Suchergebnisse

Euroopan komissio luotiin jotta se voisi ajaa yhteisöjen intressiä. Sen vuoksi siitä päätettiin tehdä itsenäinen. Mutta koska Euroopan Unionin vaikutus jäsenmaissaan on hyvin vahvaa, myös talouden kannalta, haluavat jäsenmaat vaikuttaa komissioon mahdollisimman paljon. Tämän vuoksi komission itsenäisyys vaarantuu. Perustamissopimukset koettavat hoitaa ongelman luomalla komissiolle joita-kin suojamekanismeja. Mutta ovatko ne riittäviä? Vaikuttaa siltä, että komissioon pystytään vaikuttamaan liikaa sen jokapäiväisessä työssä. Tämä vaikuttaminen alkaa jo komission nimittämisvaiheessa ja jatkuu koko ajan komission pohtiessa uuden lainsäädännön tarvetta ja komission valmistellessa uutta lainsäädäntöä. Komission lakiehdotelman sisältöön vaikuttavat usein paljonkin muut instituutiot, jäsenvaltiot sekä intressiryhmät. Tämä johtaa siihen, että komissio ei täysin pysty toteuttamaan yhteisöjen in-tressiä. Monin eri tavoin komission päätöksiin voivat vaikuttaa yksittäisten tai use-ampien jäsenmaiden edut, vaikka tarkoitus olisi ajaa yhteisöjen etua. The European Commission was created so that it could work to fulfil the Community Interest. Therefore it was decided to be an independent institution. But because the European Union affects its Member States very deeply, not least in budgetary ways, the Member States seem to want to influence the Commission as much as possible. Therefore the independence of the Commission is at stake. The Treaties try to deal with the problem by setting some protective mecha-nisms on the Commission. But is it enough? It seems that the Commission gets in-fluenced too much in its everyday work. This influencing starts already at the nomi-nation of the Commissioners, continues all the while when the Commission is decid-ing if new Community legislation is needed and while it drafts new legislation. The substance of the drafts are often influenced very much by the other institutions, Member States and interest groups. What this means is that the Commission can't fulfil its task at seeking the best of the Communities. In many different ways the decisions of the Commission may further the good of one or some interested parties instead of the Community In-terest.

Turkey first applied for EU membership in 1987 and started negotiations for full membership in October 2005 after lengthy and challenging negotiations between EU member states. This master's thesis attempts to examine the relationship between the negotiations for EU membership that are going on between Turkey and the EU Commission and the public discussion on the subject. The research material consists of selected posts on the Financial Times discussion forum and the Acquis communautaire and Copenhagen criteria. By comparing the research material this thesis attempts to investigate if the public deliberation and official negotiations focus on the same issues and requirements for membership. The theoretical background for this analysis is deliberative democracy, according to which public debate should be a prerequisite for agenda setting and decision making. The findings of the thesis reveal that the public discussion does touch on the acquis communautaire and Copenhagen criteria to some degree, but the public is also concerned with non-acquis issues such as the culture and history. A unique feature of the accession negotiations is also the amount of commentary from heads of state regarding the negotiations, which was also noted in the research material. In the light of deliberative democratic theory it can be noted that the public may take part in the discussion over Turkey's membership, but it has little or no chances of setting the agenda for the negotiations.

Tutkimuksen kohteena on kokonaisturvallisuus julkisena toimintapolitiikkana, ja sitä tarkastellaan sekä monimutkaisena ja yhteenkietoutuneena ilmiönä että turvallisuuspoliittisena strategiana. Kokonaisturvallisuus on laajaan turvallisuuskäsitteeseen perustuva, aiemmasta kokonaismaanpuolustuksen käsitteistöstä ja strategiasta kehitetty toimintapolitiikka, jolla tavoitellaan kokonaisvaltaista yhteiskunnallisen turvallisuuden hallinnan mallia. Tutkimuksen päämääränä on analysoida kokonaisturvallisuutta systeeminä, arvioida sen kelpoisuutta, toteutettavuutta ja edellytyksiä vastata turvallisuusympäristön muutoksiin. Tutkimus on metodologisesti laadullinen. Aineistona ovat suomalaiset kokonaisturvallisuuden alaan liittyvät erilaiset ja eritasoiset strategiat, ohjelmat ja muut dokumentit, ja toimintaympäristöön ja sen muutokseen liittyvät Euroopan unionin strategiat ja ohjelmat. Teoriaviitekehys perustuu Niklas Luhmannin systeemiajatteluun, jossa systeemin perusrakenteita ovat kommunikaatio, tieto ja merkitykset, ja joka korostaa valintoja kompleksisuuden hallinnan välineinä. Ajattelussa korostuu myös huiputon ja keskukseton yhteiskunta. Prosessimaisen otteensa vuoksi tutkimus kiinnittää huomiota yksittäisten osatekijöiden tai toimijoiden sijaan prosessiin ja kokonaisuuden systeemisyyteen, mikä korreloi sekä kokonaisturvallisuuden tavoitteiden että kompleksisuuden vaatimusten suhteen. Kokonaisturvallisuuden analyysi sekä tunnistaa tutkimuksessa sen kehittämiseen liittyneen merkityskamppailun, että tuo esiin käsitteen epäselvyyden, epäanalyyttisyyden ja "jaetun merkityksen" puuttumisen, mikä heijastuu strategian ohjaavaan vaikutukseen sekä siihen, miten politiikkaideaa on kehitetty. Kokonaisturvallisuuden politiikkaidea on sinällään laajasti hyväksyttävä ja sillä on positiivista valenssia. Yhteistyön ja koordinoinnin korostamisella uskotaan olevan kokonaisuuden hallintaa kehittävä vaikutus. Turvallisuuden kokonaisuuden koordinointitarve onkin jo pelkästään uhkien keskinäisriippuvuuden vuoksi ilmeinen. Poliittista kelpoisuutta haittaavat kokonaisuuden strategisen ohjauksen ohuus ja hajanaisuus, mikä näkyy erityisesti yhteensovittavan tehtävän vaikeutena. Monet systeemin rakenteellisista peruselementeistä ovat jääneet kokonaisturvallisuuden kehittämisessä vähälle huomiolle. Tutkimuksen mukaan tämä vaikeuttaa sen toteutettavuutta. Kokonaisturvallisuuden hallinnassa olennaista on keskinäisriippuvuuksien ja systeemisyyden tunnistaminen ja hallinta. Tutkimuksen tulosten avulla kokonaisturvallisuutta systeemisenä turvallisuuden hallinnan mallina voidaan kehittää ja edistää. Tutkimus päätyy suositukseen kokonaisturvallisuuden kehittämisen ratkaisumallista (ns. älykkään adaptiivisen kompleksisen turvallisuussysteemin idean avulla). Tutkimus tarjoaa eväitä myös uusien kokonaisturvallisuutta koskevien poliittisten linjausten ja politiikkatoimien muotoilulle. ; The main objectives of this study are to clarify and deepen the understanding of the phenomena of comprehensive security and to analyze and evaluate the political viability and administrative operability. Furthermore, the study aims to analyze comprehensive security as a political process and a complex system. In addition, the research deals with changing security environment, emerging security threats. Originally, the concept of comprehensive security derived from the previous concept of comprehensive defense and preparedness in Finland, but it also has roots in the Nordic states' cooperation processes of civil security since 2009. At policy and doctrinal levels, the 2000s saw a converging trend in Nordic states to-wards the definition of societal or comprehensive security concepts that might co-exist with military-led planning for war-time, but within which the softer aspects of security were paramount. The "societal" approach defines the protection of society as a whole – with its own complex mechanisms, values and culture – as its goal, rather than physical boundaries or the isolated and abstract individual. It also rec-ognizes the capacity of non-state actors within society, from businesses to social organizations and individuals, to play a large role themselves in warding against, coping with, and recovering from disasters. The research questions are: 1. What is comprehensive security like as a policy or meta-strategy, political process and complex system? 2. Is the comprehensive security policy or meta-strategy politically viable and administratively feasible? What kind of conditions the strategies (policies) provide for the administrative operability and the development of capabilities? The theory framework is based on Niklas Luhmann's systems and complexity thinking. Luhmann perceives society as centerless and topless system in which communication, information and meanings are considered as the basic elements. The aim of communication is to cause action in systems and formulate new system levels by creating new chains of communication. The empirical part of the research is established on the methodology of concept analysis, content analysis and policy-analysis. The policy-analysis was conducted by the method of political reading. Political reading can be characterized as 'de-mapping', which refers to opening up new aspects of contingency and thus ex-panding of the presence of the political therein (Palonen 1993: 13-15). Through the analysis of the political process the struggle of meanings was iden-tified. As a concept, comprehensive security is ambiguous, unanalytical and unclear. There is a lack of shared meanings, which reflects on how difficult it is to steer the comprehensive security. By emphasizing its cooperative and coordinative nature, is believed to promote better governance of security. However, the lack of steering hampers the political viability which the difficulties of the coordination clearly indi-cate. Many of the basic elements of a system (information/knowledge, communica-tion and meanings) have been ignored in the development of comprehensive secu-rity. This hampers its administrative operability. The study emphasizes that systemic instruments, systems intelligence, identified interdependence and systemic nature of threats and security environment are essential components of comprehensive security governance. The research produced also 10 normative conclusions, by which the compre-hensive security can be developed further with. In addition, it gives the recommen-dation for the development of a model, according to the idea of intelligent adaptive complex system. It also offers information for new political aligning and policy formulations. Due to the process approach of the research, it pays attention to societal security system as a whole, not to single functions or actors. This fits to-gether with the goals set for comprehensive security and the requirements the se-curity environment and complexity imposes.

This work, prepared and published during the author's stay at the RSCAS, EUI, is a "compilation thesis" (in Finnish "artikkeliväitöskirja"), Department of Political Sciences, University of Helsinki, and contains the major part of the author's PhD thesis (forthcoming print monograph, 2012). ; The future is uncertain, and the financial system of the European Union has to take into account this uncertainty. This book looks at the different means it has at its disposal to do so, and analyses how these means have evolved since the creation of the general budget of the European Communities in 1968. The analysis is extended to a broader study of the development of the European Union through several case studies: negotiations on the Financial Regulation of 25 June 2002,on its first modifi cation, adopted on 13 December 2006, and on the Interinstitutional Agreement (IIA) of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound fi nancial management and on the Multiannual Financial Framework for 2007-2013. The question of the uncertainty of the future is addressed using the so-called "Theory of Budgetary Flexibility". This theory, developed originally to analyse national budgetary systems, establishes an essential distinction between External Flexibility and Internal Flexibility, on the one hand, and Annual Flexibility and Multiannual Flexibility on the other hand. It is particularly useful here as it enables us to examine under a common framework processes that are often considered separate (and treated in the literature as such), and to draw conclusions at systems' level. The book is divided into three Parts: - Part One (Chapters 1 to 3), which forms the theoretical part of this book, includes an analysis of the specificities and of the functioning of the budgetary and financial systems of the European Union, while presenting an "état des lieux" of studies carried out in these fields; - Part Two (Chapters 4 to 13) deals with changes that have been made to various forms of flexibility since 1968. Special attention is paid not only to the consequences these changes have had for the various actors involved – namely the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission and Member States – but also for the financial system of the European Union as a whole; - Part Three (Chapters 14 to 18) addresses the question of how the changes examined in Part Two affect the general development of the European Union.