Suchergebnisse

By looking into the case of the latest EU health policy reforms, the author analyses whether the European integration theories are equipped for an explanation of integration outcomes during the Covid-19 pandemic. The author primarily considers theories that hypothesise crises as a critical factor in integration dynamics, i.e., neofunctionalism and post-functionalism. In the last decade, multiple crises have been hitting the European Union (EU), and there have been many attempts to theorise their impact on European integration. Nevertheless, the answers are far from clear-cut regarding whether crises have been beneficial or detrimental to further integration, either in terms of its scope (widening the EU policy areas and/or membership) or level (increasing the EU institutions' competences and/or capacities). After analysing how the crisis has been handled and the reforms taken in the health policy sector, the author concludes that post-functionalist expectations about the crisis triggering Euroscepticism and identity-driven mass politicisation, thereby precluding further integration, have not materialised so far. On the contrary, the Covid-19 crisis has led to an increase in the EU's capacities in some essential policy sectors. Health policy is one. So far, this policy has seen reforms that neofunctionalism would call a build-up - a transfer of more authority to supranational institutions without expanding its formal mandate. As neofunctionalism would expect, the coronavirus crisis triggered an elite politicisation that created an environment conducive to further integration rather than disintegrative outcomes. ; Posmatrajući slučaj najnovijih reformi zdravstvene politike Evropske unije (EU), autorka analizira sposobnost teorija evropske integracije da objasne ishode procesa integracije tokom pandemije Kovid-19. Autorka prevashodno uzima u obzir teorije koje pretpostavljaju da su krize ključan činilac u dinamici integracije, a to su neofunkcionalizam i postfunkcionalizam. U poslednjoj deceniji, EU su pogađale ...

Rad razmatra problem zastoja u procesu pridruživanja, odnosno pristupanja zemalja Zapadnog Balkana Evropskoj uniji. Osnovne uzroke ovog problema autorka vidi u samoj prirodi asimetričnog odnosa Evropske unije i pomenutih zemalja u čijem središtu se nalazi Proces stabilizacije i pridruživanja, odnosno pristupanja. Njemu su doprinele obe strane: Evropska unija preambiciozno postavljenom politikom prema regionu, nedovoljno definisanim i stalno promenljivim kriterijumima, ali i zemlje u procesu svojim nekritičkim odnosom prema mogućem članstvu, nejasno definisanim interesima i ciljevima, sporim reformama i slabom demokratskom tradicijom. Kako bi proces mogao uspešno da se nastavi, autorka tvrdi da je potrebno njegovo suštinsko preoblikovanje ka fleksibilnom procesu. U svetlu sve češćih rasprava o mogućem kretanju evropske integracije ka većoj diferencijaciji, proces fleksibilnog pristupanja bi omogućio članstvo samo u odabranim oblastima delovanja Evropske unije, koje bi bile odabrane shodno prethodno jasno definisanim i analiziranim interesima i mogućnostima zemalja kandidata i potencijalnih kandidata. Autorka zaključuje da je potrebno proces što više odvojiti od uslovljavanja u političkim oblastima kako bi se umanjila mogućnost arbitrarnog odlučivanja o napretku ovih zemalja u procesu. Osim što bi za države kandidate i potencijalne kandidate ovakav manje zahtevan proces bio jednostavniji i omogućio veću autonomiju u izboru oblasti integracije i tempu prilagođavanja, za države članice EU bi predstavljao način da se vrati kredibilitet jednoj od svojih nekada najuspešnijih spoljopolitičkih aktivnosti. Ključne reči: pristupanje, zastoj, Evropska unija, Zapadni Balkan, fleksibilnost, diferencirana integracija. ; The article deals with the problem of the Western Balkans countries' accession and association process impasse. The author finds the key causes of this problem in the very nature of an asymmetric relationship between the EU and these countries with the Stabilization and Association Process laying in its core. ...

U članku autorka ispituje uticaj velike krize Evropske unije na proces politizacije antikriznih mera usvajanih tokom 2010. i 2011. godine. Praćenjem procesa usvajanja "paketa šest mera", kao i analizom reagovanja različitih nacionalnih i transnacionalnih političkih aktera, autorka pokazuje da je uobičajena pretpostavka o krizi kao podsticajnom faktoru za politizaciju samo delimično ispravna. Šest mera čiji je cilj bio da se unapredi nekadašnji Pakt stabilnosti i rasta i nadzor nad ekonomskim i fiskalnim politikama država članica EU, značajno je ograničio ovlašćenja nacionalnih organa da se bave ovim pitanjima ali i povezanim politikama. I pored velikog značaja i ozbiljnih posledica ovih šest antikriznih mera, one nisu izazvale intenzivnu politizaciju, bar ne onakvu koja bi omogućila da suprotstavljeni zahtevi različitih političkih aktera utiču na konačan ishod odlučivanja i da se politizacija iz nacionalnih okvira prenese na nadnacionalni nivo. Naprotiv, kriza suverenog duga u EU upravo je poslužila političkim elitama da eventualna sporna pitanja izoluju od širih političkih konflikata i da ih drže mahom unutar nacionalnih granica. Osim krize, i drugi faktori doprineli su umirivanju politizacije. Autorka nalazi da su to način oblikovanja (predstavljanja) politizovanog pitanja, ustrojstvo ekonomske i monetarne unije kao decentralizovanog i policentričnog sistema upravljanja i konačno, složena i konsocijativna priroda Evropske unije. ; The article examines how the great crisis in the European Union influenced the politicization of the anti-crisis measures taken during 2010 and 2011. By tracing the process of adoption of the so-called "Six-Pack" measures as well as by analyzing the reactions of different national and transnational political actors, the author shows that the usual hypothesis about the crisis as a factor giving impetus to politicization is only partially right. The six measures adopted with the aim of reinforcing the Stability and Growth Pact and the surveillance of the member states' economic and ...

Since the end of the 1980s, the intensifying of the politicization process has been one of the important characteristics of the EU integration process. The politicization in the EU is understood as the way of contesting and decision-making on public issues, the way that is opposite to the elitist and technocratic mode of decision-making, typical for the first decades of EU integration. Thus, the politicization, and also the politicization in the EU, is grasped as complementary to the public character of modern politics, especially with democracy. The European union is conceptualized as an extremely compound and non-centralized political system of a non-state type with the elements of consensus democracy and with a deeply segmented society as its basis, divided by national and many transnational lines. Within that society, as well as within its political institutions, the politicization process has been developing which has been influencing the functioning of the system considerably. We explore the experiences of politicization in other compound, consensus democracies in Europe – Belgium and Switzerland – and by comparing the specific cases of politicization, we are searching for the possible specific characteristics of politicization in the EU that stem from its described nature. Also, we are analyzing the possible impact of such politicization on the future of integration and politics in the EU. Although not always contributing to deepening of integration, the politicization in the EU, under specific circumstances, could have a democratizing effect. It serves as the opportunity for stimulating the debates on important issues and articulating the will of the citizens while the adequate forms of participation in the political process are still missing in the EU. In addition, we discuss the potential impact of the politicization of European issues on the gradual creation of the European public sphere or the Europeanisation of the national public spheres, as well as on the Europeanisation of society and emergence of the European political identity among the EU citizens. ; Jedna od značajnijih karakteristika u razvoju evropske integracije od kraja 1980- ih godina jeste intenziviranje procesa politizacije. Politizacija u Evropskoj uniji se razume kao način raspravljanja i odlučivanja o javnim pitanjima suprotan elitističkom i tehnokratskom načinu donošenja odluka, uobičajenom naročito za prve decenije razvoja evropske integracije. Stoga se politizacija, pa i politizacija u Evropskoj uniji, shvata kao komplementarna sa javnim karakterom moderne politike, posebno sa demokratijom. Evropska unija je konceptualizovana kao izrazito složen i necentralizovan politički sistem nedržavnog tipa sa elementima konsensualne demokratije koji za osnovu ima duboko segmentirano društvo, ispresecano osim nacionalnim i mnogim transnacionalnim podelama. Unutar tog društva, kao i unutar političkih institucija, odvija se proces politizacije koja ima značajnog uticaja na funkcionisanje sistema. Rad nastoji da izuči iskustva politizacije drugih složenih, konsensualnih demokratija u Evropi – Belgije i Švajcarske – te poređenjem pojedinih slučajeva politizacije traga za posebnim karakteristikama politizacije u EU koje proističu iz njene opisane prirode, kao i o mogućem uticaju takve politizacije na budućnost integracije i politike u EU. Iako neće uvek doprineti produbljivanju integracije, politizacija u EU pod određenim uslovima može imati demokratizujući uticaj jer predstavlja način da se oživi rasprava o važnim pitanjima i artikuliše volja građana u nedostatku adekvatnih oblika učešća u političkom procesu EU. Dodatno, razmatra se potencijalni uticaj koji politizacija evropskih pitanja može da ima na postepeno kreiranje evropske javne sfere ili evropeizaciju nacionalnih javnih sfera, kao i na evropeizaciju društva i kreiranje evropskog političkog identiteta među građanima Unije.

The paper explores the European Parliament's capacities as an actor in the process of overcoming the contemporary EU crisis. It starts with a critical analysis of both formal and informal institutional arrangements introduced with the Lisbon Treaty and during the process of 2014 European elections preparation. It is argued that although the EP has gained powers concerning the election of the European executive chief, the EP increasingly loses its powers within policies that are the main generators of crisis. That is why the EP cannot play a significant role in overcoming the EU crisis nor can the citizens who elect it. Apart from institutional incapability, the role of the Parliament is further complicated by new circumstances - holding elections and constituting the EP under the conditions of increased politicization caused by the protracted crisis. The paper concludes that the EP, just as the EU itself, has been caught in a vicious circle where the crisis and politicization produce deep divisions, and divisions consequently preclude taking anti-crisis measures. ; Rad nastoji da ispita kapacitete Evropskog parlamenta (EP) kao aktera u prevazilaženju savremene krize EU. Najpre se kritički sagledavaju formalne i neformalne institucionalne novine nakon Ugovora iz Lisabona i poslednjih izbora za EP i ukazuje na činjenicu da Parlament i dalje uživa ograničena ovlašćenja. Naime, iako je dobio veću mogućnost uticaja na izbor šefa egzekutive, on ima sve manje mogućnosti kontrole i uticaja u politikama EU koje su glavni generatori krize. Stoga, Evropski parlament ne može da ima značajniju ulogu u izvođenju Unije iz krize, a time ni građani koji ga biraju. Pored institucionalnih nedostataka, ulogu Parlamenta otežavaju nove okolnosti - odvijanje izbora i konstituisanje EP u uslovima uvećane politizacije izazvane pre svega produženom krizom EU. U radu se zaključuje da se EP, kao i Evropska unija, našao u začaranom krugu u kojem kriza i politizacija proizvode duboke podele koje otežavaju preduzimanje mera za izlazak iz krize.

This article explores how national executives in Serbia and Bulgaria address European Union (EU) rule of law conditionality by framing it within the populism/technocracy dichotomy. The rule of law remains one of the main problems of EU relations with the two countries. While acknowledging the nuances of pre- and post-enlargement Europeanisation, this article explores the technocratic and populist narratives exploited by the national executives in their interactions with the EU and their domestic public. Rather than positioning the current executives unequivocally either as populist or technocratic, we argue that the political elites act strategically in using both populist and technocratic techniques towards their publics when explaining interaction with the EU. We explore the extent this type of executive behaviour is determined by the countries' formally different status. While we look for the levels of possible similarity and distinction in the two cases/countries stemming from their different EU membership status, our findings confirm the existence of strategic defensive populist and technocratic techniques applied towards the EU and the national public in both countries The aim of this strategy is to mitigate the impact of the EU rule of law pressure and to secure the persistence of the existing rule of law shortcomings within the process of European integration. Interestingly, our research did not identify substantial impact of the formally different status towards the EU of the two countries.

By analyzing the case of the 2019 European Parliament elections, the article examines the hypothesis about the second-order character of elections to the European Parliament. Moving within the theoretical framework that has been developing since the first direct EP elections in 1979, we critically examine the conditions in which the last electoral cycle took place and we look for the novelties that could have impacted the changing of this prevalent paradigm. Although we find certain changes that contribute to the 'Europeanization' of these elections, we conclude that the most previous hypotheses are still valid confirming that we are still dealing with the secondorder electoral contest. The last European Parliament elections, as well as the subsequent European chief executive election process, brought new circumstances that could even contribute to maintaining the second-order character of the EP elections. ; Rad nastoji da ispita tezu o drugorazrednom značaju izbora za Evropski parlament na primeru izbora iz 2019. godine. Oslanjajući se na teorijski okvir za posmatranje izbora za Evropski parlament kao drugorazredne nacionalne izborne arene, koji se razvijao od prvih neposrednih izbora 1979. godine, kritički se preispituju uslovi u kojima se odvijao poslednji izborni ciklus i novine koje su mogle uticati da se ovakva slika o izborima promeni. Autori zaključuju da je do određenih promena došlo, pre svega u pravcu "evropeizovanja" ovih izbora, međutim, da je još uvek validna većina pretpostavki da se radi o drugorazrednom izbornom takmičenju. Prilikom izbora iz 2019, kao i naknadne procedure izbora šefa izvršne vlasti Evropske unije, došlo je do novih okolnosti koje bi čak mogle i doprineti da se drugorazredni karakter izbora za Evropski parlament nastavi.