Holding the presidency in the Council of the EU can be a powerful tool of influence for a member state. Despite its centrality in EU decision‐making, there is a gap in a systematic analysis of the performance of the presiding country, especially considering the external (input) factors that impact the successful implementation of the EU presidency. This article attempts to understand how the EU presidency can be conceptualized and what factors can influence its success. The analysis dwells on findings from current scholarly research as well as on data from four selected EU presidencies (Austrian, Finnish, Slovakian and Czech). It argues that the success of a presidency may be interpreted as apparent, but in reality, its extent and nature vary. It (the presidency) is a result of various factors that directly become part of the preparations and affect the execution of the presidency's activities.
{"title":"Doing the Same With Different Results: Variations in EU Presidencies of Austria, Finland, Slovakia and Czechia","authors":"Kateřina Kočí, Jarolím Antal","doi":"10.1111/jcms.13646","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13646","url":null,"abstract":"Holding the presidency in the Council of the EU can be a powerful tool of influence for a member state. Despite its centrality in EU decision‐making, there is a gap in a systematic analysis of the performance of the presiding country, especially considering the external (input) factors that impact the successful implementation of the EU presidency. This article attempts to understand how the EU presidency can be conceptualized and what factors can influence its success. The analysis dwells on findings from current scholarly research as well as on data from four selected EU presidencies (Austrian, Finnish, Slovakian and Czech). It argues that the success of a presidency may be interpreted as apparent, but in reality, its extent and nature vary. It (the presidency) is a result of various factors that directly become part of the preparations and affect the execution of the presidency's activities.","PeriodicalId":516279,"journal":{"name":"JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies","volume":"33 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141650355","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 article addresses the puzzle of why the European Union (EU) struggles to learn from ineffective attempts to support democratization in the Arab world but instead continuously (re‐)produces democracy support malpractices. To better understand this phenomenon, we draw from practice theory and conceptualize EU democracy support as practices performed by a community of insiders who act within a complex constellation of communities of practice. Due to the way in which communities function, decision‐makers do not critically reflect on the background knowledge on which they base their practices and thus do not learn how to improve them. This constellation model offers a unique take on non‐learning within the EU and in (policy‐making) groups more generally. We illustrate the proposed conceptual framework through an empirical analysis of EU democracy support in Egypt, showing that the EU performs practices similar to those before the 2011 Revolution due to its inability to learn.
{"title":"Non‐learning Within a Constellation of Communities of Practice: The Case of the EU and Its Democracy Support in the Arab World","authors":"Christian Achrainer, Michelle Pace","doi":"10.1111/jcms.13629","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13629","url":null,"abstract":"This article addresses the puzzle of why the European Union (EU) struggles to learn from ineffective attempts to support democratization in the Arab world but instead continuously (re‐)produces democracy support malpractices. To better understand this phenomenon, we draw from practice theory and conceptualize EU democracy support as practices performed by a community of insiders who act within a complex constellation of communities of practice. Due to the way in which communities function, decision‐makers do not critically reflect on the background knowledge on which they base their practices and thus do not learn how to improve them. This constellation model offers a unique take on non‐learning within the EU and in (policy‐making) groups more generally. We illustrate the proposed conceptual framework through an empirical analysis of EU democracy support in Egypt, showing that the EU performs practices similar to those before the 2011 Revolution due to its inability to learn.","PeriodicalId":516279,"journal":{"name":"JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies","volume":"58 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141113398","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 EU considers gender equality fundamental to its identity, with Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights (SRHR) playing a crucial role. This article delves into the contested aspects of EU foreign policy concerning SRHR from 1997 to 2021. Through document analysis and 18 semi‐structured interviews, it discerns three phases of contestation. Between 1997 and 2017, contestation was institutionalised within the EU, and the norm was reinforced. However, from 2017 to 2020, validity contestation arose as Hungary, Poland and the United States formed an alliance opposing SRHR, resulting in their symbolic exclusion from the EU's normative community. In 2021, within a less polarised international context (with the United States returning to consensus on SRHR), Hungary and Poland reaffirmed their commitment to the EU's SRHR consensus, highlighting the resilience of the norm.
{"title":"Norm Contestation in EU Foreign Policy: The Case of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights","authors":"Diego Badell","doi":"10.1111/jcms.13622","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13622","url":null,"abstract":"The EU considers gender equality fundamental to its identity, with Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights (SRHR) playing a crucial role. This article delves into the contested aspects of EU foreign policy concerning SRHR from 1997 to 2021. Through document analysis and 18 semi‐structured interviews, it discerns three phases of contestation. Between 1997 and 2017, contestation was institutionalised within the EU, and the norm was reinforced. However, from 2017 to 2020, validity contestation arose as Hungary, Poland and the United States formed an alliance opposing SRHR, resulting in their symbolic exclusion from the EU's normative community. In 2021, within a less polarised international context (with the United States returning to consensus on SRHR), Hungary and Poland reaffirmed their commitment to the EU's SRHR consensus, highlighting the resilience of the norm.","PeriodicalId":516279,"journal":{"name":"JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies","volume":"120 49","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140977457","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}
European Union (EU) agencies' relations with interest groups have received scarce research attention despite their relevance to bureaucratic autonomy and functioning. Such relations may be organised via advisory committees, which are durable organisational structures for regularised contact between an agency and those societal actors given membership by the agency. Advisory committees may be imposed by the legislator to control an agency or harnessed by the latter to build autonomy. The EU legislator leaves significant discretion to EU agencies regarding advisory committees. However, EU agencies' late emergence in already densely populated regulatory fields begs the question of whether the use of agency discretion is fully autonomous. A case in point is the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER), whose establishment and design of three European Stakeholder Committees are examined here. Advisory committees were needed by, but also imposed on, ACER, reflecting agency preferences to improve task performance as much as prior institutionalisation within the organisational field. Hence, factors beyond legal requirements can constrain agency discretion on how to organise the organisation of agency–interest group relations.
{"title":"When EU Agencies Set Up Advisory Committees: All About Autonomy?","authors":"Torbjørg Jevnaker","doi":"10.1111/jcms.13618","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13618","url":null,"abstract":"European Union (EU) agencies' relations with interest groups have received scarce research attention despite their relevance to bureaucratic autonomy and functioning. Such relations may be organised via advisory committees, which are durable organisational structures for regularised contact between an agency and those societal actors given membership by the agency. Advisory committees may be imposed by the legislator to control an agency or harnessed by the latter to build autonomy. The EU legislator leaves significant discretion to EU agencies regarding advisory committees. However, EU agencies' late emergence in already densely populated regulatory fields begs the question of whether the use of agency discretion is fully autonomous. A case in point is the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER), whose establishment and design of three European Stakeholder Committees are examined here. Advisory committees were needed by, but also imposed on, ACER, reflecting agency preferences to improve task performance as much as prior institutionalisation within the organisational field. Hence, factors beyond legal requirements can constrain agency discretion on how to organise the organisation of agency–interest group relations.","PeriodicalId":516279,"journal":{"name":"JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies","volume":" 17","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140996691","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 article focuses on the external dimension of migration policy (EXMIPO) in the EU member states (MSs), through a policy tool approach. It offers an analytical framework for conceptualizing MS EXMIPO, by (1) unpacking its tools and (2) understanding their relationship with EU‐level migration governance, as based on competition, convergence and complementarity. Empirically, it examines the case of Italy, building on an original dataset spanning over 30 years and 125 instruments. Through the Italian case, this article demonstrates that MSs have developed an intense external action at the bilateral level in the field of migration, which has expanded quantitatively and qualitatively, alongside (and despite) EU initiatives.
{"title":"The Tools of External Migration Policy in the EU Member States: The Case of Italy","authors":"Iole Fontana, Matilde Rosina","doi":"10.1111/jcms.13581","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13581","url":null,"abstract":"This article focuses on the external dimension of migration policy (EXMIPO) in the EU member states (MSs), through a policy tool approach. It offers an analytical framework for conceptualizing MS EXMIPO, by (1) unpacking its tools and (2) understanding their relationship with EU‐level migration governance, as based on competition, convergence and complementarity. Empirically, it examines the case of Italy, building on an original dataset spanning over 30 years and 125 instruments. Through the Italian case, this article demonstrates that MSs have developed an intense external action at the bilateral level in the field of migration, which has expanded quantitatively and qualitatively, alongside (and despite) EU initiatives.","PeriodicalId":516279,"journal":{"name":"JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies","volume":"122 49","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-02-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139785659","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 study explores whether the European Union's (EU's) response to the large‐scale refugee displacement from Ukraine in 2022 has led to a more equitable sharing of responsibilities amongst member states with regard to the Syrian refugee crisis. To do so, responsibility sharing is assessed by comparing actual and capacity‐based refugee shares for each country, drawing the definition of the latter from an improved version of the European Commission's distribution key. Our analysis reveals that whilst disparities in actual refugee shares between countries are somewhat smaller in the current emergency humanitarian situation compared with the Syrian crisis, such disparities almost double when countries' reception capacities are incorporated as a benchmark. Thus, the study reveals a kind of paradox: greater disparities in responsibility sharing in a context of high solidarity amongst countries for the reception of refugees.
{"title":"A Capacity‐Based Approach for Assessing Changes in Responsibility Sharing in the EU: Comparing the Syrian and Ukrainian Refugee Crises","authors":"M. Hierro, Adolfo Maza","doi":"10.1111/jcms.13586","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13586","url":null,"abstract":"This study explores whether the European Union's (EU's) response to the large‐scale refugee displacement from Ukraine in 2022 has led to a more equitable sharing of responsibilities amongst member states with regard to the Syrian refugee crisis. To do so, responsibility sharing is assessed by comparing actual and capacity‐based refugee shares for each country, drawing the definition of the latter from an improved version of the European Commission's distribution key. Our analysis reveals that whilst disparities in actual refugee shares between countries are somewhat smaller in the current emergency humanitarian situation compared with the Syrian crisis, such disparities almost double when countries' reception capacities are incorporated as a benchmark. Thus, the study reveals a kind of paradox: greater disparities in responsibility sharing in a context of high solidarity amongst countries for the reception of refugees.","PeriodicalId":516279,"journal":{"name":"JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies","volume":"49 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139797160","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}
{"title":"Coming In: Sexual Politics and EU Accession in Serbia, KoenSlootmaeckers (Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 2023, ISBN 9781526159342); xiii + 234 pp.","authors":"Bojan Bilić","doi":"10.1111/jcms.13582","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13582","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":516279,"journal":{"name":"JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies","volume":"51 17","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139603609","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：