Suchergebnisse

Spearheaded by French President Emmanuel Macron, the concept of "European sovereign-ty" is used increasingly often in debates on the role of the EU in the world. The concept's recurrent use makes it important to reflect on what it means to speak of a "European sovereignty" in the con-text of the institutional reality which is the EU. To contribute to this effort, in this insight I look at the role of the concept of "sovereignty" in the case law of the Court of Justice of the EU; I explore the dif-ferences and similarities between "sovereignty" and "autonomy" as the ordering principles of, respec-tively, the international and EU legal orders; and I point to a number of advantages and disad-vantages that come with speaking of a "European sovereignty". I argue that, by refocussing political debate, the term may very well contribute to efforts to better equip the EU to face an increasingly un-predictable international environment. In the final analysis however, if the EU is to be able to "exist in the world as it currently exists, to defend our values and our interests", a European external sover-eignty must go hand in hand with a meaningful degree of internal sovereignty. This, in turn, requires a reshuffling of the balance of power between EU institutions, with a greater role for those institu-tions that represent the interests of the EU citizenry, as well as a more effective enforcement of exist-ing EU policies. In particular as far as the first of these requirements is concerned, it is unclear at this juncture whether President Macron is willing to take steps in this direction.

"This book shows how the EU's dual sovereignty-legitimacy problem can be resolved through the political concept of European citizenship, which can serve both to define the scope of European sovereignty and to justify EU power beyond national democracy. It reconceptualizes the EU's legitimacy problem and demonstrates how sources of legitimacy can be identified and give rise to European sovereignty. It argues that sovereignty should be based on the will of citizens acting through various political bodies within the EU: city halls, regional entities, national governments, and EU institutions, and develops a general theory, arguably applicable to any political order. The EU is an unprecedented political project that is in tension with traditional forms of state legitimation based on national democracy, as nationalist and populists throughout Europe often make clear. Against this backdrop, the book fully articulates the notion of European sovereignty and argues that the EU's sources of legitimacy are based on European citizenship and national democracy. This book will be of key interest to scholars and students of European Union politics, European integration, international institutions and more broadly to international relations"--

Introduction -- Theories of sovereignty and legitimacy -- Insufficient solutions to the EU's sovereignty-legitimacy problem -- Internal sources of EU principles -- External sources of EU principles -- European citizenship and national democracy -- Conclusion.

Introduction -- Theories of sovereignty and legitimacy -- Insufficient solutions to the EU's sovereignty-legitimacy problem -- Internal sources of EU principles -- External sources of EU principles -- European citizenship and national democracy -- Conclusion.

THE FACT THAT A PARALLEL CAN BE DRAWN BETWEEN THE PROCESS of European integration and an emerging sovereignty illustrates the political nature of European integration. No matter what definitions of sovereignty are used – and we will come back to that – it is clear that the European Community has one fundamental characteristic: it is a framework within which an attempt is being made to translate into action, through an institutional process, a complex of economic, social, and human aspirations. If politics consist in making possible what is desirable, then the Community does indeed deal with politics. What is important is the degree of originality and autonomy in the community, rather than references to such notions as 'subject to international law' or 'political recognition'. Much has been written on the concept of sovereignty and on various aspects of its changing nature.

Intro -- Contents -- 1. A supranational or a decentralized EU? -- 2. Who's coming to play? Policy- making actors in the EU -- 3. Understanding EU policy making: major theories and new insights -- 4. Single market policy: creating a strong neo- liberal market in the global economy -- 5. Competition policy: ensuring a competitive European market -- 6. Economic and Monetary Union: the making of the money tree -- 7. The Common Agricultural Policy: redistributive policy in favour of whom? -- 8. Social policy: demonstrating European incapability and differences -- 9. Policies of freedom, security and justice: a limited role for the EU -- 10. External policies: divided we stand, united we fall -- 11. Conclusions: understanding the present, changing the future -- Notes -- Bibliography -- Index.

The Covid-19 pandemic, Russia's war against Ukraine, and intensifying US-China competition and its repercussions on EU member states have prompted the bloc to increasingly reflect on its position on the geopolitical chessboard and forced it to take concrete action.
The post European Sovereignty Agenda and the UK: Time to Catch Up appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

2019 marked 20 years since EU Member States decided to create a joint EU approach to security and defense. The paper raises the question on finding new approaches to provide security and defense in Europe in the current context, as well as the formation of a new paradigm for research on regional security in Europe. Traditional approaches to the study of European integration (neofunctionalism and intergovernmentalism) are of little use for theorizing the development of European defense in conditions of new challenges and threats to national and regional security, as well as transatlantic solidarity violations. The article studies European Strategic Autonomy (ESA), which refers to the ability of the European Union, in conjunction with Member States, to independently determine its own priorities according to which to take decisions and implement them in the fields of foreign policy, security and defense. ESA is not synonymous with independence, nor does it deny membership in military-political alliances, since a more realistic scenario implies positioning itself as a European pillar of NATO. The implementation of the idea of building a "european sovereignty" in the field of security and defense implies that the European Union should take bigger responsibility for its own security, the security of its neighbors, andshould strengthen its role in transatlantic relations without opposing NATO. In order to move from rhetoric to concrete policy steps, the EU needs to develop a plan of measures for political, institutional and industrial action. It means that achieving real autonomy requires time and joint efforts by EU institutions and Member State governments. However, political and institutional autonomy can be built exclusively within the whole Union, while military-industrial autonomy can be initiated and implemented by a group of the most economically and technologically advanced EU Member States.

This paper is in closed access until 17 Jan 2020. ; EU/ropean political community's reaction to irregular migrants is ambivalent. On the one hand, mi-grants are produced as people to be pitied, rescued and saved. On the other hand, they are feared, despised and left to die. The article looks at this ambivalence from a gender perspective and asks how sovereign masculinities are produced through emotional performances in the politics of migration con-trol and management. It will be argued that emotions such as fear, disgust, and compassion are per-formed in the biopolitical security governance of irregular migration by producing a 'socially abject' life as its object. This is a life that is to be killed, despised, and saved. Encounters between the irregular migrant and a European border security actor constitute a neo-colonial masculinity. During the moment of the encounter with the other's life, sovereignty is produced through emotional performances of border security actors. The discussion concludes with illustrations of how racialized bodies and lives are produced as objects of fear, disgust and compassion by producing the European neo-colonial masculin-ity. The article speaks to the debates in the literature of masculinities in global politics, emotions and politics, and critical border studies.

2019 marked 20 years since EU Member States decided to create a joint EU approach to security and defense. The paper raises the question on finding new approaches to provide security and defense in Europe in the current context, as well as the formation of a new paradigm for research on regional security in Europe. Traditional approaches to the study of European integration (neofunctionalism and intergovernmentalism) are of little use for theorizing the development of European defense in conditions of new challenges and threats to national and regional security, as well as transatlantic solidarity violations. The article studies European Strategic Autonomy (ESA), which refers to the ability of the European Union, in conjunction with Member States, to independently determine its own priorities according to which to take decisions and implement them in the fields of foreign policy, security and defense. ESA is not synonymous with independence, nor does it deny membership in military-political alliances, since a more realistic scenario implies positioning itself as a European pillar of NATO. The implementation of the idea of building a "european sovereignty" in the field of security and defense implies that the European Union should take bigger responsibility for its own security, the security of its neighbors, andshould strengthen its role in transatlantic relations without opposing NATO. In order to move from rhetoric to concrete policy steps, the EU needs to develop a plan of measures for political, institutional and industrial action. It means that achieving real autonomy requires time and joint efforts by EU institutions and Member State governments. However, political and institutional autonomy can be built exclusively within the whole Union, while military-industrial autonomy can be initiated and implemented by a group of the most economically and technologically advanced EU Member States.