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124954904","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Many empirical studies of European public administration and public management are case studies. In light of a trend towards more quantitative research and the rise of behavioural public administration, this chapter makes an argument for the continuity of case study research, as it is often better equipped to deal with macro-level phenomena and processes. This chapter then ventures into the practice of case study research by European scholars, providing information concerning the nature of 103 case studies published by Governance and Public Administration in 2001, 2006, 2010 and 2015. Based on this review and recent developments in case study methodology, we provide some suggestions for case study designs, including theoretically informed case selection, competitive theory testing and more sensitivity to “time” and its various manifestations.
{"title":"The Case of Case Study Research in Europe: Practice and Potential","authors":"M. Haverland, R. van der Veer","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2884003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2884003","url":null,"abstract":"Many empirical studies of European public administration and public management are case studies. In light of a trend towards more quantitative research and the rise of behavioural public administration, this chapter makes an argument for the continuity of case study research, as it is often better equipped to deal with macro-level phenomena and processes. This chapter then ventures into the practice of case study research by European scholars, providing information concerning the nature of 103 case studies published by Governance and Public Administration in 2001, 2006, 2010 and 2015. Based on this review and recent developments in case study methodology, we provide some suggestions for case study designs, including theoretically informed case selection, competitive theory testing and more sensitivity to “time” and its various manifestations.","PeriodicalId":296326,"journal":{"name":"International Institutions: European Union eJournal","volume":"39 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133230882","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This discussion paper considers the pertinence of Independent Fiscal Institutions (IFIs) to supranational contexts, along with the structural and political challenges that this transposition may entail. IFIs are typically formed to address fiscal issues in national or subnational domains, but the European Fiscal Board (EFB) provides a novel case to revisit the structure of IFIs – now in a supranational context that comprises the member states of the EU. As this paper observes, there are inherent challenges to the transposition of supranational contexts due to different fiscal situations, dissimilar fiscal priorities, and contrasting fiscal progressions. Furthermore, issues of enforcement and legitimacy, also relevant to national IFIs, manifest themselves in altered forms. The findings of the paper further suggest that the EFB is a step in forging fiscal cohesion over-and-above an extant monetary union.
{"title":"Independent Fiscal Institutions at the Supranational Level: The European Fiscal Board","authors":"Usman W. Chohan","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2883550","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2883550","url":null,"abstract":"This discussion paper considers the pertinence of Independent Fiscal Institutions (IFIs) to supranational contexts, along with the structural and political challenges that this transposition may entail. IFIs are typically formed to address fiscal issues in national or subnational domains, but the European Fiscal Board (EFB) provides a novel case to revisit the structure of IFIs – now in a supranational context that comprises the member states of the EU. As this paper observes, there are inherent challenges to the transposition of supranational contexts due to different fiscal situations, dissimilar fiscal priorities, and contrasting fiscal progressions. Furthermore, issues of enforcement and legitimacy, also relevant to national IFIs, manifest themselves in altered forms. The findings of the paper further suggest that the EFB is a step in forging fiscal cohesion over-and-above an extant monetary union.","PeriodicalId":296326,"journal":{"name":"International Institutions: European Union eJournal","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121477658","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2016-12-01DOI: 10.5553/HYIEL/266627012016004001020
Péter Smuk
The European Parliament and the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No. 2004/2003 on the regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding only in the end of 2003. Reforming the regulation was on the agenda for several years before the new regulation on party funding was finally adopted in 2014. In this paper I intend to present the new regulation (Regulation No 1141/2014 of 22 October 2014), focusing on selected aspects: the justification for funding and the definition of European political party; next, I shall give an overview and structured analysis of the constitutional issues of the definition of political parties and their funding by the European Union. Since political finances are considered to be basic elements of the fundamental principle of democracy, which is to be achieved on both the national and the supranational level, it is worth comparing the new regulation to the principles and standards established by the Council of Europe on the regulation of political parties.
{"title":"The Concept of the European Political Party","authors":"Péter Smuk","doi":"10.5553/HYIEL/266627012016004001020","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5553/HYIEL/266627012016004001020","url":null,"abstract":"The European Parliament and the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No. 2004/2003 on the regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding only in the end of 2003. Reforming the regulation was on the agenda for several years before the new regulation on party funding was finally adopted in 2014. \u0000 \u0000In this paper I intend to present the new regulation (Regulation No 1141/2014 of 22 October 2014), focusing on selected aspects: the justification for funding and the definition of European political party; next, I shall give an overview and structured analysis of the constitutional issues of the definition of political parties and their funding by the European Union. Since political finances are considered to be basic elements of the fundamental principle of democracy, which is to be achieved on both the national and the supranational level, it is worth comparing the new regulation to the principles and standards established by the Council of Europe on the regulation of political parties.","PeriodicalId":296326,"journal":{"name":"International Institutions: European Union eJournal","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114467461","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2016-11-03DOI: 10.1017/9781316779286.014
N. Lavranos
This chapter focuses on how the European Commission and the Member States are reasserting their control in the new EU investment treaties. In addition, the analysis also looks at the efforts of the European Commission to reassert control over existing BITs of the Member States. It also tries to forecast how the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) would react to these reforms.
{"title":"How the European Commission and the EU Member States are Reasserting Their Control over Their Investment Treaties and ISDS Rules","authors":"N. Lavranos","doi":"10.1017/9781316779286.014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316779286.014","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter focuses on how the European Commission and the Member States are reasserting their control in the new EU investment treaties. In addition, the analysis also looks at the efforts of the European Commission to reassert control over existing BITs of the Member States. It also tries to forecast how the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) would react to these reforms.","PeriodicalId":296326,"journal":{"name":"International Institutions: European Union eJournal","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116836507","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
German Abstract: Das Vereinigte Konigreich wird die Europaische Union verlassen. Vollziehen wird sich der Trennungsprozess im Rahmen von sehr vielen komplexen Verhandlungen. Der Beitrag analysiert die Verhandlungssituation aus der Warte der Beteiligten und schlagt ein internationales, konfliktspezifisches Mediationsverfahren als Instrument eines effizienten Prozessmanagements vor.English Abstract: The United Kingdom will leave the European Union. Brexit will involve many complex negotiations. This paper analyses the negotiation position of the parties (UK, EU, Member States) based on a set of four key negotiation factors (agreement options, non-agreement alternatives, interests, perceptions). It also analyses the effect of triggering the formal withdrawal process under Article 50 TEU on the negotiation dynamic. The paper proposes an international, tailor-made mediation process as a means to efficiently steer the withdrawal negotiations and help the parties agree on a value-preserving ‘withdrawal agreement’.
摘要:Das Vereinigte Konigreich wid die Europaische Union verlassen。Vollziehen widerdernungsprozess in Rahmen von sehr vielen komplexen Verhandlungen。德语分析德语分析德语分析德语分析德语分析德语分析德语分析德语分析德语分析德语分析德语分析德语分析德语分析德语分析德语分析德语分析德语分析德语分析德语分析德语分析德语分析德语分析德语分析德语分析德语分析德语分析德语。摘要:英国将退出欧盟。英国脱欧将涉及许多复杂的谈判。本文基于四个关键谈判因素(协议选项、非协议选项、利益、认知)分析了各方(英国、欧盟、成员国)的谈判立场。文章还分析了触发第50条下的正式退出程序对谈判动态的影响。本文提出了一个国际性的、量身定制的调解程序，作为有效引导脱欧谈判的一种手段，并帮助各方达成一项保值的“脱欧协议”。
{"title":"Negotiating and Mediating Brexit","authors":"Horst Eidenmueller","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2854829","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2854829","url":null,"abstract":"German Abstract: Das Vereinigte Konigreich wird die Europaische Union verlassen. Vollziehen wird sich der Trennungsprozess im Rahmen von sehr vielen komplexen Verhandlungen. Der Beitrag analysiert die Verhandlungssituation aus der Warte der Beteiligten und schlagt ein internationales, konfliktspezifisches Mediationsverfahren als Instrument eines effizienten Prozessmanagements vor.English Abstract: The United Kingdom will leave the European Union. Brexit will involve many complex negotiations. This paper analyses the negotiation position of the parties (UK, EU, Member States) based on a set of four key negotiation factors (agreement options, non-agreement alternatives, interests, perceptions). It also analyses the effect of triggering the formal withdrawal process under Article 50 TEU on the negotiation dynamic. The paper proposes an international, tailor-made mediation process as a means to efficiently steer the withdrawal negotiations and help the parties agree on a value-preserving ‘withdrawal agreement’.","PeriodicalId":296326,"journal":{"name":"International Institutions: European Union eJournal","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130241597","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper attempts to detect discretionary practices in anti-dumping (AD) investigations conducted by the European Union (EU) between 1995 and 2012. It complements findings on discretionary practices documented by Blonigen (2006) for the US Department of Commerce. Using a probit model, we demonstrate that the number of decisive factors used for the causation decision has additional discriminatory power after controlling for traditional causation determinants. The number of decisive factors results from discretionary practices; we address this by endogenizing the number of determinants used in the investigations. Based on the Flex model (Santos Silva et al., 2014), which lets us account for the doubly bounded nature of the number of determinants, we observe that the number of decisive factors used in injury investigations is high for cases involving countries for which the import volume is high and for countries that frequently use their own AD law.
本文试图检测1995年至2012年欧盟反倾销调查中的自由裁量行为。它补充了Blonigen(2006)为美国商务部记录的关于自由裁量行为的调查结果。利用概率模型，我们证明了在控制传统因果决定因素后，用于因果决定的决定性因素的数量具有额外的歧视性。决定性因素的数量源于自由裁量行为;我们通过内源性的调查中使用的决定因素的数量来解决这个问题。根据Flex模型(Santos Silva et al.， 2014)，我们可以解释决定因素数量的双重有限性，我们观察到，在涉及进口量高的国家和经常使用本国反倾销法的国家的案件中，伤害调查中使用的决定因素数量很高。
{"title":"Patterns in the European Union Anti-Dumping Injury Investigations","authors":"Carolle Kempa N., B. Larue","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2858005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2858005","url":null,"abstract":"This paper attempts to detect discretionary practices in anti-dumping (AD) investigations conducted by the European Union (EU) between 1995 and 2012. It complements findings on discretionary practices documented by Blonigen (2006) for the US Department of Commerce. Using a probit model, we demonstrate that the number of decisive factors used for the causation decision has additional discriminatory power after controlling for traditional causation determinants. The number of decisive factors results from discretionary practices; we address this by endogenizing the number of determinants used in the investigations. Based on the Flex model (Santos Silva et al., 2014), which lets us account for the doubly bounded nature of the number of determinants, we observe that the number of decisive factors used in injury investigations is high for cases involving countries for which the import volume is high and for countries that frequently use their own AD law.","PeriodicalId":296326,"journal":{"name":"International Institutions: European Union eJournal","volume":"42 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122637558","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The principles of mutual trust and mutual recognition are well established features of EU law. On a technical level, it is clear that the principles may require adoption of foreign levels of protection in individual cases as well as in legislation. At a closer look, however, the principles through “the rule of reason” also may imply quite the opposite: the imposing of domestic requirements on foreign goods, services etc. The CJEU case law following the Cassis judgement may be seen as striking a balance between cooperation and Member State self-determination, or between trust and distrust, in different fields. This contribution aims at looking into the regulatory function of the legal principle of trust in EU law. Taking this wider regulatory perspective, the mutual recognition regimes of EU must be seen from a holistic perspective. Rather than dwelling upon harmonized and non-harmonized fields separately, we will approach mutual trust as one, albeit multi-faceted, concept, where harmonization, proportionality assessments and Member State actions in various fields of law form part of the same wider picture. In this regulatory perspective, the law on mutual trust and mutual recognition may be seen as a balancing between the regulatory interests of the EU (promoting free movement and cooperation) and the various Member States (promoting their interests of – alleged – protection of safety of various kinds). Through this perspective, we will be able to address the tension between regulation and deregulation, between integration and disintegration, and between unity and diversity present in EU law on a very general level. The first section of this contribution will look at the constitutional life of mutual trust within the CJEU case law: looking at its origins and main logic. The second section will attempt to clarify why the principle of mutual trust is mostly invisible in the free movement jurisprudence. This section also argues for understanding mutual recognition in terms of Regulatory Trust. The last section focuses on the thorny issue of the levels of protection and attempts to understand which are the key factors used by the CJEU in reviewing the (host) States measures that restrict free movement law and thus may constitute a break to the application of the principles of mutual trust and mutual recognition.
{"title":"Regulatory Trust in EU Free Movement Law – Adopting the Level of Protection of the Other?","authors":"Xavier Groussot, G. Petursson, Henrik Wenander","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2840172","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2840172","url":null,"abstract":"The principles of mutual trust and mutual recognition are well established features of EU law. On a technical level, it is clear that the principles may require adoption of foreign levels of protection in individual cases as well as in legislation. At a closer look, however, the principles through “the rule of reason” also may imply quite the opposite: the imposing of domestic requirements on foreign goods, services etc. The CJEU case law following the Cassis judgement may be seen as striking a balance between cooperation and Member State self-determination, or between trust and distrust, in different fields. This contribution aims at looking into the regulatory function of the legal principle of trust in EU law. Taking this wider regulatory perspective, the mutual recognition regimes of EU must be seen from a holistic perspective. Rather than dwelling upon harmonized and non-harmonized fields separately, we will approach mutual trust as one, albeit multi-faceted, concept, where harmonization, proportionality assessments and Member State actions in various fields of law form part of the same wider picture. In this regulatory perspective, the law on mutual trust and mutual recognition may be seen as a balancing between the regulatory interests of the EU (promoting free movement and cooperation) and the various Member States (promoting their interests of – alleged – protection of safety of various kinds). Through this perspective, we will be able to address the tension between regulation and deregulation, between integration and disintegration, and between unity and diversity present in EU law on a very general level. The first section of this contribution will look at the constitutional life of mutual trust within the CJEU case law: looking at its origins and main logic. The second section will attempt to clarify why the principle of mutual trust is mostly invisible in the free movement jurisprudence. This section also argues for understanding mutual recognition in terms of Regulatory Trust. The last section focuses on the thorny issue of the levels of protection and attempts to understand which are the key factors used by the CJEU in reviewing the (host) States measures that restrict free movement law and thus may constitute a break to the application of the principles of mutual trust and mutual recognition.","PeriodicalId":296326,"journal":{"name":"International Institutions: European Union eJournal","volume":"73 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116029230","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
For more than two decades, the European Union has been experimenting with forms of policy coordination as a means of seeking influence in domains of policy that more typically fall within the competence and political authority of its Member States. Across economic, employment and social policies, EU institutions, structures and process have attempted to open out domestic policymaking to the influence of external actors and shared normative frameworks. These experiments in European governance acquired a common nomenclature: the ‘open method of coordination’ (OMC). This article analyses the OMC and its relationship to law, in general, and to principles of EU law in particular. The analysis first clarifies the nature and application of the technique of policy coordination in the EU. It then considers the relationship between the OMC and principles of EU law. Two groups of principles are highlighted. The first group – the principles of conferral and subsidiarity; and democratic participation, openness and transparency – reflects the distribution of political authority across multiple levels that is engaged in policy coordination processes. The second group – the principles of effective judicial protection and the protection of fundamental rights – give procedural and substantive dimensions to the rule of law. The article concludes that techniques of policy coordination are far from obsolete and have even been developed and consolidated in the ‘meta-coordination’ architecture of the ‘European Semester’. Nonetheless, the capacity of law to capture the character and effects of policy coordination is evasive, with the relationship between policy coordination and core principles of EU law often proving to be less an encounter and more an estrangement.
{"title":"The Open Method of Coordination – Obstinate or Obsolete?","authors":"Kenneth A. Armstrong","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2839840","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2839840","url":null,"abstract":"For more than two decades, the European Union has been experimenting with forms of policy coordination as a means of seeking influence in domains of policy that more typically fall within the competence and political authority of its Member States. Across economic, employment and social policies, EU institutions, structures and process have attempted to open out domestic policymaking to the influence of external actors and shared normative frameworks. These experiments in European governance acquired a common nomenclature: the ‘open method of coordination’ (OMC). This article analyses the OMC and its relationship to law, in general, and to principles of EU law in particular. The analysis first clarifies the nature and application of the technique of policy coordination in the EU. It then considers the relationship between the OMC and principles of EU law. Two groups of principles are highlighted. The first group – the principles of conferral and subsidiarity; and democratic participation, openness and transparency – reflects the distribution of political authority across multiple levels that is engaged in policy coordination processes. The second group – the principles of effective judicial protection and the protection of fundamental rights – give procedural and substantive dimensions to the rule of law. The article concludes that techniques of policy coordination are far from obsolete and have even been developed and consolidated in the ‘meta-coordination’ architecture of the ‘European Semester’. Nonetheless, the capacity of law to capture the character and effects of policy coordination is evasive, with the relationship between policy coordination and core principles of EU law often proving to be less an encounter and more an estrangement.","PeriodicalId":296326,"journal":{"name":"International Institutions: European Union eJournal","volume":"12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115759513","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The European Union is an example of extensive regional cooperation. The main motivation for starting the EU was to prevent future bloodshed and focus on cooperation after the Second World War. Starting with economic cooperation, the European Union has expanded towards many other policy areas. One of them is foreign policy. Foreign policy is a traditionally sensitive issue. Since all states have a big stake in their security and foreign relations, it has proven to be complicated to take decisive action in this area. From an intergovernmentalist point of view there is a generally high level of distrust between nation states when it comes to this issue, and coming to an agreement is not something intergovernmentalists would predict to happen. But since the European Union is becoming more integrated and issues that arise are becoming more global, it seems there is a need for coordination of foreign policy of the EU member states. Examples of this include the inaction of the European Union regarding the Bosnian war in the 90s or more recently the refugee crisis that followed the Syrian civil war. The question is of course in which format this is done. While some argue for a more centralized decision-making progress, others feel that the mandate should stay at the member states and the European institutions should merely play a facilitating role. This could be placed in a bigger context: how much decision-making power are the member states willing to concede to the supranational level of the EU.
{"title":"EU Decision-Making and the Sanctions Against Russia","authors":"R. Stoop","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2833937","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2833937","url":null,"abstract":"The European Union is an example of extensive regional cooperation. The main motivation for starting the EU was to prevent future bloodshed and focus on cooperation after the Second World War. Starting with economic cooperation, the European Union has expanded towards many other policy areas. One of them is foreign policy. Foreign policy is a traditionally sensitive issue. Since all states have a big stake in their security and foreign relations, it has proven to be complicated to take decisive action in this area. From an intergovernmentalist point of view there is a generally high level of distrust between nation states when it comes to this issue, and coming to an agreement is not something intergovernmentalists would predict to happen. But since the European Union is becoming more integrated and issues that arise are becoming more global, it seems there is a need for coordination of foreign policy of the EU member states. Examples of this include the inaction of the European Union regarding the Bosnian war in the 90s or more recently the refugee crisis that followed the Syrian civil war. The question is of course in which format this is done. While some argue for a more centralized decision-making progress, others feel that the mandate should stay at the member states and the European institutions should merely play a facilitating role. This could be placed in a bigger context: how much decision-making power are the member states willing to concede to the supranational level of the EU.","PeriodicalId":296326,"journal":{"name":"International Institutions: European Union eJournal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128635441","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：