Search

Three decades since the collapse of communism in Central and Eastern Europe, the ideal of liberal democracy is under considerable strain. Recent developments in the region show that democratic inst...

This chapter focuses on the member states of the EU. It begins by considering how two different theories—liberal intergovernmentalism and postfunctionalism—explain member states’ engagement with the EU and the different visions of EU integration held by the member states. It goes on to explore the important role of the member states in the EU’s decision-making processes with a focus on the coalitions and cleavages among the member states, the importance of the rotating presidency of the Council (of ministers), and the increasing role of the European Council in setting the EU’s political agenda. The chapter discusses key concepts such as Europeanization, euroscepticism, and differentiated integration, which help understand the challenges faced by a Union of 27 diverse member states.

Over the last decades, EU integration has become the subject of increased public discussion, debate, and contestation, which is explained through different lenses in EU studies by liberal intergovernmentalists and post-functionalists. This chapter is a contribution to this debate as it seeks to shed light on patterns of politicisation over EU integration in the European public spheres. Through the analysis of 16 newspapers from seven Eastern (Hungary, Poland, Romania) and Western (Belgium, France, Germany, and Spain) EU member states, this chapter analyses the EU media coverage in the context of the 2019 European elections with a focus on salience, polarisation, and lines of conflict over EU integration. Scrutinising a set of 1127 articles, the analysis captures six lines of tensions—intergovernmental conflict, national vs. supranational, government vs. opposition, supporters of democracy vs. threats to democracy, supporters of immigration vs. anti-immigration, and integration vs. disintegration—whose intensity varies not only in the Eastern and Western newspapers, but also among them. While the conflicts opposing integration vs. disintegration and democracy vs. ‘illiberalism’ are common to the Eastern and Western newspapers analysed, although framed differently, the four other lines of conflict seem to be specific to the EU coverage in the Eastern newspapers. The article is conceived as an empirical test to theoretically bridge the concept of politicisation to the EU's theories of integration and types of conflict over European integration.

This special issue sheds light on the shift from consensus over democracy and liberal values to increased dissensus. With a focus on Central and Eastern Europe, it explores the nature and the origi...

In recent years, government officials in Hungary, Poland and Austria have contested the authority of the EU in areas linked to core state powers, such as democracy and the rule of law and migrations. Analyzing the discursive strategies displayed by conservative and/or right-wing governments in these countries, the article shows how the old conflict line over sovereignty that has traditionally shaped the integration process–supranational vs domestic sovereignty–is being complemented by a new discourse which consists in disparaging EU ‘interference’ in the very name of European values and a common European identity, defined in opposition to multiculturalism and political liberalism. Pioneered by Viktor Orban, this discourse has been circulating among other Central European heads of government and incumbent parties’ officials in the wake of the refugee ‘crisis’, which opened up a discursive opportunity structure for its diffusion., SCOPUS: ar.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

In the post-Maastricht era, member states of the European Union (EU) have proved increasingly reluctant to transfer further competences to the supranational level and are willing to safeguard their sovereignty. Though the responses to the contemporary multiple crises–related to economic and monetary policy, borders and migrations, or democracy and the rule of law–have brought about conflicts over values and sovereignty losses surrounding the legal, economic and political legitimacy of the EU. Against this backdrop, we argue that beyond the traditional contentious (re)distribution of competences between nation-states (national sovereignty) and the EU (and its embryonic forms of supranational sovereignty), new conflicts of sovereignty involve two other key types of sovereignty belonging to the democratic tradition, namely parliamentary sovereignty and popular sovereignty. This introductory article proposes a common analytical framework in order to investigate conflicts in their multi-dimensionality., SCOPUS: ar.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

This chapter studies causation, which occupies a central place in the social sciences. In their attempts to understand and explain ‘why’ social, economic, and political phenomena occur, scholars have dealt with causality in many different ways. The way to define and observe causal relationships has always been at the heart of harsh academic debates in social as well as natural sciences. Drawing on distinctive ontological and epistemological standpoints, at least four different understandings of causation have emerged in political science. Most authors have adopted a correlational-probabilistic understanding of causation, but some have preferred a configurational one, while others have adopted a mechanistic or even a counterfactual understanding. To illustrate the concrete methodological challenges generated by this theoretical pluralism, the chapter discusses how scholars have dealt with causality to explain the impact of European integration on domestic policies and institutions.

The aim of this article is to understand why the EU opted to conclude the ‘EU–Turkey refugee deal’ in March 2016 in the context of the Syrian refugee crisis, despite the fact that the agreement deeply contradicts fundamental EU values and norms. The article seeks to explain the outcome—the conclusion of the EU–Turkey refugee deal—by analysing not only the ability of EU institutions to shape decisions, but also their motivations, ideas and preferences in justifying the EU’s actions in responding to the refugee challenge. It is argued that the deal results from ideational and power struggles between supranational (the European Parliament and the European Commission) and intergovernmental institutions (the European Council and the Council of the European Union). It is demonstrated that while the former put forward normative arguments, the latter invoked security as a main concern to avoid internal divisions between Member States. This article also reveals that such ideational and power struggles have consequences for the EU’s identity. Theoretically, the article builds on the new intergovernmentalist claims and on the normative/civilian power literature. Empirically, it explores the usage of normative justifications by EU institutions and points to inter-institutional tensions in framing the EU’s response to the refugee challenge., info:eu-repo/semantics/published

info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Au cours de ces dernieres decennies, la transformation graduelle de l’UE a souleve une question essentielle : comment peut-on exercer un pouvoir partage de facon collective et democratique au sein d’une union supranationale qui se situe a mi-chemin entre une federation et une organisation internationale ? Ces dernieres annees, le theme de la souverainete s’est donc retrouve, de facon latente ou explicite, au cœur des debats ayant secoue la politique europeenne, que ce soit avec la crise migratoire, les debats entourant les plans de sauvetage de l’euro ou encore ceux relatifs au Brexit. Cela a entraine un niveau de conflit sans precedent sur les valeurs qui sous-tendent les politiques communautaires et ce qui est percu comme de nouvelles pertes de souverainete. Dans le cadre de cette contribution, nous estimons que la souverainete reste un concept fondamental pour saisir l’integration europeenne. Toutefois, les discours sur la souverainete sont aujourd’hui fortement politises : ils prennent la forme de conflits de souverainete qui sont non seulement multidimensionnels mais aussi plus polarisants que jamais. Afin de contribuer aux debats sur la souverainete et sa politisation, nous proposons une matrice qui permet d’expliquer comment, audela de la repartition controversee des competences entre Etats nations (souverainete nationale) et l’UE (et sa forme embryonnaire de souverainete supranationale), de nouveaux conflits de souverainete emergent en impliquant deux autres types de souverainetes ancres dans la tradition democratique, a savoir les souverainetes parlementaire et populaire.

This article examines the Romanian rotating presidency of the Council of the European Union during the first half of 2019 as a two-level game. It shows how, despite heightened political tensions at the domestic and European level, the Romanian rotating presidency managed to fulfil its main functions. It is argued that the preparation and the conduct of the rotating presidency is not only a two-level game, but also one in which diplomats and civil servants play a central role. Their centrality in the process neutralises domestic political factors such as Eurosceptic governmental attitudes, the lack of political vision or credibility., info:eu-repo/semantics/published

info:eu-repo/semantics/published

La crise de la zone euro a induit une redéfinition profonde de la gouvernanceéconomique de l’Union européenne afin de renforcer les règles du Pacte de stabilité etde croissance (PSC). L’article analyse comment ces idées, initialement conçues pourrenforcer la gouvernance économique, ont également eu des effets sur la politique decohésion et ont façonné l’adoption du règlement 1303/2013 sur les fonds structurelset d’investissements européens (fonds ESI). En examinant les rapports de force entrele Parlement, la Commission et le Conseil, l’article montre comment la conditionnalités’est imposée comme idée dominante entre 2010 et 2013 et comment, après 2013,les mécanismes de sanction imposés pendant la crise divisent les institutions entre lespartisans de l’application stricte des règles et ceux favorables à une plus grande flexibilitédans leur mise en oeuvre., info:eu-repo/semantics/published

In recent years, the preservation of the Schengen as a borderland has generated heightened tensions between domestic and European actors. Drawing on a qualitative analysis, this article ill...

In the original publication of the article, the production team updated wrong journal name in some references. Those references with correct journal name are given below

Over the last decades, academic interest in judicial globalization and judicial reforms has increased. The literature has gone through three distinctive waves of research. One part of this literature examines judicial reforms from a top-down perspective, revealing the origins and evolution of European/international prescriptions related to rule of law consolidation. By looking at the motivations and actions on the ground, another strand of the existing research examines the effects of these prescriptions at the domestic level. In addition, in recent years, a more reflexive and critical approach to judicial reforms has emerged, questioning not only the modest outcomes of these reforms but also the limitations of the international rule of law community in promoting them. This introductory article reviews this growing body of studies, highlighting the main findings and pointing out new avenues for research. In its final section, it provides an overview of the lines of reasoning and the content of this special issue. Overall, it endeavors to shed more light on judicial reforms in the region and to promote this research agenda, which implies to examine the complex relationship between judicial globalization, Europeanization and glocalization.

In recent years IPE and EU studies scholars have examined how actors in international organisations and EU institutions shape policy ideas. This article explores the professional structure of economists affiliated to two Brussels-based think tanks, Bruegel and CEPS, who, in the context of the Eurozone crisis, sought to contribute to the production of policy solutions to douse the flames of the crisis and put forward long term recommendations for the EMU’s stability. Through the analysis of more than 300 CVs and by drawing on network and sequence analysis, the article shows that in their search for solutions, Brussels-based think tanks bring together economists from different EU member states, whose authority draws on academic qualifications, experience, and seniority. They are ‘multiple insiders’ connected to a wide range of institutions and professional networks, who move back and forth between professional and organisational networks and serve as bridges between revisionist, orthodox, and mixed economic ideas., SCOPUS: ar.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

This article examines the debates surrounding the Regulation 1303/2013 on structural funds, arguing that the rules adopted in the midst of the eurozone crisis to strengthen the governance of the euro area had spill-over effects on cohesion policy. It shows how, in the fast-burning phase of the crisis (2010–2013), some actors pushed forward the idea of suspending structural funds in case of non-compliance with the rules of the Stability and Growth Pact, making funding conditional on Member States’ compliance with the rules of the new economic governance, and how, after the entry into force of this Regulation, in the slow-burning phase of the crisis (from 2013 onwards), a greater number of actors has been calling for a more flexible interpretation of the rules. To explain the disruption between t1 and t2, the article examines the change in the power relations between and within institutions and the change in ideas., SCOPUS: ar.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

The eurozone crisis has spectacularly increased the European Union’s (EU’s) institutional demand for expert knowledge. While the crisis has challenged the legitimacy of the EU in many ways, it has in contrast amplified the visibility and the role of Brussels-based think tanks as laboratories of ideas that think ahead about eurozone governance and policies. Drawing on the analysis of more than 450 expert reports produced by two leading Brusselsbased think tanks, over 300 CVs and biographical notes as well interviews, this article explores when, how and why Brussels-based think tanks expand their networks in times of crisis. While the article leaves aside the question of their ideational impact upon agenda-setting and the policy formulation process leading to the new European economic governance, it shows how think tanks adapt to crises and how they seek to have a voice in thinking about the future of the EU’s economic governance.

The aim of this article is to show how (new) modes of governance emerge in EU politics. It seeks to find out how European institutions manage to define new policy tools and modes of governance when their legitimacy is not only contested but it also reveals a regulatory gap. By examining recent debates concerning the ability of the EU to safeguard the rule of law at the supranational level, this article shows that in a field in which politicization raises the pressure to act at the EU level but member states do not delegate more hierarchical powers, the European Commission applies a network approach that spans beyond the EU. This article shows that, in order to strengthen the EU's input, output, and throughput legitimacy, the Commission is creating a complex multi-institutional framework and has introduced a ‘division of labour’ between several international bodies and organizations. The article focuses not only on the emergence of this network, but also on its evolution and expansion.

The chapter scrutinizes the most recent evolutions of EU’s modes of governance since the entry into force of the Maastricht Treaty. The focus of her study lies on the examination of the resilience of EU’s modes of governance in the light of new conceptualizations in EU studies: the new intergovernmentalism and the new supranationalism. While the first sections looks at the intergovernmental method, the second section deals with the community method and the last one with the open method of coordination (OMC) and the European Semester, which is the instrument designed at the onset of the Eurozone crisis for the coordination of macro-economic policies. The contribution shows that EU policy-making witnessed several transformations since the 1990s and that the intensity of change has been fuelled by the Eurozone crisis, which put the decision-making process under considerable strain. In 2010, when it was unclear how to respond appropriately to the problems of the Eurozone both in terms of process and in terms of solutions, Coman argues, EU institutional actors reacted rapidly to reassure the markets and to save the euro. The decisions taken from 2010 to 2012 altered prevailing modes of governance as the crisis forced the EU to adjust the decision-making process. At the onset of the Eurozone crisis the intergovernmental methods prevailed; as soon as the crisis entered in its “slow-burning phase,” supranational institutions and actors regained power and visibility in the decision-making process. The overarching aim of Coman’s contribution is to capture incremental changes in the power relations between the European Commission, the European Parliament, the Council and the European Council and to show how they have remodelled pre-existing modes of governance. The chapter illustrates the “adaptability and resilience” of the EU policy-making in face of new challenges (cf. Pollack, Wallace and Young 2010: 482; Schmidt and Thatcher 2013), that is the ability of EU institutions to adapt to incremental change and sudden disruptions. In doing so, it scrutinizes institutional empowerment in EU decision-making both de iure and de facto. On the one hand, EU institutional actors are granted new attributions in the formulation, decision-making and implementation of EU public policies and, on the other, they perform new functions through their dynamic interactions.

This chapter scrutinizes the rule of law promotion in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Ukraine. Policy transfer agents are American, international and European institutions whose bureaucrats or elected representatives define and prescribe norms and standards, monitor and supervise the implementation of judicial reforms, provide financial support for drafting legislation and national strategies, and ultimately help domestic actors to enhance the rule of law at the domestic level. The chapter shows that rule of law promotion is a dynamic field where the USAID, the EU, the CoE, the OSCE and the OECD contribute to a large extent to the diffusion of core ideas on how to strengthen the rule of law in countries in transition. Over the last decades, their cooperation has led to increased policy convergence in their approaches. However, in recent years, these IOs have been challenged both from below and from within to consider negative lessons and to develop new programs with a focus on ownership and domestic specificities. Knowledge gained from past experiences and a series of negative lessons on the ground (policy learning), backed by strong criticism emanating from beneficiary countries and experts themselves, have led both American and European actors to consider a possible redefinition of their rule of law approaches and to try to improve their cooperation on the ground (policy coordination). The chapter shows that both American and European actors seek to increase domestic ownership and claim to put in place tailor-made solutions for reform in order to consider the domestic situation and the judicial tradition of the country concerned.

This article examines judicial reforms in the new member states of the EU in a comparative perspective. It explores the interactions between domestic and European actors in the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria and explains why the EU has had a differential impact on the way the principle of judicial independence has been implemented nationally. The differential impact of the EU is explained by considering both the nature of EU conditionality and the relationship between the judiciary and the political actors at the domestic level. The comparison reveals that the power of the EU is greater when tensions at the domestic level between judicial and political actors increase.

This article explores the relationship between Europeanization and EU integration in the field of judicial politics. It claims that the process of Europeanization engenders contention which creates demands for increased supranational governance. To illustrate this duality, the article draws on the waves of reforms aiming to consolidate the independence of the judiciary in the new Member States of the EU. What is at stake from a political and normative point of view is the post-conditionality debate, the discussion around the Copenhagen dilemma and — conversely — the need to define at the EU level a set of effective mechanisms and instruments of compliance. Empirically, the article discloses the dead angles of Europeanization and reveals that policy implementation in the Copenhagen framework creates functional and political pressures for further integration. In the field of judicial politics, the power of the EU oscillates between spill-over and spill-back.

Recent developments in Hungarian constitutional and judicial politics have given impetus to question not only the outcomes of democratisation and Europeanisation, but also the efficacy of the European Union’s compliance mechanisms. In 2010, Hungary, one of the forerunners in building democracy made the headlines with Fidesz’s attempts at adopting a new Constitution and implementing cardinal laws along with controversial institutional, cultural, religious, moral and socio-economic policies. This article attempts to depict the transformative power of the European Union within a sensitive policy area which touches upon States’ pouvoris régaliens: the independence of the judiciary.