Search results

Since the 1990s, multilateral European security institutions have gone through profound changes. None of the existing institutions like the European Union (EU) or NATO can assume full responsibility for security, because of Russia's inclusion in Europe. EU expansion and its policies affect Russia and visa-versa, so a strategic partnership is beneficial. In 2003, Russian and the EU agreed to create four common spaces--economic, freedom and security, external security, and research and education; activities to build those spaces are described. The EU's New Neighborhood Initiative is criticized as conceptually flawed because of the diversity of these "neighborhoods" and conflicts with existing regional cooperation forums. Issues with the admission of new members to the EU are discussed.

The European Union is one of the world?s most complex political systems: this makes it a challenge to study. To the uninitiated its institutions seem remote, its remit unclear, its operations difficult to understand and its outputs sometimes perplexing. It combines some attributes of a state with those of an international organisation, yet it closely resembles neither. Its development is shaped by an increasing number of players, including 25 member governments, multiple common EU institutions, clusters of experts, private interests and citizen groups. All converge to influence what the EU is.

This article compares national parliamentary scrutiny over European Union matters in two countries with coalition governments, Germany and the Netherlands, based on interviews with members of parliament serving on their European Affairs Committee. While acknowledging that legal powers and institutional structures are important when evaluating parliamentary-government relations, the examination focuses on the goals and methods of party groups when overseeing government. In Germany, the goal of the governing coalition parties is to protect the government, whereas in the Netherlands they scrutinize the government's position in order to be sure the compromise in the cabinet sufficiently protects the party's interests. Although the Dutch governing parties normally support the government, a `floating coalition' occasionally emerges with ruling parties working with parts of the opposition to amend a proposal toward their own preferences. The study concludes that it is not only the legal powers and institutional structures that determine parliamentary scrutiny in a given member state, but also party interactions.

This book tells the story of the EU Global Strategy (EUGS). By reflecting back on the 2003 European Security Strategy, this book uncovers the background, the process, the content and the follow-up of the EUGS thirteen years later. By framing the EUGS in this broader context, this book is essential for anyone wishing to understand European foreign policy. The author, who drafted the EUGS on behalf of High Representative and Vice President of the Commission (HRVP) Federica Mogherini, uses the lens of the EUGS to provide a broader narrative of the EU and its functioning. Tocci's hybrid role as a scholar and adviser has given her unique access to and knowledge of a wide range of complex structures and actors, all the while remaining sufficiently detached from official processes to retain an observer's eye. This book reflects this hybrid nature: while written by and for scholars, it is not a classic scholarly work, but will appeal to anyone wishing to learn more about the EUGS and European foreign policy more broadly.--

We construct novel measures to assess (i) the extent to which European Union member states are using common standards in recognizing asylum seekers and (ii) the extent to which the responsibilities for asylum applications, acceptances and refugee populations are equally shared among the member states, taking into account population size, gross domestic product (GDP) and GDP expressed in purchasing power parity (GDP-PPP). We track the progression of these measures since the implementation of the Treaty of Amsterdam (1999). These measures display divergent trends and we try to provide an interpretation of the dynamics that are constitutive of these trends.

The Assembly of Western European Union (WEU) held the first part of its sixth ordinary session in Paris from May 31 to June 3, 1960. After Mr. Badini Confalonieri (Italian Liberal) had been reelected President of the Assembly, the first item of business was the presentation of the fifth report of the Council of WEU, covering the period from January 1 to December 31, 1959, by Mr. van Houten, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands and Chairman ad interim of the Council. In connection with the transfer of social and cultural activities from WEU to the Council of Europe, he pointed out that, by means of partial agreements, the seven governments of WEU remained free to undertake new activities either among themselves or within the framework of the WEU Council, and that only the implementation of current activities was to become the responsibility of the Council of Europe. Speaking next of the Standing Armaments Committee and of the Agency for the Control of Armaments, Mr. van Houten stated that the procedure for cooperation in the field of equipment formulated by the Committee had been successful and that the Control Agency had continued to develop its activities. Concluding his report, he pointed to the importance of political consultations within WEU as a means of enabling members to discuss differences of opinion and thereby come nearer to a solution. In the general debate which followed, members stressed the importance of cooperation in armaments and civil defense.

The second part of the first session of the Assembly of Western European Union (WEU) was held in Strasbourg on October 24 and 28, 1955 under the chairmanship of Mr. John Maclay, President of the Assembly (United Kingdom, National Liberal and Conservative). A draft charter and draft rules of procedure, the chief items on the agenda, were presented to the Assembly on behalf of the Committee on Organization by the rapporteur, Mr. van der Goes van Naters (Netherlands, Socialist), who stated that the method of creating new organizations in Europe had empirical merits, but that there was a danger of inefficient use of Europe's resources as a whole; he felt that the best possible use should be made of parliamentary time; that parliamentarians should not sit on committees that duplicated each other's work; and that no new assemblies should be created without a careful examination of the burdens involved. Mr. van der Goes van Naters declared that collaboration between the ministerial and parliamentary organs of WEU was the keynote of the charter; in order to avoid a clash between the ministers and the Assembly, the charter had been drafted so as to avoid making general rules to govern future and unknown situations and to allow for each case to be treated on its merits as it arose. He stated that with the exception of two provisions where the assent of the Council of Europe must first be sought, the charter contained no provisions on which the Assembly could not decide for itself.

This article provides an overview of cases decided by the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning contract law. The present issue covers the period between the beginning of February and the end of June 2019.

A key textbook for undergraduate and postgraduate students of contemporary European politics, European Union: Power and policy-making 4th edition offers a comprehensive and accessible analysis of the European Union policy process. Intended to advance understanding of the EU as a now mature and ongoing policy system, this book addresses the central issues relating to the distribution of power and influence in the European Union including: Theoretical perspectives The roles of key institutions in the processing of policy problems Different channels of representation The EU as a policy-making state Written by a distinguished group of international scholars, this new edition will also appeal to the worldwide community of researchers on the EU. New to this edition: New chapters on The Politics of Multispeed Europe, The Distribution of Power Among Institutions, EU Agencies, Covert Integration in the European Union, and Political Representation and Democracy in the EU. New authors and theoretical approaches on many topics such as differentiated integration, opt-outs and multi-speed integration, negotiation and coalition building, the interplay of judicial and legislative policy-making, power distribution, agency behaviour, integration by subterfuge, the democratic deficit fully updated data and content throughout Jeremy Richardson is joined by a co-editor, Professor Sonia Mazey, for the fourth expanded edition of this highly regarded textbook on the EU. Jeremy Richardson is an Emeritus Fellow at Nuffield College, Oxford, UK, and Adjunct Professor at the National Centre for Research on Europe, University of Canterbury, New Zealand. He is also Founder and Co-editor of the Journal of European Public Policy Sonia Mazey is a Professor and Pro-Vice-Chancellor of the College of Business and Law, University of Canterbury, New Zealand and formally a Fellow of.

The article applies Social Choice theory to analyse new and so far undiscovered aspects of the Danish referendums on the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 and 1993. The article queries whether the amended Maastricht Treaty adopted in 1993 was, in fact, the most preferred alternative for a majority of Danish voters. A reconstruction of voter preferences regarding the political alternatives in the European Union — the Maastricht Treaty, the amended Maastricht Treaty and the Status Quo — reveals that the amended Maastricht Treaty, despite the fact that it was the Condorcet winner and won the 1993 referendum, may not have been preferred by a majority but was probably the most preferred alternative only for a minority of the electorate.

Numerous scholarly articles have investigated member states' a priori voting power in past, present and possible future Councils of the European Union (EU). This article introduces three empirically oriented variants of the standardized Banzhaf index and compares them with the standardized Banzhaf index itself. The comparison suggests that the averages of the empirically oriented indices converge towards the Banzhaf index, and hence that there is no dominant ordering of the member states or the issues and, consequently, no stable minimal winning coalitions over time. However, statistical analysis reveals that the country-bycountry average difference from the Banzhaf index, considering all issues, remains significant in all three variants of empirical power.

Comparative tests of predictive accuracy across models are exceptionally rare in political science. The collection of articles in this issue provides a rigorous, systematic evaluation of alternative models for explaining and predicting decision-making within the European Union. I examine how alternative models were evaluated and raise questions about the differences in the extent to which the operational definitions of variables match contending theoretical approaches. I also raise questions regarding the difference between models with regard to whether the issues are part of a repeated game or a single-shot game. Finally, I propose future tests to hone in on some of the puzzles raised by the findings reported here.