Suchergebnisse

Although not in the Rome Treaty, the EEC/EU has gradually developed fundamental rights narratives which constitute a political myth. They have a common basis of foundational claims, placing fundamental rights, retrospectively, as inherent to the EU and based on a common European heritage. Like all myths, this narrative contains factual error, but is believed and acted upon by both institutional myth-makers and civil society actors. Through mythological free-riding on the Member States and the Council of Europe, the EU has been relatively successful in avoiding myth competition. Success in the longer run depends on broader myth appropriation, coherence and competition with other narratives. Adapted from the source document.

AbstractIn the European integration process the two concepts of citizenship and of civil society have been introduced by the EU institutions and policy-makers in order to build support for the new supranational polity. However, the concepts have emerged at different moments in time and have been defined in such a way that they appear nearly exclusionary. Only during the recent constitutional debate has an attempt been made to make "European civil society" and "European citizenship" more complementary.

ABSTRACTThe European social dialogue provides for the signing of collective agreements between employers' associations and trade unions organised at the European level. Effectiveness to a great extent depends on the shadow of hierarchy, which is cast by the threat of legislative action and by ensuring implementation of collective agreements through public intervention. The need for the shadow is illustrated by the initial priority given to statutory agreements and the problems of implementation of more recent non-statutory agreements. While the shadow of hierarchy is important to ensure the effectiveness of social dialogue, social dialogue procedures are not characterised by strong principal-agent relationships. In particular, non-statutory agreements stem from a bottom-up private sector-inspired tradition of industrial relations. Even in the case of statutory agreements, the European Commission, as principal, does not appoint the agent and the delegation is implicit rather than explicit. Moreover, successful delegation entirely depends on whether the agents reach agreement between themselves. While the Commission could revoke delegation if Community objectives are not realised and by setting statutory criteria for implementing an agreement, its room for manoeuvre is limited for reasons of political pragmatism.

Der Diskurs zur Zivilgesellschaft in der EU und seine Prägung durch die europäischen Institutionen wird dargestellt. Ausgehend vom Bereich der Sozialpolitik wird zugleich ein Überblick über die Einbindungsstrategien und -instrumente der EU-Institutionen gegeben. Besonderes Gewicht liegt dabei auf den Initiativen der Kommission und des Wirtschafts- und Sozialausschusses (WSA), die sowohl für den Diskurs als auch für die praktische Einbindung der Zivilgesellschaft im Institutionengefüge der EU von besonderer Bedeutung sind. So wurde der Diskurs des zivilen Dialogs, den die Kommission bis dahin hauptsächlich im Kontext der Sozialpolitik angewandt hatte, seit Ende der 90er Jahre auf die Einbindung von NGOs durch die Kommission in anderen Politikfeldern ausgeweitet. Zugleich wurde die Zusammenarbeit der Kommission mit der "Zivilgesellschaft" im Zuge der administrativen Reformen, die zur Veröffentlichung des "Weißbuchs zum Europäischen Regieren" führten, zur Legitimationsquelle umgedeutet. (GB)

"Die dürftige Literatur über den europäischen Wirtschafts- und Sozialausschuss hat sich hauptsächlich mit dessen institutioneller Stellung und potentiellem Einfluss beschäftigt. Im Gegensatz zu diesem 'Output-orientierten' Ansatz konzentriert sich der vorliegende Artikel auf den 'Input' des WSA, nämlich seiner repräsentativen Rolle. Es wird argumentiert, dass der WSA durch die Römischen Verträge eingesetzt wurde, um die Zustimmung der wichtigsten sozio-ökonomischen Akteure zu einem überwiegend durch Eliten betriebenen und technokratischen europäischen Projekt sicherzustellen. Obwohl die Europäischen Gemeinschaften in steigendem Ausmaß in immer mehr Politikfeldern beteiligt sind und dies zu einer Verstärkung der Kompetenzen des Europäischen Parlaments als einer Legitimitätsquelle für das europäische politische System geführt hat, hat dies dennoch nicht die repräsentative Rolle des WSA aufgehoben. Der WSA stellt zusätzlich zur Legitimität durch territoriale Repräsentation ein Forum für funktionale Repräsentation dar. Wenn man somit dessen Rolle als eine Form von 'Verhandlungsdemokratie durch eine funktionale Versammlung' begreift, wird sie nicht nur gegenüber dem Parlament, sondern auch gegenüber anderen Formen funktionaler Repräsentation definiert." (Autorenreferat)

AbstractThe regulatory literature has long been concerned with the challenges of technological innovation, yet it says relatively little about what we understand as "innovative" and how innovation "types" impact on regulation. This article unpacks the concept of "innovation" and analyses its significance for the development of regulatory strategy. It shows that innovation types – such as "incremental" and "radical" innovation – are not clear-cut, but involve differences of interpretation. This interpretive flexibility makes them powerful discursive resources in regulatory decision-making. Through a study of the EU's regulation of nanotechnology, the article shows how arguments of "incremental" and "radical" innovation can be mobilised to very different effect. These different ways of conceptualising new technology affect decisions on: (i) the desirability of legislative reform; (ii) the evidence-base for regulation; and (iii) the use of the precautionary principle. The study also shows how the framing of technology as "incrementally" innovative can contribute to a strategy of "deliberate regulatory ignorance". The article concludes by arguing that the incremental/radical distinction can be put to more positive use, so that regulatory choices take account of the different techno-scientific and socio-economic dimensions of innovation.

AbstractThis article assesses the utility of impact assessments (IAs) as an effective tool for mainstreaming. Specifically, it analyses whether the European Union's (EU's) system of integrated impact assessments (IIAs) contributes to the realization of six mainstreaming objectives defined in the EU treaties. The article first studies whether the legal framework for the EU's system of IIAs makes it a viable tool for mainstreaming. It then proceeds with an empirical analysis of 35 IAs to assess the extent to which mainstreaming objectives are taken into account in practice. The analysis shows that all six mainstreaming objectives have a place within the IIA system, but the system does not ensure systematic consideration of them. There is considerable variation across mainstreaming agendas, as well as across Directorates‐General. The article concludes that the IIA system is no panacea for mainstreaming, and proposes changes to the institutional framework to improve its mainstreaming potential.