Suchergebnisse

AbstractThis introduction sets the stage for a special issue devoted to evaluating the contribution and continued relevance of Liberal Intergovernmentalism (LI) – a theory first formulated 25 years ago in this journal – in today's politicized and crisis‐ridden European Union (EU). We review the debates prompted by LI's three core claims about national preference formation, intergovernmental bargaining and institutional choice, as well as by the theory's three policy‐relevant corollaries relating to the EU's democratic deficit, its constitutional settlement and its role in the world. Liberal intergovernmentalism, we argue, remains highly relevant in today's EU, offering important insights and serving to structure much of the academic debate about the prospects of the Union in a time of crisis. Nevertheless, a revitalized LI faces the dual challenges of theorizing both the causes and consequences of mass politicization of EU politics, as well as the prospect of endogenous change in the direction of greater integration or disintegration.

Please substitute the following for the definition on page 276 of our article in the Spring 1996 issue of International Organization (Volume 50, No. 2, pp.269–99):Definition. A coalition of m (out of n) members is nonconnected if there is a member i ε {N} – {M} that belongs in the Pareto set of {M}.

The Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) of the European Union (EU) faces an identity crisis to which the member states do not seem eager to put an end. Making incremental changes without defining the objectives will not rise the trust in the EU as a strong international actor. Thus, this paper aims to indicate the supranational and intergovernmental characteristics of the CFSP in order to highlight that the neofonctionalist model of governance has also shaped a policy area believed to belong exclusively to the member states' power. The paper analyses the supranational and intergovernmental dimensions of the CFSP in order to provide a better understanding of how this policy is constructed.

AbstractThis research note responds to recent debates about new intergovernmentalism and argues that the hypotheses of Bickerton, Hodson and Puetter overlook the roles non‐state actors play in the integration process. It intends to open up a debate about private power and the new intergovernmentalism, demonstrating that the concentration of powers of national governments has proceeded alongside the concentration of powers of transnational business interests in Europe. The note draws on the example of the civil security industry and Justice and Home Affairs policies in order to modify the six hypotheses of new intergovernmentalism.

The functioning of the European Union (EU) has been explored extensively in recent years. The dominant prism through which to look at the EU is still one of locus: i.e. whether decisions are made in the capitals of its member states or in Brussels. This debate is contained in the dualism between intergovernmentalism and supranationalism, but drawing the boundaries between the two concepts is still undone. This article attempts to contribute to solving this problem by investigating the restrictive measures policy of the EU in order to identify three conditions under which intergovernmentalism should be used. First, when EU institutions are dependent on EU member states for information and expertise; second, when decision-making powers rest mainly in EU capitals; and three, when there are no exclusive fora for decision-making in Brussels. The study of the restrictive measures of the European Union does not meet any of these three conditions; therefore the article argues that the concept of supranational intergovernmentalism offers useful insights to understand the EU security governance of CFSP sanctions. The article is divided into four parts. The first introduces the debate on security governance and justifies the selection of this specific approach to the study of sanctions. The second part presents the restrictive measures policy of the European Union and justifies its pertinence to the field of security. The third part of the article investigates the emerging patterns in security governance by testing the three conditions on the decision-making process for EU restrictive measures. Finally, the conclusion summarises the main argument and indicates ways forward in the study of EU sanctions from a governance perspective.

That the Lisbon Treaty lays the foundation for a supranational asylum and immigration policy is surprising, even more so for Liberal Intergovernmentalism (LI), whose founder Andrew Moravcsik predicts that no such development will take place. While the article uses LI as its point of departure, it shows that it runs into problems with regards to the policy area of asylum and immigration. The article therefore turns to the (neo-)functionalist concept of spillover. While working with the concept, it was deemed necessary to create a more coherent typology of different spillovers. The article suggests that the concept of spillover may be both descriptive and explanatory. With regards to descriptive spillover, it seems valuable to differentiate between widening and deepening spillovers, but concerning explanatory spillovers, more options became visible: there are unintended or intended functional spillovers, as well as unintended political, cultivated and social spillovers. The argument is illustrated through a detailed study of Sweden – a 'reluctant European' that within the area of asylum and immigration made a fundamental U-turn with regards to a supranationalism, a change that can be described as a social spillover.