Suchergebnisse

An interest in unravelling the issues that concern the development of Europeanisation is recurrent in the work of the Barcelona based political scientist. In the widest sense, this book is concerned with the so-called "Democratic Deficit" in the construction of Europe. And it does this dealing with what the European state parties say regarding integration in the Old World. The starting rationale in the conception of the book is perceptive. Is the European Union facing a situation in which the principal problem is the insufficient degree of democracy? ; Peer reviewed

The recent student and staff protests in Amsterdam and at other Dutch universities have brought to light fundamental disagreements about the future of the Dutch university. Many students and staff members of Dutch universities have argued that the level of democratic decisionmaking about central policy issues in universities should be increased. But what can democracy mean in the context of the contemporary university system? In this contribution we will first briefly sketch the public role of the university. Then we will put forward our main claim, that the Dutch university currently suffers from a triple democratic deficit: in the relation between society and the university, in the relation between university administration and the academic community, and in the relation between the academic community and society. We can only make progress by considering these three problems of democratic legitimation in their mutual relations.

Longstanding concerns about the European Union's (EU) quest for democratic legitimacy are ever more acute. Many think such concerns can be best addressed if European institutions would become more effective crisis-managers. Stronger performance supposedly reinforces the EU's democratic credentials. This article rejects such 'output' oriented accounts as specious for assessment of the EU's democratic legitimacy. Drawing on Oakeshott's political theory, we argue that stronger performance addresses the desirability rather than democratic legitimacy of EU governance. We apply this insight as a heuristic device to consider the election of the Commission president and network governance.

Longstanding concerns about the European Union's (EU) quest for democratic legitimacy are ever more acute. Many think such concerns can be best addressed if European institutions would become more effective crisis-managers. Stronger performance supposedly reinforces the EU's democratic credentials. This article rejects such 'output' oriented accounts as specious for assessment of the EU's democratic legitimacy. Drawing on Oakeshott's political theory, we argue that stronger performance addresses the desirability rather than democratic legitimacy of EU governance. We apply this insight as a heuristic device to consider the election of the Commission president and network governance.

Longstanding concerns about the European Union's (EU) quest for democratic legitimacy are ever more acute. Many think such concerns can be best addressed if European institutions would become more effective crisis-managers. Stronger performance supposedly reinforces the EU's democratic credentials. This article rejects such 'output' oriented accounts as specious for assessment of the EU's democratic legitimacy. Drawing on Oakeshott's political theory, we argue that stronger performance addresses the desirability rather than democratic legitimacy of EU governance. We apply this insight as a heuristic device to consider the election of the Commission president and network governance.

Demokratični deficit je že več desetletji stalnica akademskih razprav o Evropski uniji. Vsebina raziskovanj se je skozi čas bistveno spremenila, ohranja pa se temeljna misel, da se demokracija v Evropski uniji sooča z velikimi težavami. Zaupanje Evropejcev v Evropsko unijo je nizko, podobno velja tudi za občutek povezanosti z njenimi organi, zato je očitno, da so spremembe nujno potrebne. Z vsako večjo reformo pride do sprememb, ki bistveno vplivajo na razmerja moči med evropskimi institucijami in na njihov odnos do Evropejcev. Najvidnejše spremembe v zadnjih desetletjih so krepitev moči Evropskega parlamenta, ki se je razvil v vplivno institucijo, uvajanje institutov neposredne demokracije in druge reforme, ki jih je prinesla Lizbonska pogodba. Napredek pa je, žal, na drugi strani uravnotežen s pojavom mehanizmov in institutov, ki demokratična varovala zaobidejo. To so na primer ukrepi, ki so bili sprejeti kot odziv na dolžniško krizo evroobmočja in v velikem delu sploh ne spadajo med formalne pristojnosti Evropske unije. V svojem magistrskem delu sem analiziral in kritično ovrednotil procese, ki so bistveno vplivali na ključne organe Evropske unije, njihove spreminjajoče se medsebojne odnose ter predvidene učinke aktualnih reform. Pregledal sem širok izbor literature preteklih desetletji in predstavil različna teoretska izhodišča, na podlagi katerih avtorji skušajo opredeliti in analizirati demokratični deficit in z njim povezane tematike. Ključna ugotovitev mojega magistrskega mojega dela ni le, da so aktualne reforme premalo ambiciozne in demokratičnega deficita ne morejo odpraviti, ampak predvsem da demokratični deficit ni le kategorija akademskih razprav, temveč je zelo močno politično orodje in odločilno usmerja razvoj Evropske unije. Demokratični deficit je zato stalnica evropske demokracije in ne more nikoli biti povsem odpravljen, saj se ob razvoju Evropske unije vedno znova pojavlja v drugačnih oblikah, ki terjajo nove reforme in kritične analize akademikov, intelektualcev, državljanov, politikov in vseh drugih zainteresiranih strani. ; The democratic deficit has been a constant of all academic research on the European Union for the past few decades. While the scope of the research has changed considerably, the basic idea remains the same – democracy in the European Union is in serious trouble. Europeans' trust in the EU is low and the same goes for their connection with European institutions, therefore it is clear that changes are required. Every major reform alters the balance of power between European institutions and their relationship with European citizens. The most visible changes of the past decades are: the empowerment of the European parliament that has been transformed into an influential institution, the introduction of instruments of direct democracy and other reforms brought upon by the Treaty of Lisbon. Unfortunately, progress is balanced out by the emergence of various mechanisms and instruments that surpass all democratic checks and balances. For example, the measures that were adopted as a response to the European debt crisis were mostly not based on formal competencies of the EU. In my Master's thesis I analysed and critically evaluated the processes that crucially influenced the most significant European institutions, their ever-changing relationships and the anticipated effects of the current reforms. I examined a substantial body of literature from past decades and presented diverse theoretical starting points that the authors use to define and analyse the democratic deficit and related topics. The most significant finding of my Master's thesis is not only that the current reforms lack ambition and cannot eliminate the democratic deficit, but also that the democratic deficit is more than just a category of academic research and can often act as a strong political tool that decisively influences the development of the European Union. Therefore, the democratic deficit is a permanent element of European democracy and can never be fully eliminated as it always reappears in new forms that require constant reforms and critical analysis by academia, intellectuals, citizens, politicians and other stakeholders.

Analizamos el difuso marco institucional de la Unión Europea y su inherente déficit democrático, junto a la hegemonía de las prescripciones neoliberales en sus instituciones, siguiendo el concepto de "financiarización", para estudiar las limitaciones de la Unión en materia de política exterior. Estas limitaciones convierten la capacidad exterior de la UE en un instrumento político débil, descoordinado e instrumental (WUI). Esto es particularmente relevante en la región del Oriente Próximo y el Norte de África, que constituye un marco analítico para estudiar la hipótesis WUI. Para entender el déficit democrático de la Unión y la financiarización, estudiamos las fuentes de legitimación directa e indirecta que dejan a la ciudadanía europea en una posición secundaria y subordinada, socavando la legitimación democrática en la UE. ; We analyse how the European Union's rather undefined institutional framework, the democratic deficit inherent in its institutions and the hegemony of neoliberal prescriptions expressed in the concept of "financialisation" are limiting EU's capacity of external action. These limitations are becoming the European foreign policy into a weak, uncoordinated and instrumental (WUI) policy instrument. This is particularly observable in the MENA region, especially during and after the so called "Arab Spring", which constitutes a powerful analytical framework to validate the WUI hypothesis. In order to understand the EU's democratic deficit and financialisation, we look at the sources of direct and indirect legitimation that leave European citizenship in a secondary and subordinate position, undermining the sources of democratic legitimacy in the EU.

This deliverable analyses the impact of the European Ombudsman in the European Union's democratic life through his power to investigate cases of maladministration committed by European institutions. Accordingly, this deliverable is structured as follows. The first part is devoted to explore the creation of the European Ombudsman, the rationale behind his establishment, and the development of this 'personalised' body. The report then moves to an assessment of the European Ombudsman's investigative powers, coupled with a specific focus on the relations with his national peers. This section then proceeds by highlighting quantitative data on the complaints lodged to the European Ombudsman since his creation. The second part verifies whether the European Ombudsman constitutes a case of democratic empowerment. Indeed, an assessment of the European Ombudsman's body of decisions shows that he is more and more acting not only as a 'watchdog' of European institutions but even of European agencies. The third part provides a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the personal, geographical origin and subject matter of complaints complemented by the targets of inquiries. In particular, citizens of some States are more active than other in submitting a complaint, the Commission is still the most targeted institution, while the major allegation of maladministration pertains to access to documents and lack of transparency. The fourth part investigates possible barriers that European citizens might encounter in lodging a complaint to the European Ombudsman. In this respect, considering the lack of locus standi before the European Ombudsman and the fact that the proceedings is free of charge and can be conducted in the language chosen by the applicant, we argue that there are no barriers to be overcome. The fifth part, through an assessment of the few cases decided by the European Court of Justice and considering the specific relationship the European Ombudsman has with the Parliament, seeks to position him with the so-called ...

This article attempts to provide a critical understanding of the dual signification of "precarity". It explores what "precarity" as a concept may potentially offer to studies of the changing contemporary political economy of migration. It discusses shifting trends in global migration and point to tendencies for a possible convergence between "South" and "North", "East" and "West". Based on a review of current advances in research, it discusses, with reference to the classical work of Karl Polanyi, the potential for a contemporary "countermovement" which would challenge the precarity of migrants. Bringing forward the issue of the "space for civil society" the article addresses a still lingering democratic deficit in the global governance of migration. ; Policy Implications The article is relevant to policymakers, trade unions and civil society organizations. It contributes to the understanding of policy making processes in emerging multilevel global governance and focuses on issues of precarization, migration, and the implementation and accountability of human, migrant and labour rights.

Although Berle and Means's work was intended to redirect the governance of corporate affairs away from furthering private cupidity and toward advancing public policy, their insights have done more harm than good; they have tended to reinforce the primacy of private cupidity or, perhaps more accurately, allowed subsequent theorists to prefer the pursuit of private cupidity by equating it with the development of public policy. This is not only unfortunate, but also unnecessary. Although Berle and Means's The Modern Corporation forms the bedrock of the prevailing paradigm in corporate law and governance, it also contains some very suggestive materials from which to construct an alternative and more democratic way of proceeding that actually subverts and transforms the established model. This Article seeks both to celebrate The Modern Corporation, but also to lament the enduring influence of its received understanding on corporate law scholarship and practice. If The Modern Corporation is to avoid becoming "defunct" and remain relevant to contemporary ideas and practice, it must be more as a conceptual corrective and less as a traditional prop for the prevailing paradigm of corporate governance. After offering a different and more democratic inspired reading of The Modern Corporation the Article examines how it might be feasible to move from the present situation of corpocracy to a future milieu of democracy. Finally, the Article lays out the main features of a democratic agenda for reforming corporate governance.

Why democracy? Institutions of government and others must meet conditions of legitimacy. Why? and what are they? what are principles of legitimacy, like the principle of subsidiarity? and how does democracy fit in a theory of legitimacy? The paper surveys what it takes to be the seven most important advantages of democratic government: civil and political rights, more extensive opportunities for people to engage in public affairs, responsiveness to the expressed preferences of the people, stability, peaceful transfer of power, loyalty and solidarity. It then considers the role of legitimation in securing these advantages. These reflection lead to the question whether other regimes can secure the same advantages? And more importantly: given that all democratic regime rely also on non-democratic institutions, how are we to debate questions like how much democracy is needed? A question which arises within a single regime and in the interaction between several, say national and international, regimes.

The article discusses the implications of Panama Papers on the 2017 general election in Malta. ; peer-reviewed

This article presents the argument that European Central Bank (ECB) policy-making from the start of the sovereign debt crisis in 2010 undermined the democratic legitimacy of the ECB. We start with the argument – defended by a number of scholars including Majone and Moravcsik – that where European Union (EU) policy-making is technocratic and does not have significant redistributive implications it can benefit from depoliticization that does not undermine the democratic legitimacy of this policy-making. This is notably the case where EU institutions have narrow mandates and are constrained by super-majoritarian decision-making. Prior to the international financial crisis, the ECB's monetary policies were shaped entirely by the interpretation that its mandate was primarily to ensure low inflation. From the outbreak of the sovereign debt crisis, the ECB adopted a range of policies which pushed its role well beyond that interpretation and engaged in a form of redistribution that directly undermined treaty provisions.

This paper provides a realist analysis of the European Union's (EU) legitimacy. We propose a modification of Bernard Williams' theory of legitimacy, which we term critical responsiveness. For Williams, 'Basic Legitimation Demand + Modernity = Liberalism'. Drawing on that model, we make three claims. (i) The right side of the equation is insufficiently sensitive to popular sovereignty; (ii) The left side of the equation is best thought of as a 'legitimation story': a non-moralised normative account of how to shore up belief in legitimacy while steering clear of both raw domination and ideological distortions. (iii) The EU's current legitimation story draws on a tradition of popular sovereignty that sits badly with the supranational delegation and pooling of sovereign powers. We conclude by suggesting that the EU's legitimation deficit may be best addressed demoicratically, by recovering the value of popular sovereignty at the expense of a degree of state sovereignty.

ÖZETAvrupa Birliği Tek Senet ve Maastricht Antlaşmaları'ndan sonra siyasi bütünleşmesine hız verdikçe yönetim ve demokrasi konularındaki tartışmalar da önemli boyutta artmıştır. Bazı çevreler daha da ileri giderek AB'nin çok kültürlü, çok milletli ve çok lisanlı sosyal yapısı hiçbir zaman demokratik yönetimin gerçekleşmesine izin vermeyecektir türünden iddialar bile ortaya atmaktadır. Bu iddia sahiplerine göre demokrasi için aynı köken, dil, din ve kültürel yapıdan beslenen homojen bir toplum üzerine bina edilmiş bir demos gereklidir. Ayrıca uluslar üstü bir yapı olarak Avrupa Birliği gerek karar alma mekanizması içinde gerekse hükumet fonksiyonlarını yerine getirmede bir çok demokratik eksiklik iddialarına da maruz kalmaktadır. Direkt halk seçimiyle iş başına gelen tek kurum olarak Parlamento, Avrupa halkının temsilinde ve onlar için karar alma sürecinde zayıf kalmaktadır. Komisyon Birlik içinde bir yürütme organı olarak görülmesine rağmen halka hesap verebilirlik özelliği neredeyse oluşmamıştır ve bu kurum içindeki aşırı bürokratik yapı demokratik yönetim kanallarını tıkamaktadır . Karar alma ve uygulamada en etkili organ olan Konsey ise bu görevlerinde şeffaf olmayan bir tarz benimsediği için eleştirilmektedir. Bununla birlikte ülkeler arası ekonomik, finansal, ticari, sosyal ve kültürel etkileşimin neticesi olarak globalleşen çağımızda demokrasinin milliyetçi anlamı oldukça zayıflamıştır. Dolayısıyla bu yeni oluşan demokrasi yaklaşımı ulus devletçi manasından sıyrılmış ve demos oluşumu için artık global olarak kabul edilen hukukun üstünlüğü, insan haklarına saygı ve sivik erdem gibi değerler üzerine oturmuş bir sosyal kimlik yeterli görülmektedir. Dolayısıyla AB' nin demos problemi üye devlet halkları arasında güçlü bir 'Avrupa vatandaşlığı' duygusunu oturtmakla ortadan kalkacaktır. Bununla birlikte kurumsal demokratik eksiklikleri yok etmek için ise en etkili üç kurum arasındaki güç dengesini optimize etmek gerekmektedir. Dolayısıyla, Avrupa Birliği üye devletlerle Birlik arasındaki güç köprüsünü ayarlamak adına, Almanya örneğinde olduğu gibi, federal felsefeden beslenen bir yapıya oturtulmalıdır. Bu federalleşme prosesi içinde kurumlar arası bir çok kombinasyon geliştirilebilir; örneğin Konsey ve Parlamento karar almada iki meclisli bir sisteme dönüşebilir; veya Komisyon başkanının ve istenirse üyelerin de direkt olarak seçilebileceği bir sistem benimsenebilir; veya Bölgeler Komitesi' ne ve Ekonomik ve Sosyal Komite' ye karar almada daha fazla sorumluluk verilebilir. Şurası önemlidir ki, ancak bu gibi radikal yasama ve yürütme reformlarıyla AB demokrasisini güçlendirip yeni üyeleriyle geleceğe hazırlanabilecektir.ABSTRACTAs the European Union went through a political integration after the Single European Act and the Treaty of Maastricht, the debates associated with its governance and democracy were multiplied. It was claimed that since the Union has a multicultural, multiethnic and multilingual social structure, to develop a democratic governance is impossible. Because democracy requires a demos that is the community of the same origin, religion and cultural backgrounds. Furthermore, the EU has many democratic deficits in decision making and executing governmental functions as a supranational entity. The European Parliament, the unique directly elected institution, is weak in representing European people and decision making for them. Although the Commission functions as an executive governmental body it is not accountable for the people for its actions. The Council, the most influential organ in decision making and implementation, however, is very opaque and secretive in its fulfillments.However in our globalized era, the nationalist understanding of democracy has already disappeared due to intense interaction of states in economic, financial, commercial and social affairs. This democracy approach, nonetheless, must be stipped of its nation statal understanding and be based on a demos whose identity is formed around globally recognized values like civic virtues, respect for the rule of law and human rights. So, this demos problem is overcome only by embedding a strong European citizenship feeling amongst the people of member states.In order to solve institutional democratic deficits, however, to optimize the power balance between the three most effective institutions is required. For this purpose the government of the EU should be benefit from federal principles in order to adjust this balance bridge between the Union government and the member states as it is the case in German type federation. This can be achieved through many administrative combinations like converting the Council and the Parliament into a bicameral structure in decision making; or through direct election of the Commission president and the members; or through allocating more responsibility over the Committee of Regions or Economic and Social Committee. Only with such a radical legislative and administrative reforms will the EU strenghten its democracy and will be ready for enlarging with the new member states for the future.