Search results

"Neofunctionalism" published on by Oxford University Press.

This article analyses the EU's Common Commercial Policy (CCP) at the level of Treaty revision and particularly focuses on the last Treaty negotiations that led to the Treaty of Lisbon. The analysis is based on a revised neofunctionalist framework that the author developed in previous work. It draws on the following concepts: (i) functional spillover; (ii) cultivated spillover; (iii) social spillover; and (iv) countervailing forces. Insights into the dynamics and countervailing forces driving Treaty revisions considerably deepen our understanding of the Common Commercial Policy, as EU external trade policy-making is substantially affected by the parameters set by the Treaty. The analysis indicates that the revised neofunctionalist framework can broadly account for the changes of the Common Commercial Policy during the last Treaty revision. It is further suggested that integration in the area of trade policy cannot be explained exclusively by rational choice dynamics, such as utility maximizing actors with fixed preferences, but that socialization through deliberation also needs to be taken into account.

AbstractThe objective of this article is to account for the varying, and sometimes puzzling, outcomes of the past three Treaty revisions of EU/EC visa, asylum and immigration policy. The article focuses on decision rules and the institutional set‐up of these policies, subjecting the results of the Intergovernmental Conference negotiations leading to the Treaties of Amsterdam and Nice and the Constitutional Treaty to causal analysis. The article maintains that four factors can explain the various Treaty outcomes: (i) functional pressures; (ii) the role of supranational institutions; (iii) socialization, deliberation and learning processes; and (iv) countervailing forces.

AbstractThis article suggests that existing negotiation theory, which is dominated by the two paradigms of 'bargaining' and 'problem-solving', does not capture some important characteristics of international negotiations. It is argued that 'genuine debate' encapsulated by Habermas's concept of 'communicative action', which has largely been ignored in the negotiation literature, furthers and complements our understanding regarding negotiators' rationale for action and the dynamics of international negotiations. The paper specifies five conditions conducive to genuine debate: (1) a strongly shared lifeworld among negotiators; (2) uncertainty and lack of knowledge; (3) technical or cognitively complex issues; (4) the presence of persuasive individuals; and (5) low levels of politicization. My hypotheses are probed through a case study of EU negotiations concerning the WTO basic telecommunications agreement. My findings imply that genuine debate may occur most likely in pre-negotiations and at the diplomatic level of negotiations. I also conclude that agreements arrived at through genuine debate tend to be more enduring than those reached by bargaining and problem-solving, and that communicative negotiators are vulnerable to those merely pretending to participate in genuine debate. My analysis also tentatively indicates what kind of arguments may be persuasive in genuine debate.