退出共同决策问题?

L. Schramm
{"title":"退出共同决策问题?","authors":"L. Schramm","doi":"10.1163/21967415-BJA10001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Over the last decade, the European Union (EU) has faced a multitude of crises. Importantly, the various crises have led to different outcomes: Whereas the Eurozone crisis, for example, led to more European integration, the Schengen crisis arguably resulted in a partial European disintegration. Applying models of joint-decision problems in the EU, this paper analyses why and how these two crises led to divergent outcomes. It finds that higher levels of functional pressures, higher capacities of supranational agency, and more room for package deals enabled the EU to exit from joint-decision problems in the Eurozone crisis, whereas these and other potential exit mechanisms were widely unavailable in the Schengen crisis. Looking explicitly at the (missing) availability of exit mechanisms from joint-decision problems, this paper goes beyond the application of the usual European integration theories, which struggle to explain the variation in crisis outcomes. Furthermore, the paper makes a contribution to the more recent academic discussions on European integration/ disintegration, on the one hand, and the legitimacy-effectiveness gap, on the other hand.","PeriodicalId":444754,"journal":{"name":"ERIS – European Review of International Studies","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exit from Joint-decision Problems?\",\"authors\":\"L. Schramm\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/21967415-BJA10001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Over the last decade, the European Union (EU) has faced a multitude of crises. Importantly, the various crises have led to different outcomes: Whereas the Eurozone crisis, for example, led to more European integration, the Schengen crisis arguably resulted in a partial European disintegration. Applying models of joint-decision problems in the EU, this paper analyses why and how these two crises led to divergent outcomes. It finds that higher levels of functional pressures, higher capacities of supranational agency, and more room for package deals enabled the EU to exit from joint-decision problems in the Eurozone crisis, whereas these and other potential exit mechanisms were widely unavailable in the Schengen crisis. Looking explicitly at the (missing) availability of exit mechanisms from joint-decision problems, this paper goes beyond the application of the usual European integration theories, which struggle to explain the variation in crisis outcomes. Furthermore, the paper makes a contribution to the more recent academic discussions on European integration/ disintegration, on the one hand, and the legitimacy-effectiveness gap, on the other hand.\",\"PeriodicalId\":444754,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ERIS – European Review of International Studies\",\"volume\":\"15 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-06-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ERIS – European Review of International Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/21967415-BJA10001\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ERIS – European Review of International Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/21967415-BJA10001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

在过去的十年中,欧盟(EU)面临着许多危机。重要的是,不同的危机导致了不同的结果:例如,欧元区危机导致了欧洲的进一步一体化,而申根危机可以说导致了欧洲的部分解体。本文运用欧盟联合决策问题模型,分析了这两次危机导致不同结果的原因和方式。研究发现,更高水平的功能压力、超国家机构的更高能力和更大的一揽子交易空间,使欧盟能够在欧元区危机中摆脱共同决策问题,而这些和其他潜在的退出机制在申根危机中普遍不存在。本文明确考察了联合决策问题退出机制的可用性(缺失),超越了通常的欧洲一体化理论的应用,后者难以解释危机结果的变化。此外,本文还对最近关于欧洲一体化/解体的学术讨论以及合法性-有效性差距的学术讨论做出了贡献。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Exit from Joint-decision Problems?
Over the last decade, the European Union (EU) has faced a multitude of crises. Importantly, the various crises have led to different outcomes: Whereas the Eurozone crisis, for example, led to more European integration, the Schengen crisis arguably resulted in a partial European disintegration. Applying models of joint-decision problems in the EU, this paper analyses why and how these two crises led to divergent outcomes. It finds that higher levels of functional pressures, higher capacities of supranational agency, and more room for package deals enabled the EU to exit from joint-decision problems in the Eurozone crisis, whereas these and other potential exit mechanisms were widely unavailable in the Schengen crisis. Looking explicitly at the (missing) availability of exit mechanisms from joint-decision problems, this paper goes beyond the application of the usual European integration theories, which struggle to explain the variation in crisis outcomes. Furthermore, the paper makes a contribution to the more recent academic discussions on European integration/ disintegration, on the one hand, and the legitimacy-effectiveness gap, on the other hand.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
James Henderson and Arild Moe, The Globalization of Russian Gas: Political and Commercial Catalysts Paul Baines, Nicholas O’Shaughnessy, and Nancy Snow, eds. The SAGE Handbook of Propaganda Tokens for Reconciliation? Brendan Coolsaet (ed.), Environmental Justice: Key Issues David Renton: The New Authoritarians Convergence on the Right
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1