EU Structure

The Original Six(Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands) The First Enlargement(Britain, Denmark, Ireland, 1973)

The Mediterranean Enlargement (Greece, 1981; Portugal, Spain, 1986) The EFTA Enlargement(Austria, Finland, Sweden, 1995)

The Eastern Enlargement(Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Cyprus, Malta, 2004; Bulgaria, Romania, 2007)

Neo Functionalism

Q5) According to neo-functionalist theory, what role do the supranational institutions play in the European integration process?

According to neo-functionalism, supranational institutions play an important role in the integration process: they promote supranational cooperation

Actors within these organizations undergo 'elite socialization' therefore begin to 'think European' and develop European loyalties, e.g. MEPs

Supranational institutions develop their own political agendas

Over time these agendas are preferred over national agendas/preferences

Supranational actors encourage national elites to pursue supranational cooperation

Intergovernmentalism

Q3) What are the main critiques of liberal intergovernmentalism?

Liberal intergovernmentalism is not (easily) reconcilable with other interpretations of European integration

It does reflect the reality of integration, due to Moravcsik's selection of specific case study types

Moravcsik's conceptualization of the state is too narrow, failing to account for other domestic interests/influences beyond economic considerations

Moravcsik does not appreciate the multi-level nature of the EU, instead preferring a two-level metaphor

Moravcsik underplays the constraints upon key policy-makers: the influence of supranational actors in the integration process is not appreciated, e.g. the Commission

There is no consideration of informal processes

New theories of European Integration

Q5) What added value do constructivists bring to the study of the EU?

Constructivists challenge conventional state-centric rationalist approaches (realism and liberalism)

Constructivism provides a middle ground between reflectivist and interpretivist approaches (which are both responses to rationalism)

Facilitates study of integration as a process

Explores how interests and identities are constituted (as opposed to pre-determined and fixed)

Europeanisation

Q1) What is Europeanization and what are the differences between bottom-up and top-down Europeanization?

Europeanization is not clearly defined

Generally speaking, it concerns the interactions between the EU, member states, and third countries

Bottom-up Europeanization

Member states upload their preferences to the EU level, influencing EU policies and processes

Actors compete and cooperate in the creation of EU policies and processes

Top-down Europeanization

Policies and processes from the EU are downloaded into domestic settings

Europeanization is differential across member states Enlargement

Q8) Why is Turkish membership of the EU so controversial?

Multiple reasons why Turkish membership is so controversial:

Poor human rights record (including poor treatment of minorities)

Sensitive geographical and geo-political location (including conflict with Cyprus)

Very large agricultural sector

Predominantly Muslim population

The EU’s Social Dimension

Q4) To what extent is EU social policy a regulatory policy?

Social policy is largely regulatory (by 2009, 80 binding and 120 non-binding norms)

Funding opportunities and 'soft' forms of governance have increased

Therefore the relative importance of regulation is decreasing

Funding opportunities, e.g. European Social Fund (ESF), shape national projects

'Soft' forms of governance, e.g. Open Method of Coordination, offer member states voluntary opportunities to cooperate on social issues (however, success is unknown as yet)

Regional Europe

Q1) Why does the EU need a regional policy?

To address regional disparities

Economic and social disparities across the EU, which increase with enlargement

Disparity is one of main challenges for the EU

The EU aims for uniform and sustainable growth and benefit from the single market

To tackle the democratic deficit

Regional policy brings the EU closer to its citizens

Security

Q5) Is the EU set to remain a 'soft security' actor?

Security and defence issues remain largely intergovernmental

Member states are reluctant to cede sovereignty to the EU

The 'capabilities catalogue' (towards an ESDP) emphasizes the self-constructed soft security identity of the EU

Petersberg-style military tasks include humanitarian and rescue tasks, peace keeping and peacemaking

Petersberg-style military tasks exclude the EU from major military operations, like the US-UK Iraq invasion of 2003

Note, as of late 2008 the member states had not met the catalogue of capabilities

European Union External Relations

Q6) What are the key differences between the Lomé and Cotonou systems of EU development policy?

Lomé system was created in the 1970s

To support the development of the poorest economies

Institutionalized partnership between EEC and African, Caribbean, and Pacific (ACP) countries

Intended to create and maintain stable partnerships

Accused of being irrelevant to the development of the global economy

Cotonou system

Developed in response to the limitations of the Lomé system

Greater emphasis on 'bottom up' process of development: led by ACP countries

Increased use of 'conditionality'

More in line with developments in global aid provision

Policy Making

Q1) What was the original Community method and why was it adapted?

Used to create 'hard' legislation via unanimity

Two-way separation of power

Commission as policy initiator

Council required unanimity

European Parliament (EP) and interest groups (via European Economic and Social Committee) very weak

Adapted in mid-1980s to drive the completion of the Single Market (SEA 1986)

Policy touched upon areas of national sovereignty so new decision making process was required to increase the pace of integration

Also enhanced the Community's democratic credentials as the role of the EP increased

Theories of European integration

What form of co-operation resulted from the Schuman Plan?

The European Coal and Steel Community

The Schuman Plan led to the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), which pooled the coal and steel resources of France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg.

The plan developed with Robert Schuman and Jean Monnet.

The ECSC, established by the Treaty of Paris in 1951, was seen as the first step in a broader plan to create a common market and economic community.

What did David Mitrany’s functionalism advocate?

Creation of several international regulatory agencies

David Mitrany’s functionalism advocated the creation of multiple agencies at regional and international levels to regulate different technical aspects of life i.e. transport, energy or telecommunications.

The aim of Mitrany’s functionalism was to achieve peace in the world. He believed that nationalism was largely to blame for war in Europe.

Creating functional agencies was a way of combating nationalism because it both shifted power away from the state in small areas and simultaneously created interdependencies among states.

As an advocate of depoliticised (to remove the political aspects/influence), dispersed power and interdependencies, he did not believe in the creation of a single supranational government.

What did the European federalists advocate?

Abolition of sovereign nation-states

European federalists, such as Altiero Spinelli, advocated the eventual abolition of sovereign nation-states. T

he federalist movement in Europe was dedicated to peace, and developed out of the war-time resistance movements.

Like Mitrany, federalists saw nationalism as a threat to peace in Europe and opposed both nationalism and the re-establishment of nation-states in Europe.

Unlike the functionalists, however, they saw the solution in the creation of a single federal state in Europe united by a federal constitution.

This would shift political power to a single European government, in contrast to Mitrany’s idea of depoliticising (to remove the political aspect/influence) existing European states through the creation of technical international agencies.

Which theorist is most closely associated with neo-functionalism?

Ernst Haas

Haas, writing in 1958, developed a new pluralist approach in international relations to explain how and why integration occurs.

Other neo-functionalist theorists include Leon Lindberg and Philippe Schmitter. Stanley Hoffman, by contrast, developed intergovernmentalist theories in response to neo-functionalism.

The ideas of Jean Monnet, who was an architect of the Schuman Plan and the European Community, were compatible with and inspired neo-functionalist thought. Altiero Spinelli was a federalist, not a neo-functionalist.

Which of the following is not a form of spillover identified by neo-functionalists?

Cultural spillover

Functional, political and cultivated spillover are all elements of neo-functionalist theory.

Functional spillover refers to integration resulting from the interconnectedness of economies, with the result that integration in one area can lead to the need for integration in a closely related policy area.

For example, integration through the creation of a common market for goods can create pressure for integration in the form of the creation of a common currency.

Political spillover refers to the gradual transfer of loyalties toward the European level among political elites and interest groups who operate at the European level. This increases their support for integration, leading to further pressure for integration.

Cultivated spilllover refers to the Commission’s role in fostering European-level interest groups and political elites.

Which of the following theorists is associated with intergovernmentalism?

Stanley Hoffman

Stanley Hoffman is credited with developing a realist theory of intergovernmentalism, which argued that national governments are the most important actors in the integration process, especially in areas of ’high politics’.

Hoffman’s approach refuted Haas’s neofunctionalist account which explains integration as a result of pressure from functional and political spillover.

Andrew Moravcsik later refined Hoffman’s intergovernmentalism in his theory of liberal intergovernmentalism.

Although both Hoffman and Moravcsik saw states as realists and rational actors, Moravcsik disagreed with Hoffman’s depiction of states as unitary actors. W

ayne Sandholtz and Alec Stone Sweet’s supranational governance approach is more closely related to neo-functionalism than intergovernmentalism.

What, according to liberal intergovernmentalists, is the key factor that shapes national preferences?

The balance of domestic economic interests

Unlike intergovernmentalists, who tend to see national interests as indivisible, liberal intergovernmentalists see the national interest as a product of pluralist competition among different economic interests within the state.

To liberal intergovernmentalists, these competing economic interests are more important than partisan interests or security concerns when it comes to defining the national interest.

Governments then negotiate with each other at the European level on the basis of this national interest. Both liberal intergovernmentalism and standard intergovernmental accounts can be contrasted with neo-functionalist accounts, which argue that supranational interests and actors are more important than national interests in explaining European decision-making.

According to liberal intergovernmentalists, why do national governments delegate decision-making authority to supranational institutions?

National governments believe that supranational organizations can best enforce and implement the policy decisions negotiated by national governments.

The best answer is that national governments believe that supranational organizations can enforce the collective decisions of national governments.

Unlike federalists, liberal intergovernmentalists do not see the delegation of authority as an end in itself.

Rather, delegating authority is a way to ensure the effective implementation of decisions negotiated among member states.

Unlike neo-functionalists, they do not regard integration as a result of functional and political spillover, driven by supranational institutions and elites.

Instead, liberal intergovernmentalism emphasises that national governments are in control of the process.

What do theories of supranational governance emphasize?

Supranational governance theories, first advanced by Wayne Sandholtz and Alec Stone Sweet, emphasize the role of transnational business actors and supranational institutions in the development of rules at the European level-referred to as ’Europeanization’.

They explain the rise of these transnational interest groups by the increasing number of transactions that cross national borders. National business actors favour supranational regulation of their industries because it allows them to operate in more markets under a single set of rules.

To achieve this, they form alliances with the Commission to push for the creation of rules at the European level in certain policy sectors.

What preoccupation do postfunctionalist theories of European integration criticise other theorists for?

Economic interests

Hooghe and Marks have criticised other European integration theorists for over-emphasizing the functional pressures associated with economic interests.

Although they share with intergovernmentalists and neofunctionalists the view that European integration is triggered by

a mismatch between efficiency and existing structures of authority, they do not believe the outcome of this process will be based on a purely functional logic.

Instead, they suggest that political conflict is important and that communal identities are central to this conflict. In other words, they argue that identity issues are a crucial consideration in the process of European integration.

Theories of EU Governance

What is new about the new institutionalism?

While old institutionalism, which grew out of legal and constitutional studies, was preoccupied with formal legal institutions, the new institutionalism broadened the definition of institution to include informal forms such as culture or norms.

Secondly, it emphasised that institutions are not neutral, but can shape both outcomes and preferences, elevating the position of institutions to one in which they were regarded as autonomous actors. Various strands of new institutionalism differ in their emphasis.

New institutionalism was also a reaction to behaviouralism in political science, which focused on the behaviour of individuals (for example, the behaviour of voters), while overlooking the way in which institutions shape individual choices and behaviour.

Which type of ’new institutionalism’ focuses on the costs, opportunities and constraints that institutions create for actors? RCI

Rational choice institutionalism (RCI) focuses on the costs, opportunities and constraints that institutions create for actors. It relies on the assumption that actors (such as member state governments, voters, or MEPs) will act rationally in response to this structure of costs and benefits, and seek to maximize their utility while minimizing costs.

In contrast, historical institutionalism emphasizes how institutions develop over time, sometimes leading to unintended consequences.

Sociological institutionalism focuses on how institutions are the product of both formal and informal rules. Rather than seeing actors responding to the costs and benefits structured by institutions in a search for efficiency, sociological institutionalism emphasizes how actors continually construct institutions in pursuit of legitimacy and appropriate institutions.

Which form of new institutionalism is path dependence associated with?

b) Historical institutionalism

Path dependence is associated with historical institutionalism. It refers to the tendency for institutional design to become ’locked in’ over time.

Early policy decisions can close off other options; radical policy change is costly and difficult and so subsequent policy change usually occurs incrementally.

For example, the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), initially established as a price support programme that guaranteed high commodity prices for farmers, is today regarded as inefficient.

However, it has been extremely difficult to reform because this requires unanimous agreement among Member States, allowing only incremental change.

Path dependency also highlights that sometimes the development of institutions over time can lead to unintended consequences.

Policies are not the product of the best or most efficient decisions being made, but often the most practical decisions.

Governments may be stuck with policies that are no longer in their interests, simply because the policies are difficult to amend. How do multi-level governance theorists critique intergovernmental approaches?

Multi-level governance theorists argue that national governments don’t control integration and policy making to the degree that intergovernmental approaches suggest.

Multi-level governance theorists do not reject the idea that national interests are important when it comes to explaining European integration and policy making, but are critical of intergovernmental approaches that over-emphasise the importance of member state governments.

They note that member state governments have reduced influence over outcomes because decisions are made collectively within the EU.

Secondly, they emphasize that power is diffused within the state across administrative departments or territorial levels, and not concentrated in the national government.

Finally, they argue that supranational institutions are not controlled as easily as intergovernmental theories would suggest.

What is another way of describing the dichotomy of ’interests’ v ’ideas’?

Rationalist v reflectivist dichotomy

The interests v ideas dichotomy can also be described as a rationalist v reflectivist dichotomy.

Theories that assume that interests are important for explaining policy outcomes are theories that are essentially rationalist.

They assume that actors have a set of interests and that they act rationally to pursue them.

Rational institutionalist theories and policy network theories belong to this category.

Theories that assume that ideas can be as important as interests are reflectivist.

They tell us that interests are not fixed, as rationalists would suggest, but they are shaped and formed by our interactions.

Sociological institutionalism and the epistemic communities approach fit in this category. What insights has the ’epistemic communities’ approach brought to studies of the EU?

It highlights that ideas matter in explaining policy development

The epistemic communities approach tells us that ideas matter.

This differs from pluralist perspectives because it does not focus on the strength of competing interest groups.

Rather, epistemic communities use their resources of expertise and knowledge to promote policy solutions, building alliances among

supranational and member state actors in the process, and shaping the preferences of member states and the Commission.

This happens when the policy area is characterized by uncertainty, such as in highly technical areas.

Here, ideas and knowledge become more important than the ’national interest’. Epistemic communities impact policy making at the early stages, when policy alternatives are identified.

What impact have epistemic communities had on the EU?

Epistemic communities can be highly influential in situations where policy consequences are uncertain, often the case in technical policy areas.

In this case, member states may not have firm policy positions and can be open to persuasion.

Epistemic communities use their resources of knowledge and expertise to advocate policy solutions, and use these to shift policy preferences and, together with the Commission, build coalitions around policy solutions.

This approach emphases that preferences can be shaped. This contrasts with the approach of intergovernmental theories that tend to see member state preferences as fixed.

What is the difference between a policy network and an epistemic community?

Haas defines an epistemic community as a ’network of professionals with recognized expertise and competence in a particular domain and an authoritative claim to policy-relevant knowledge within that domain or issue-area’ (1992:3).

A policy network is a group of organizations that are dependent on each other for resources.

Policy networks do not have the same degree of coherence as epistemic communities; policy networks consist of larger groups with fluctuating membership.

They do not necessarily share the same values, but are held together by their interdependency.

Resources and power are distributed unequally in policy networks.

Policy communities are more stable and are comprised of a smaller number of members who share the same values.

True or false: The policy network approach offers a predictive theory of policy making.

False. The policy networks approach is more of a descriptive framework that helps us to understand policy-making in the EU than a theory that helps us to make generalized predictions about policy outcomes.

The approach draws our attention to the importance of policy networks and emphasises them in the analysis of EU policy formulation.

The nature of the networks involved in policy making-how tightly or loosely structured they are-can affect the extent to which external actors and external pressures affect policy outcomes.

The policy network approach is useful for understanding policy-making at its early stages of formulating policy options-what Peterson calls the ’sub-systemic’ stage.

What is a mid-range theory?

A theory that attempts to explain outcomes at the sub-system or sectoral level, or at initial policy-making stages, rather than explaining outcomes at a system level.

Approaches such as policy networks and policy communities are examples of mid-range theory.

These can be contrasted to intergovernmental or neo-functionalist integration theories that address the super-systemic and system levels to provide generalisable predictions both about the key factors that drive integration forward and the endpoint of integration. Mid-range theories have more modest goals and focus on a sub-systemic or meso-level of analysis.

Instead of trying to explain why and how treaty outcomes occurred, they usually focus on questions of how policy is shaped in the early stages.

Policies and Policy Making in the EU

Which of the following is an example of policy expansion due to spillover?

c) The need for competition policies to prevent monopolies in the single market

The need for competition policies to prevent monopolies operating in the new single market is an example of spillover.

The other options-the demand for single market legislation in response to increased international competition and demands for environmental regulations in the wake of environmental harm are both examples of external events triggering a demand for policies.

Spillover occurs when integration in one area (creation of the single market) leads to demand for policy making in other areas, such as regulating competition in the market or regulating social policy to prevent unequal treatment of workers in a single European labour market.

Which of the following is influential in setting the EU policy agenda?

The Commission, the European Council and interest groups-collectively set the broad EU policy agenda.

This reflects the fact that European solutions to policy problems are often necessary and desirable.

The Commission often demands European policy solutions because increasing its policy reach increases its power and launches initiatives in response to policy problems that it identifies.

However, the Commission is not alone in demanding more European-level legislation.

Member states often demand European-level solutions, and use the European Council meetings to put new policy items on the agenda. Indeed it is the European Council which is definitively responsible for putting all items on the EU policy agenda.

Interest groups also lobby the European institutions to achieve policy objectives that they cannot achieve at the national level.

True or false: In the Treaty of Rome, articles on social policy emphasized the creation of a level playing field for a single market.

True. The original articles of the Treaty of Rome that addressed social policy were intended to create a level playing field for economic competition.

The Treaty provided a number of bases for EC action, including the promotion of social cohesion, health and safety at work, ensuring the free movement of labour and equality between the sexes.

In other words, social policy was addressed both because variations in social policy obligations across member states were seen as an obstacle to the creation of the single market, leading to uneven cost burdens on companies and governments in some member states and hindering the free movement of labour that was necessary to realize the single market.

True or false: Integration in social policy proceeded quickly due to the pressures of ’spillover’.

False. While the Treaty of Rome contained several articles that related directly to social policy, integration proceeded very slowly compared to other policy areas.

Member states were reluctant to extend qualified majority voting rules to social policy areas in the Single European Act, preferring instead to keep this politically sensitive area under national control.

This put the brakes on integration in social policy due to spillover and national welfare states were not harmonized.

Modest provisions in social policy include the European Social Fund to assist in retraining and promotion of employment and mobility, and the creation of a ’social dialogue’ between business, labour and other civil society groups.

Gender equality is an exception to this. Legislation on equal pay and equal treatment for men and women emerged in the 1970s.

Cohesion policy

Cohesion Policy

Cohesion policy is a apart of the Single European Act (1986). It is built on the assumption that redistribution between richer and poorer regions in Europe is needed in order to balance out the effects of further economic integration. Through four generations of Structural Funds programmes, the Union has invested around €480 billion in the ‘less favoured’ regions since 1988.

With the accession of ten new member states in 2004, the development gap between regions has doubled, bringing many former recipients above the 75% threshold. As a result, most

beneficiaries of the cohesion policy are now located in central and eastern Europe .

As from 2007, the EU Cohesion policy will revolve around three new priorities or 'objectives:'

Convergence

Support for growth and job creation in the least developed member states and regions. Regions whose per capita GDP is less than 75% of the EU average will be eligible (mostly regions from new member states), but temporary support (until 2013) will be given to regions where per capita GDP is below 75% for the EU-15 (the so-called 'statistical effect').

Competitiveness and employment

Designed to help the richer member states deal with economic and social change, globalisation and the transition to the knowledge society. Employment initiatives are to be based on the European Employment Strategy (EES) (adaptability of the workforce, job creation and accessibility to the labour market for vulnerable persons).

Territorial co-operation

To stimulate cross-border co-operation in order to find joint solutions to problems such as urban, rural and coastal development, the development of economic relations and the networking of SMEs. A new cross-border authority will be set up to manage co-operation programmes.

The legislative package adopted by the EP on 4 July 2006 to support these priorities, comprises one general and four specific regulations:

The general regulation: common rules in programming, managing, controlling and evaluating the new cohesion policy; emphasis added on environmental and accessibility issues, and on the "partnership principle" that governs the whole policy.

A regulation on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF): to fund projects on research, innovation, environment, risk prevention, infrastructure in the least developed regions.

A regulation on the European Social Fund (ESF): to target projects for employment, quality and productivity at work and social inclusion – in line with the European Employment Strategy.

A regulation on the Cohesion Fund: to invest in environmental projects and trans-European networks in member states with a GNP of less than 90% of the Community average National income (e.g. the ten new member states, plus Greece and Portugal).

A regulation on a new instrument, the European grouping of cross-border co-operation (EGCC): for cross-border projects.

Complementing the regulations, the Commission issued the Community Strategic Guidelines to help national and regional authorities make the most efficient use of the EU money and to connect their programming with the Lisbon agenda

The new Cohesion policy, the Commission seeks to achieve:

A more strategic approach to growth, socio-economic and territorial cohesion: whole programming process at EU, national and local level to be driven by a single political document (the Community Strategic Guidelines); an annual report of the Commission and member states to be debated by the European Spring Council in Spring;

Simplification: reduced number of objectives and regulations; single-fund programmes; streamlined eligibility rules for expenses; more flexible financial management; more proportionality and subsidiarity regarding control, evaluation and monitoring.

Decentralisation/ "ownership:" stronger involvement of regions and local players in the preparation of programmes

What new measure was introduced in the Treaty of Maastricht, in response to Spanish concerns?

c) The Cohesion Fund

The Cohesion Fund was introduced in the Treaty of Maastricht in response to Spanish concerns that it would soon become a net contributor to the EC budget.

The Cohesion Funds were earmarked for member states whose GDP was less than 90% of the Community average.

The Cohesion Fund provided support for infrastructure projects and environmental programs and was targeted to member states, rather than regions.

What are the structural funds?

The European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the European Agricultural Guarantee and Guidance Fund

The structural funds consist of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), established in 1975,

the European Social Fund (ESF), established by Article 123 of the Treaty of Rome in 1957,

and the European Agricultural Guarantee and Guidance Fund (EAGGF), established in 1962.

Together, they constitute about one third of the EU’s budget.

Since 1993, the structural funds have also included the Financial Instrument of Fisheries Guidance (FIFG).

Regional policies are an element of structural fund spending, but the two are not equivalent.

The structural funds include funds specifically targeted to regions, such as the ERDF, and those such as the ESF that are targeted to social groups irrespective of where they are concentrated.

True or false: Britain pushed for the creation of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) in the early 1970s.

True. Britain in particular pushed for the creation of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) in the early 1970s.

Britain needed something tangible to persuade a reluctant public and Parliament of the benefits of EEC membership.

The ERDF fund would help to subsidize Britain’s regional development spending (Britain had significant regional economic disparities), increasing its financial benefit from EC membership, and helping the government ’sell’ EC membership to a sceptical public.

What is the principle of concentration?

Spending in regional policy is to be concentrated on areas with the greatest need according to objective criteria

The principle of concentration states that regional development funds are to be concentrated in those areas with the greatest need.

Need is assessed according to a set of objective criteria covering regional income, industrial decline, unemployment (particularly of young people) and rural development.

This principle was introduced in the 1988 reforms of the structural funds.

Prior to the reform, regional funds, which were already limited, had been diffused across a wide area rather than concentrated on the areas that needed the funding most.

This had occurred because funding was allocated by national quota and not by objective criteria. The 1988 reforms were an important step forward in making regional policy more effective.

What is the principle of additionality?

Member States must supplement regional fund assistance with national spending

The principle of additionality as set out in the ERDF regulations states that ’the Fund’s assistance should not lead Member States to reduce their own regional development efforts but should complement these efforts’.

While this principle was part of the regional policy framework since 1975, it was vague and difficult to enforce and many states, Britain in particular, were opposed to this requirement.

The 1988 structural fund reforms strengthened the additionality principle by requiring the Commission and member states to ensure that regional funding both has an impact in the regions and leads to an increase in national structural aid.

This, together with the principle of programming, was to ensure a more co-operative and complementary relationship between the Commission and member states and lead to more effective regional policy.

True or false: Aspects of the 1993 reform reflected a re-assertion of member states’ control of cohesion policy.

True. Aspects of the 1993 reform reflected a reassertion of member states’ control.

Many of the major principles adopted in the 1988 reform were maintained, but national governments secured important modifications of some of these.

In terms of the designation of eligible areas, the member states pressed for the inclusion of regions that did not meet the objective Community criteria.

More generally, governments pressed their claims for a share of the total fund allocations. In addition, member states amended the Commission’s proposed administrative arrangements.

For example, member states were given a more important role in the designation of Objective 2 and 5b regions.

The additionality wording was changed to effectively allow member states to reduce spending on domestic structural measures without contravening the additionality requirement.

Member states also insisted on the creation of a Management Committee to facilitate greater national government control over Community Initiative (CI) programmes.

Collectively all of these developments strengthened member state control of cohesion policy.

In 1999, the number of Community Initiatives was reduced from thirteen to what?

c) Four

In 1999, the number of Community Initiatives (CIs) was reduced from thirteen to four.

The need to reduce the number of CIs to simplify procedures and reduce duplicative structures was accepted by the Commission.

The Commission proposed reducing the number to three:

1) Interreg (cross-border, transnational and inter-regional co-operation);

2) Leader (rural development);

3) Equal (tackling discrimination in the labour market).

However, at the insistence of the European Parliament (EP), a fourth programme was retained - Urban (to regenerate inner cities). The total number of CIs following the 1999 reforms was therefore four.

In the context of enlargement, to which states does the Instrument for Pre-Accession (IPA) apply?

b) The candidate states and the potential candidate states for EU accession

The Instrument for Pre-Accession (IPA) applies to the candidate states (Croatia, Macedonia and Turkey) and the potential candidate states (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Serbia - including Kosovo).

The IPA brought together all of the existing pre-accession instruments (including IPSA, Phare and Sapard) into a single framework.

The IPA has five components: 1) transition assistance and institution building;

2) cross-border co-operation:

3) regional development;

4) human resources development;

5) rural development.

The latter three are precursors to structural funding and involve preparing candidate countries for developing the necessary institutional capacity to be able to manage them effectively post-accession. This was seen as a weakness of the previous pre-accession instruments.

For the 2007-2013 programming period, cohesion policy is based on which of the following objectives?

All of the above. In its Third Report on Economic and Social Cohesion, the European Commission proposed replacing the existing objectives of cohesion policy with three new priorities.

The member states agreed and the three new priorities formed the basis for cohesion policy for the 2007-2013 programming period.

The first priority - Convergence - would cover those regions with a per capita GDP of less than 75% of the Community average.

It would support growth and job creation in the least developed member states and regions and would be funded by the Cohesion Fund, ERDF and ESF);

The second priority - regional competitiveness and employment - would effectively replace Objectives 2 and 3 and would promote

regional and national programmes to assist competitiveness, employment, productivity and social inclusion. It would be funded by the ERDF and ESF.

The third priority - European territorial cooperation - would build on the experience of the Interreg programme and promote co-operation on issues at cross-border, transnational and inter-regional levels. It would be funded by the ERDF.

True or false: Multi-level governance sheds little light on the domestic effects of cohesion policy.

False. The concept of multi-level governance is closely related to cohesion policy, particularly in understanding developments at the implementation stage.

Indeed much of the conceptual debate around cohesion policy has focused on the domestic effects of implementation and in particular the implementation of the partnership principle, which has been at the forefront of research on multi-level governance.

There is nevertheless significant variation in the degree of multi-level governance evident across the EU.

In centralized member states, central governments have sought actively to play a gatekeeper role over the political impact of the new arrangements. In Britain, this was especially the case - sub-national actors were mobilised, but not necessarily empowered.

In more decentralized member states, sub-national authorities - normally regional governments - were better placed to take advantage of the opportunities provided by the partnership requirement.

Later research (Kelleher et al. 1999) confirmed this pattern of differentiated multi-level governance emerging through EU cohesion policy.

The Institutional Architecture

Which of the following characterized the three-pillar structure of the EU as it existed from 1993 to 2009?

b) One supranational pillar and two intergovernmental pillars

The Maastricht Treaty introduced a structure consisting of three pillars which was characterized by one supranational pillar and two intergovernmental pillars:

the EC pillar, governed by the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC); and two intergovernmental pillars, covering the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) governed by the Treaty on European Union (TEU).

Subsequent amendments, made by the Treaties of Amsterdam and Nice, scaled back the policies covered by the JHA pillar by moving some to the EC pillar.

However, it was abolished as of December 2009.

The CFSP remains distinctively intergovernmental, but all other policies are consolidated into a single order governed by the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

Which EU treaty sets out in detail the operation of the European Council?

Treaty of Lisbon

The Treaty of Lisbon is the first EU treaty to set out in detail the operation of the European Council.

The body was set up in 1974 and has grown in importance but the treaties did not spell out its operation until the Lisbon Treaty.

The European Council is comprised of the EU’s top political figures: the Heads of State and Government of the 27 member states, the President of the European Council, the President of the European Commission, and the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.

It has an important agenda-setting role and oversees all EU activity including Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP).

The European Council has effectively positioned itself at the apex of the European Union, guiding the direction of all pillars of the EU during the period 1993-2009, and from December 2009, of all EU policies.

In practical terms, this means that legislation and other decision making typically takes place in a context that the European Council may have already agreed.

What are the core functions of the Commission?

To draft the budget and propose legislation

The core functions of the Commission are to draft the budget and propose legislation to the Council of Ministers. The budget that the Commission prepares is subject to the approval of the Council of Ministers and European Parliament (EP). The Commission has the sole legal authority to propose legislation. It is then up to the Council of Ministers, together with the EP to approve the legislation. The Commission has other important functions, which include acting as the ’guardian’ of the treaties, ensuring that the EU legislation is implemented and adhered to. With few exceptions, it is the responsibility of the national governments to implement legislation.

Despite progressive extension of the use of qualified majority voting (QMV), which of the following policy areas remains subject to unanimity?

All of the above remain subject to unanimity. The TEU’s Article 16(3), as revised by the Lisbon Treaty, presents qualified majority voting (QMV) as the default provision for decision making. There were quite a large number of new provisions for QMV in the Lisbon Treaty, but quite a lot of them are limited in scope. The key moves to QMV were on energy security, emergency humanitarian aid, intellectual property, social security for migrant workers, and judicial co-operation (the last after a five year transition period). The key areas that remain subject to unanimity are: tax, social security, foreign policy, common defence, operational police co-operation, language rules, and the location of the EU’s institutions.

The Lisbon Treaty has given more powers in the budgetary process to which EU institution?

c) European Parliament

The Lisbon Treaty has given the European Parliament (EP) more powers in the budgetary process. The European Council plays an important agenda-setting role but it plays no formal role in the annual budgetary process. The Commission has responsibility for drawing up a preliminary draft budget and for mediating between the Council and EP in the event that the institutions fail to agree a final budget. The Council of Ministers adopts the draft budget prepared by the Commission and then works with the EP to agree a final budget. New rules introduced by the Lisbon Treaty have increased the powers of the EP during this phase of the drafting process. The European Central Bank plays no role in the budgetary process.

What is the Ordinary Legislative Procedure (OLP)?

a) Qualified majority voting (QMV) in the Council of Ministers and co-decision with the European Parliament (EP)

The term Ordinary Legislative Procedure (OLP) was introduced by the Lisbon Treaty to cover those instances where the Council of Ministers may decide on legislation by QMV, while holding co-decision powers with the European Parliament (EP). The terminology is designed to present this pattern as the default arrangement in EU decision making, while all other arrangements (unanimity in the Council and consent or consultation procedures in the EP) are termed ’special legislative procedures’.

Which of the following EC instruments is used to create legislation that is directly applicable for member states?

a) Regulations

Regulations are directly applicable in member states. This means that the national government does not have to transpose the EC legislation into national law in order to implement regulations. Regulations are binding. By contrast, directives are EC legislation that must first be ’transposed’ into national law through the creation or amendment of national legislation. Directives, which are more widely used than regulations, allow the national governments some flexibility to tailor the EC legislation to national conditions. Directives specify the policy outcome, which is binding, but allow member states room to achieve this through different means. Decisions are narrower than directives or regulations; they apply to individual firms or individual member states.

True or false: The Commission is responsible for the implementation of EC legislation.

True. The Commission has formal responsibility for ensuring that EC legislation is implemented. This does not mean, however, that the Commission undertakes the day-to-day task of the administration of policies. With the exception of a few policies, such as competition policy and food aid, most policies are implemented by member states or jointly by the Commission and the member states. As the guardian of the treaties, the Commission ensures that member states are implementing EC legislation accurately and in a timely manner. If the Commission believes a member state is failing to do so, it can take legal action against it.

Which of the following is not a type of EU competence?

d) Inclusive

There is no EU ’inclusive’ competence. The Lisbon Treaty spells out four types of EU competence which define what the EU can or cannot do. Exclusive EU competence represents the core business of the EU and includes issues concerning the customs union, competition rules for the common market and monetary policy for those states in the Eurozone. Shared competences include the internal market, aspects of social policy and economic, social and territorial cohesion. The co-ordination competence relates to member states’ economic policies, employment and social policies. The final area of competence is supporting, co-ordinating and supplementary action and concerns protection and improvement of human health, culture and tourism, among others. The Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) provisions are not included in the detailed catalogue of competencies in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) because it is outside the Union method and therefore contained in the Treaty on the European Union (TEU).

Enlargement

How many times has the EU enlarged?

c) Six

The European Union (EU) has enlarged on six separate occasions growing from six to nine, then ten, then twelve, then fifteen, then twenty-five and now twenty-seven member states. The first enlargement was in 1973 when Britain, Ireland and Denmark became members. The second enlargement was in 1981 when Greece joined and the third was in 1986 when Spain and Portugal acceded to the Community. The fourth enlargement was that of 1995, which admitted Austria, Finland and Sweden. The fifth enlargement in 2004 was the single biggest expansion of the EU. It brought ten new member states into the EU - eight from Central and Eastern Europe - and two small Mediterranean states - Cyprus and Malta. The sixth enlargement happened in 2007 when Romania and Bulgaria joined.

What is the final step in the membership process?

b) Ratification of the Accession Treaty

The final step in the membership process is the ratification of the Accession Treaty. The Treaty must be given assent in the European Parliament and the treaty must be ratified according to the constitutional traditions of the acceding member state. This could mean ratification through a national referendum or ratification through national parliament. Ratification occurs after the Commission working groups conclude negotiations upon

determining that its conditions of accession has been met and the applicant country has satisfactorily adopted the acquis, the European Council approves the terms of membership and the Accession Treaty is signed by the applicant country.

What are the second and third enlargements of the EC usually referred to as?

a) The Mediterranean enlargement

The second and third enlargements of the EC, when Greece joined in 1981 and when Spain and Portugal joined in 1986, are usually referred to as the ’Mediterranean enlargement’. The Iberian enlargement refers to the entry of Spain and Portugal, the countries of the Iberian peninsula. The EFTA enlargement refers to the 1995 membership of Austria, Finland and Sweden. The northern enlargement is sometimes used to describe the round which saw Britain, Denmark and Ireland join in 1973, although usually this is simply referred to as the ’first’ enlargement. Numbering the enlargements is difficult because technically, the accession of each member state counts as a separate enlargement. The convention is to refer to the enlargements as rounds; the first or northern enlargement, the second or Mediterranean enlargement, the third or EFTA enlargement and the fourth or Eastward enlargement.

True or false: In 1967, Britain made its first application for EC membership.

False. Britain made its first application for EC membership in 1961, when it applied together with Denmark and Ireland. (Norway later added its application to this group in 1962). In 1963 French President Charles de Gaulle vetoed British membership, ending accession negotiations with all of these countries. Britain made its second membership application in 1967, also with Ireland, Denmark and, later, Norway. This time, Charles de Gaulle delayed accession negotiations but his departure from office in 1969 removed the roadblock to accession talks. Member states agreed at the Hague Summit to re-launch accession negotiations and Britain became a member of the EC in January 1973.

What policy was established with the first enlargement of the EC?

a) New member states were obligated to accept the whole acquis

The first enlargement of the EC in 1973 established the practice that new member states would accept the entire acquis communautaire-the body of laws and policies of the European Community. The

existing member states, and particularly the French, were adamant that when new members joined the EC they should not be given the opportunity to derail the policies and agreements negotiated by the original member states beforehand. French President Pompidou was especially concerned that Britain should not be given an opportunity to alter the Common Agricultural Policy and the own-resources budgetary agreement that he calculated would benefit French agricultural interests.

How did the accession of Greece, Spain and Portugal affect the general principles of enlargement?

c) It led the EC to prioritise political considerations over economic considerations

The accession of Greece, Spain and Portugal led the EC to prioritise political considerations over economic considerations. For the EC, accession of Greece, Spain and Portugal was important for the consolidation of the new democratic regimes in these countries, and that led the EC to be flexible on the economic readiness of these countries to join the EC. The EC did not waive its requirement that new member states adopt the acquis, although this and subsequent enlargements demonstrate that the EC was willing to offer resources and new policy measures designed to help new member state adopt the acquis.

True or false: Germany was a stronger supporter than France of eastward enlargement.

True. Germany was a strong supporter of eastward enlargement because its security and economic interests were at stake. In particular, it pushed for the accession of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic. These countries were close geographical neighbours and which had close economic ties with Germany, and so Germany was keen to reduce the risk of instability in these countries. Membership of the EC offered a way to do this. France, meanwhile, was hesitant to support further enlargement of the union. Instability in the states of eastern and central Europe did not pose an immediate security threat to France. Enlargement, on the other hand, threatened to dilute French influence in the Union.

Why was the 1999 Cologne European Council significant for the EU’s enlargement policy?

b) It established the principle of individual negotiations

The 1999 Cologne European Council meeting was significant for the development of the EU’s enlargement policy because it established the principle of ’differentiation’. This meant that the EU would

approach enlargement as a series of individual negotiations with member states, rather than as a negotiation with a group of countries. Each state could move toward membership on its own timeline. This was also the European Council meeting where Germany changed its position on Turkish membership. Germany had a new SPD government who announced that Turkey should progress toward negotiations, reversing the stance of the previous Kohl government.

What issues proved to be difficult sticking points in the negotiations over eastward enlargement?

In preparation for eastward enlargement, the EU faced politically difficult reforms over agriculture and structural funds. In these redistributive policy areas, existing member states were concerned that they would lose out. The new member states had larger agricultural populations than the existing member states; enlargement would have meant a large increase in EU Common Agricultural Policy expenditures. Similarly, countries such as Spain who were beneficiaries from the structural funds in the EU 15 would no longer be a ’have-not’ country after enlargement. The introduction of new member states also required changing the voting weights in the Council of Ministers. Member states resisted reforms that diluted their influence.

What recent developments have undermined Turkish prospects for membership of the EU?

b) Germany’s Christian Democrats return to office in 2008

The Christian Democrats (CDU-CSU) returned to political office in Germany in 2008 and with this the German position moved against Turkish membership. During the 1990s, the CDU-CSU, under Helmut Kohl, objected to Turkish membership due to a concern that Turkey was not culturally compatible with the image that the CDU-CSU held of Europe. This often unspoken concern was based on Turkey not being Christian. The German position changed in 1998 when a left-of-centre coalition assumed office. It was during this period that Germany reversed its traditional opposition to Turkish membership during the 1999 Cologne European Council. The 2008 election however, was a victory for the Christian Democrats and signalled a move away from support for Turkish accession. Britain has always been sympathetic to Turkey’s EU ambitions and the US also supports Turkish admission to the EU.

Common Foreign and Security Policy

A proposal for a European Defence Community was developed alongside the proposal for the ECSC, but this was vetoed by the French legislature in 1954.

EPC, CFSP and ESDP are all examples of what?

Political co-operation

European Political Cooperation (EPC), the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) are all forms of political co-operation in the EU. This means that they are all programmes that share the goal of co-operation in the ’high politics’ of foreign policy, either in the diplomatic or the military realm. These forms of co-operation are intergovernmental, which means that the European Council, and not the Commission, plays a leading role. Most decisions in political co-operation are taken by unanimity, although there are provisions for qualified majority voting in limited circumstances as well as provisions for member states to abstain from voting without blocking the process of political cooperation among other member states.

Which of the following is not an example of EPC at work?

A common position on the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan

After the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979, the member states of the EC were unable to reach a common position on a response. The British supported an ’Atlanticist’ response of boycotting the Moscow Olympics; the French were not prepared to do commit to this action and the West German government was unhappy at the way the US used the issue to heighten East-West tension. However, the member states of the EC had some success with reaching common foreign policy positions in the late 1970s and early 1980s. After engaging in the Euro-Arab dialogue through the 1970s, the EC member states articulated a common position on the middle east in the Venice Declaration of 1980. They also achieved a record of block voting in the United Nations and in the formulation of common positions through the CSCE.

True or false: The Single European Act (SEA) brought EPC into the treaties and under the jurisidiction of the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

False. While the SEA brought EPC into the treaty structure, it did not bring it under the jurisdiction of the ECJ. In its early stages in the 1970s and early 1980s, EPC was characterized by informal contact and co-operation and co-operation between EC foreign ministers. The SEA formalized and institutionalized this co-operation, codifying its procedures in the treaties and creating a political secretariat to

support EPC. However, EPC remained intergovernmental and it remained outside of ECJ jurisdiction. EPC was replaced by the Common Foreign and Security Policy in the Treaty of Maastricht.

Which of the following concepts cast doubt on whether the EC should be conceived as an actor in international relations?

Capability-expectations gap

The ’capability-expectations gap’ cast doubt on whether the EU should be conceived as an actor in international affairs. The concept was developed by Hill (1993), who produced an assessment of political co-operation which noted that the EC lacked autonomy, and was not distinct from other actors, notably the member states. To mistake it for an actor he suggested, was to raise the expectations of what it could achieve. In this respect, Hill noted that the Community lacked the necessary resources and instruments, and also, because it was not an actor, lacked the ability to reach agreement internally on political co-operation. This was why the capability-expectations gap existed and Hill believed that the gap had only been increased by the SEA and the TEU, which suggested advances in the international activity of the EC/EU that it was incapable of making. Interdependence logic was developed by Ginsberg (1989). The concept put the focus on the external environment, and saw EPC as an attempt ’to reduce the adverse costs of global interdependence by deliberately coordinating joint policy actions’ (1989: 31). The Gymnich formula refers to a 1974 initiative whereby Foreign Ministers met informally without a fixed agenda and without the involvement of a large number of officials to discuss political co-operation. The élite actor perspective was also developed by Ginsberg (1989). It sought to explain political co-operation by taking account of whether élite actors favoured or opposed political co-operation.

True or false: The Treaty on European Union led to the creation of a common foreign security policy along the lines envisaged by the Germans.

False. The Treaty on European Union led to the creation of a Common Foreign and Security Policy in the intergovernmental second pillar of the Union. This fell short of what the German government had hoped for. The Germans had lobbied for the creation of a common foreign and security policy that was within the Community pillar, with a prominent role for the Commission to provide supranational policy management. France also supported this German position. The British were opposed to bringing European Political Cooperation into the Community structure. The three pillar structure of the Union can be seen as a policy victory for the British.

What was the significance of the St. Malo summit?

It marked the beginning of ESDP

At the December 1998 summit in St. Malo, France, British prime minister Tony Blair and French president Jacques Chirac agreed to support the creation of a ESDP therefore extending co-operation in CFSP into the realm of security and defence. This represents a further advance in security and defence cooperation beyond the Treaty of Amsterdam’s commitment of EU member states to carrying out the St. Petersberg tasks. This was prompted by the EU’s inability to respond quickly to the crisis in Kosovo, forcing it to rely instead on NATO troops. The St. Malo agreement was followed by the European Council’s agreement the following year to create a rapid reaction force of up to 60,000 troops.

What role did the Treaty of Amsterdam commit member states to?

Carrying out the Petersberg tasks

The Treaty of Amsterdam committed EU member states to carrying out the Petersberg tasks. While defending Europe’s territory is a task that falls to NATO, the Petersberg tasks cover humanitarian, peacekeeping and crisis management roles. The Treaty of Amsterdam did not create the Petersberg Tasks-these were developed by the Western European Union (WEU) in June 1992. (The WEU is a European organization for co-operation in security and defence. It consists of 28 countries). Even member states that are not NATO members due to their neutrality take part in carrying out the Petersberg tasks.

Which of the following actions/positions were taken by the EU following the 2001 terrorist attack on the United States?

Creation of a European Arrest Warrant

The Commission rapidly tabled proposals for a European Arrest Warrant following the 2001 terrorist attack on the United States. Agreement on this was reached in December 2001, despite reservations by Italy. The EU was not opposed to the subsequent US campaign in Afghanistan to unseat the Taliban government. However, the US decision to invade Iraq precipitated a serious split within the EU. In the build-up to the eventual invasion, France and Germany led a small group of states that opposed any military action, while Britain, Spain and Italy were the leading supporters of a larger group (if the accession states are included) that backed the US action. President George W. Bush, in his 2002 State of the Union speech, identified an axis of evil comprising Ian, Iraq and North

Korea. Bush’s public condemnation was a setback for the EU’s efforts in developing constructive relations with Iran and North Korea in particular.

In 2008 the EU deployed 3,000 troops as part of a joint EU-UN force to protect refugee camps in what part of Africa?

Chad and the Central African Republic

In 2008 the EU deployed 3,000 troops as part of a joint EU-UN force to protect refugee camps in Chad and the Central African Republic. This mission lasted just over one year and has been the largest, most multinational EU operation in Africa to-date, involving over 3,000 troops representing 23 EU member states. The EU has also been active in other parts of Africa. In 2006, the EU provided military forces to help provide the security necessary for holding elections in the Republic Congo. In 2008, the EU sent a naval force to help deter piracy off the coast of Somalia. The EU has never sent troops to Zimbabwe.

Which of the following amendments to CFSP is contained in the 2009 Lisbon Treaty?

Creation of a European External Action Service

The Lisbon Treaty established the European External Action Service (EEAS). The service is to be formed by staff drawn from the external relations departments of the Council and Commission, with provision for additional staff to be seconded from the national diplomatic services of the member states. The function of the EEAS is to assist the newly appointed High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. This position was also created by the Lisbon Treaty. It carries with it the position of Vice-President of the Commission and the incumbent is also charged with chairing meetings of the Council of Foreign Ministers. The new post therefore straddles two institutions and acts as a bridge between external economic relations and the CFSP/ESDP. The vast majority of CFSP decisions remain subject to unanimity whilst the Commission’s role in CFSP is minimal and does not extend to the sole power of initiative.

In the period after World War 2, which of the following governed trade relations between states?

General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT)

The General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT), a series of intergovernmental negotiations, was created after World War 2 and governed trade relations between states. There had been an intention to create an International Trade Organization (ITO) which would facilitate the gradual introduction of global free trade agreements and regulate trade disputes between states. However the US Congress would not agree to the ITO, so instead a series of intergovernmental negotiations were initiated known as the GATT. The GATT was a weak organization and ran into a series of difficulties from the late 1970s. It was eventually replaced by a far stronger body, the World Trade Organization (WTO), which was created in 1995. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) was also created during this period. Its objective was to assist help states that got into temporary difficulties with their balance of payments. Bretton Woods refers to a series of agreements reached in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, in 1944. These agreements set up several institutions designed to help an international economic system to emerge.

The accession to the EU of which state provided a stimulus for agreement on the Lomé Convention?

Britain

The accession of Britain to the EEC in 1973 provided a stimulus for agreement on the Lomé Convention. Relations with ex-colonies was an area of considerable concern for the original EEC. When the Treaty of Rome was signed in 1957, the vast majority of independent countries that eventually became the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) group, remained the responsibility of colonial powers. In 1956 France, which of the original EEC member states had the largest number of colonies, requested that its overseas territories be granted associated status with the proposed EEC. Relations were initially dealt with in an Implementing Convention, which was replaced in 1963 by the Yaoundé Convention. Both of these instruments had the objective of gradually moving towards a free trade area between the EEC and the former French colonies and included the provision of financial aid. Neither however, marked a serious attempt to break with the traditional pattern of relations between Europe and the developing world. The Lomé Convention was negotiated in the early 1970s as a result of British accession to the EEC and marked a turning point in these relations. Britain was a former imperial power, similar to France, and the addition of its former colonies brought to forty-six the number of associated states. It created ’a contract between equal partners and was a step towards a New International Order’

(Stevens 1984: 1). Spain and Portugal were also former imperial powers but they acceded to the EC during the 1980s, after the establishment of the Lomé Convention. Greece did not have colonies.

What is the Lomé Convention?

Trade and aid package between the EU and the African, Caribbean and Pacific States

The Lomé Convention refers to a trade and aid package between the EU and the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) states, and covers a number of agreements from 1975 to 2000. They are non-reciprocal trade agreements. This means that while the Lomé Conventions gave the ACP countries access to EU markets for certain commodities (such as bananas) it did not demand access to ACP markets in return. This non-reciprocity is one of the reasons why the Commission argued that the Lomé Convention violated WTO rules. While the Convention was originally created to accommodate French demands for a special association status for its former colonies, it also includes former colonies of other member states.

How did the Cotonou Agreement differ from the Lomé Convention?

The Cotonou Agreement introduced reciprocal trade agreements

The Cotonou Agreement, signed in June 2000, differed from the Lomé Convention because it was based on the progressive and reciprocal removal of trade agreements between the EU and the countries covered by the Cotonou Agreements. This meant that in return for access to the EU market, countries that signed up to the agreement had to open their markets to EU goods. The Commission argued that this was necessary in order to bring the EU’s trade relations in line with WTO rules. Like the Lomé Convention before it, the Cotonou Agreement covered aid and economic development, environmental protection measures and measures relating to democracy, good governance and human rights.

True or false: Since the introduction of the WTO, recourse to dispute panels has decreased considerably.

False. Partly because of the increased complexity of the rules, and partly because of the advent of more effective machinery, recourse to dispute panels has increased considerably since the introduction of the WTO. The WTO averages forty disputes a year as compared to six per year under the previous GATT procedures (McQueen 1998: 436). This has affected the EU because of increased challenges to its practices, particularly from the US. Since the WTO was created in

1995, the US and the EU have struggled to dominate the procedures and the agendas, or at least to ensure that the other does not dominate. Each side has brought complaints against the other. Among the issues under dispute have been the EU’s banana regime, the application of biotechnology to agricultural produce and the Foreign Sales Corporation (FSC) provisions of US tax law.

What are the levels of ’three level game’ of EU trade negotiations?

Within member states, among member states and between the EU and its trading partners

The three levels of the ’three level game’ of EU trade negotiations are first, reaching agreement within member states that reflects a balance of domestic interests, secondly, reaching agreement among member states that reflects a balance of EU interests, and finally, reaching agreement among the signatory states of the WTO (Collinson, 1999). Having to reach agreement that satisfies three levels of bargaining complicates the process of negotiations. Negotiations are also complicated by the fact that a wide range of issues are under discussion. The ’three-level game’ draws on the intergovernmental approach. Young (2000) advocated supplementing liberal intergovernmental analysis of trade policy with an institutionalist approach. According to this analysis, the three-level game is structured by the institutionalization of the policy sector. In other words, different EU positions during trade negotiations can be explained with reference to the different institutionalization of political forces within each set of issues.

Question 7

Pre-accession agreements with states that want to become full members of the EU

Association Agreements are pre-accession agreements with states that want to become full members of the EU. The agreements involve a variety of trade concessions by the EU, with partial reciprocation by the other parties. One of the earliest such agreements was with Turkey in 1973. in recognition of the disappointment of Turkey at not being treated as a candidate for membership of the EU in the enlargement round than ended in 2004, in 1996 the Association Agreement with it was extended into a special customs union. Since the collapse of communism, a variety of other agreements have been devised that stop shot of offering a perspective on membership. These include Euro-Med Agreements and the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP).

What was the difference in emphasis between Pascal Lamy as Trade Commissioner (1999-2004) and his successor Peter Mandelson (2005-2008)?

Lamy linked EU trade policy to political objectives such as social justice and sustainable development; Mandelson downgraded political objectives

Lamy linked EU trade policy to political objectives such as social justice and sustainable development; Mandelson downgraded political objectives. Lamy favoured ’managed capitalism’, which made multilateralism the central doctrine of EU trade policy, and linked trade to political objectives. ’Global Europe’, a 2006 communication, outlines Mandelson’s position and argued that the central objective of EU trade policy should be to open markets abroad for European companies. This effectively involved a downgrading of the political adjuncts to trade negotiations and a retreat from the commitment to multilateralism. Both Lamy and Mandelson favoured trade liberalization.

Which of the following are features of Euro-Med Association Agreements?

All of the above. In 1995, the EU developed the concept of a Euro-Mediterranean (’Euro-Med’) Partnership. Essential components of the concept were Euro-Med Association Agreements. These were bilateral agreements that varied in detail, but had certain common features including: WTO-compatible free trade (to be implemented in stages over twelve years); provisions relating to intellectual property, services, public procurement, competition rules, state aids, and monopolies; cultural co-operation; political dialogue; economic co-operation; respect for human rights and democracy; and co-operation on social affairs and immigration. The process was re-launched as the Union for the Mediterranean at the Paris Summit for the Mediterranean in 2008, and new objectives related to the environment, disasters and business and education developments were added. In 2009, there were 16 non-EU states involved in the process.

True or false: The European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) covers states that are in line for EU membership.

False. The European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) provides financial assistance and economic co-operation to states that do not have EU membership prospects. This sets the ENP apart from the Europe Agreements. The ENP includes the Euro-Med Agreements with countries to the south of the EU, and also covers the EU’s eastern neighbours: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and the Ukraine. The ENP was launched in 2004 with the aim of managing

relations with states outside of the association agreement framework, and improving both economic development, through sharing the benefits of enlargement, and improving security in the regions on the EU’s borders.

Federalism

Federalism is the theory or advocacy of federal principles for dividing powers between member units and common institutions.

Unlike in a unitary state, sovereignty in federal political orders is non-centralized, often constitutionally, between at least two levels so that units at each level have final authority and can be self governing in some issue area.

Citizens thus have political obligations to, or have their rights secured by, two authorities.

The division of power between the member unit and center may vary, typically the center has powers regarding defense and foreign policy, but member units may also have international roles.

The decision-making bodies of member units may also participate in central decision-making bodies.

Much recent philosophical attention is spurred by renewed political interest in federalism, coupled with empirical findings concerning the requisite and legitimate basis for stability and trust among citizens in federal political orders.

Philosophical contributions have addressed the dilemmas and opportunities facing Canada, Australia, Europe, Russia, Iraq, Nepal and Nigeria, to mention just a few areas where federal arrangements are seen as interesting solutions to accommodate differences among populations divided by ethnic or cultural cleavages yet seeking a common, often democratic, political order.

3. Reasons for Federalism

promoting various forms of liberty in the form of non-domination, immunity or enhanced opportunity sets (Elazar 1987a).

decentralization without requiring constitutional entrenchment of split authority.

Arguments favoring federal orders compared with secession and completely independent sovereign states;

arguments supporting federal arrangements rather than a (further) centralized unitary state.

They occur in different forms and from different starting points, in defence of ‘coming together’ federalism, and in favour of ‘holding together’ federalism.

3.1 Reasons for a federal order rather than separate states or secessionHere is a list of reasons for a federal order rather than separate states or secession.

Federations may foster peace, in the senses of preventing wars and preventing fears of war, in several ways.

States can join a (con)federation to become jointly powerful enough to dissuade external aggressors, and/or to prevent aggressive and preemptive wars among themselves.

The European federalists Altieri Spinelli, Ernesto Rossi and Eugenio Colorni argued the latter in the 1941 Ventotene Manifesto: Only a European federation could prevent war between totalitarian, aggressive states.

Such arguments assume, of course, that the (con)federation will not become more aggressive than each state separately, a point Mill argued.

Federations can promote economic prosperity by removing internal barriers to trade, through economies of scale, by establishing and maintaining inter-member unit trade agreements, or by becoming a sufficiently large global player to affect international trade regimes (for the latter regarding the EU, cf. Keohane and Nye 2001, 260).

Federal arrangements may protect individuals against political authorities by constraining state sovereignty, and placing some powers with the center, i.e. Pentagon; EU Commission.

By entrusting the center with authority to intervene in member units, the federal arrangements can protect minorities’ human rights against member unit authorities (Federalist, Watts 1999). Such arguments assume, of course, that abuse by the center is less likely.

Federations can facilitate some objectives of sovereign states, such as credible commitments,certain kinds of coordination, and control over externalities, by transferring some powers to a common body.

Since cooperation in some areas can ‘spill over’ and create demands for further coordination in other sectors, federations often exhibit creeping centralization.

Federal arrangements may enhance the political influence of formerly sovereign governments, both by facilitating coordination, and *mdash; particularly for small states—by giving these member units influence or even veto over policy making, rather than remaining mere policy takers.

3.2 Reasons for preferring federal orders over a unitary stateHere is a list of reasons for preferring federal orders over a unitary state:

Constitutional allocation of powers to a member unit protects individuals from the center, while interlocking arrangements provide influence on central decisions via member unit bodies (Madison, Hume, Goodin 1996). Member units can check central authorities and prevent undue action contrary to the will of minorities:

“A great democracy must either sacrifice self-government to unity or preserve it by federalism. The coexistence of several nations under the same State is a test, as well as the best security of its freedom … The combination of different nations in one State is as necessary a condition of civilized life as the combination of men in society” (Acton 1907, 277).

More specifically, federal arrangements can accommodate minority nations who aspire to self determination and the preservation of their culture, language or religion.

Such autonomy and immunity arrangements are clearly preferable to the political conflicts that might result from such groups' attempts at secession. Central authorities may respond with human rights abuses, civil wars or ethnic cleansing to prevent such secessionist movements.

Federal orders may increase the opportunities for citizen participation in public decision-making; through deliberation and offices in both member unit and central bodies that ensures character formation through political participation among more citizens (Mill 1861, ch. 15).

‘fiscal federalism’ the optimal allocation of authority, typically recommending central redistribution but local provision of public goods.

Federal arrangements may allow more optimal matching of the authority to create public goods to specific affected subsets of the populations.

If individuals' preferences vary systematically by territory according to external or internal parameters such as geography or shared tastes and values, federal—or decentralized—arrangements that allow local variation may be well suited for several reasons.

Local decisions prevent overload of centralised decision-making, and local decision-makers may also have a better grasp of affected preferences and alternatives, making for better service than would be provided by a central government that tends to ignore local preference variations (Smith 1776, 680).

Subsidiartiy

The principle of subsidiarity regulates the exercise of powers in the European Union.

The subsidiarity principle is based on the idea that decisions must be taken as closely as possible to the citizen: the Union should not undertake action (except on matters for which it alone is responsible) unless EU action is more effective than action taken at national, regional or local level.

The subsidiarity principle was introduced by the Treaty of Maastricht and was further elaborated in a Protocol on the application of the principle attached to the Treaty of Amsterdam. Today, the principle is defined in Article 5 TEU (Treaty of the EU).

The institutions of the Union shall apply the principle of subsidiarity. National Parliaments ensure compliance with the principle of subsidiarity in accordance with the procedure set out in that Protocol.

In effect, this principle only applies when the Union and Member States both have competence.

The question is, which of the two (EU or the Member States) is to exercise the competence.

As defined in Article 5 TEU, there are two conditions for Union action:

first, insufficient achievement by Member States of the objectives of the proposed action;

secondly, better achievement by the Union by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action.

The concept of subsidiarity was initially introduced as a result of pressure on the one hand from certain regions – in particular the German federal states (Länder) – to use subsidiarity as a way to protect their regional autonomy recognised at the national level, and on the other from certain Member States – in particular the UK – that saw in subsidiarity a tool to protect themselves against encroaching Union intervention.

However, the concept as enshrined into the Treaty has focused on the relations between Union and Member States – with the exception of a Declaration attached to the Treaty of Amsterdam which states that ‘for the German, Austrian and Belgian governments it remains understood that the actions of the European Community on the basis of the principle of subsidiarity concern not only the Member States, but also their bodies, to the extent that these bodies possess their own legislative powers, conferred on them by national constitutional law’.

The new Treaty of Lisbon, as it entered into force on 1 December 2009, broadens the definition of subsidiarity to the regional and local level (Article 5 (2) TEU).

It also introduces, a new ex ante political monitoring mechanism through which any national parliament or any chamber of a national parliament will be enabled to issue a reasoned opinion regarding compliance with the principle by EU proposals of a legislative nature.

Snake in the tunnel

An arrangement used briefly in Europe after the collapse of the Bretton Woods System in which European currencies were permitted to vary ±1% against each other (the snake but ±2.25% against the dollar (the tunnel).

Multi-level governance

Is the exercise of authority and the various dimensions of relations across levels of government, has changed over the last two decades.

In particular, decentralisation has made local and regional governments more powerful and supposedly increased their capacity to formulate and deliver policy.

Local and regional governments, concerned that their economies are increasingly exposed to global competition, now expect to influence public policies so that they have a real and positive impact on improving the competitiveness of the regional economy and the well-being of residents.

These trends have made governance of public policies both more complex and more demanding, involving multiple actors (public but also private) and requiring a rethinking of how central and sub-national governments should collaborate

OECD work on multi level governance addresses these “new” forms of governance. The work has two main dimensions: vertical and horizontal.

The “vertical” dimension refers to the linkages between higher and lower levels of government, including their institutional, financial, and informational aspects. Here, local capacity building and incentives for effectiveness of sub national levels of government are crucial issues for improving the quality and coherence of public policy.

The "horizontal" dimension refers to co-operation arrangements between regions or between municipalities. These agreements are increasingly common as a means by which to improve the effectiveness of local public service delivery and implementation of development strategies.

Recent work is focusing on the contractual approach of multi-level governance, the design of grants transferred from central to sub national levels of government and the variety of agreements between municipalities.

Multi level governance is a key theme in the national territorial reviews and in work on urban and rural regions.

Democratic Deficit

a situation in which political structures, organizations, or decision-making processes lack democratic legitimacy

The phrase democratic deficit is cited as first being used by the Young European Federalists in their Manifesto in 1977.[2] The phrase was also used by David Marquand in 1979, referring to the

then European Economic Community, the forerunner of the European Union.[3]

The European Union (EU) is a unique organisation – not a federal state, yet not just an International Organisation. Compared to an ideally democratic Nation-State the EU is less democratic and thus has a democratic deficit.

If the EU, however, is compared to an International Organisation like the World Trade Organisation, the World Bank or the United Nations the EU has a democratic surplus.

The biggest democratic difficulties for the European Union are the low popular interest in the EU, the already low and consistently decreasing turnout in

elections to the European Parliament, the divide between politicians and the general population on

European integration, the complicated and technocratic nature of EU decision-

making processes, and the activism of the European Court of Justice.

There is no consensus as to whether the Lisbon Treaty reduces or increases the democratic deficit in the European Union. The Lisbon Treaty increases the power of the democratically elected European Parliament and introduces the Citizen's initiative.

The Lisbon Treaty is, however, being ratified by the governments of counties whose people would most likely reject the treaty if it was put to a democratic referendum.

Europeanisation

refers to a number of related phenomena and patterns of change:

The process in which a notionally non-European subject (be it a culture, a language, a city or a nation) adopts a number of European features Outside of the social sciences, it commonly refers to the growth of a European continental identity or polity over and above national identities and polities on the continent.

Europeanisation may also refer to the process through which European Union political and economic dynamics become part of the organisational logic of national politics and policy-making.

One of the earliest conceptualisations of the term is by Ladrech (1994, 69) who defines Europeanisation simply as ‘an incremental process of re-orienting the direction and shape of politics to the

extent that EC political and economic dynamics become part of the organisational logic of national politics and policy making.’

This emphasises what is known as the 'top-down approach' to Europeanisation with change emanating from the impact of the Union onto the national policy. The state is viewed as re-active towards changes in the union.

Another definition that needs to taken into account is Radaelli, who describes Europeanisation as "a process involving, a) construction, b) diffusion and c) institutionalisation of formal and informal rules, procedures, polciy paradigms, styles, 'ways of doing things' and shared beliefs and norms which are first defined and consolidated in the EU policy process and then incorporated in the logic of domestic (national and subnational) discourse, political structures and public choices."[1]

From a 'bottom-up' approach Europeanisation occurs when states begin to affect the policy of the European union in a given area.

A more nuanced analysis posits that the institutional interaction of policy actors at the various levels of European governance leads to the re-definition of national, regional and other identities within a European context, where the multiple levels of governance in Europe are not seen as necessarily in opposition to one another.

An elected representative can, for example, see his loyalties and responsibilities as lying with Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain and Europe. Some scholars, including Samuel Huntington argue that citizens of European states increasingly identify themselves as such, rather than British, French, German, etc.

An obvious area of change is in the institutions of Europe; the enlargement of the European Union and the gradual acquisition of authority over the national member governments in numerous areas is creating a centralised European polity.

The Economic and Monetary Union of the European Union would be an example of this; in this case, the nations using the euro have passed control of their monetary policy to the European Central Bank.

Another perspective of Europeanisation is the 'horizontal approach.' This approach takes into account the transfer of politics, policies and policy making between member states of the European Union. The transfer can is based on a form of 'soft law' therefore it is not enforceable, but is based on 'best practice' and mutual recognition.

The Schuman Declaration

The Schuman Declaration is a declaration made by the then French Foreign Minister, Robert Schuman, on 9 May 1950.

The Declaration is viewed as the first official step in the foundation of the present EU, since it led to the establishment of the European Coal and Steel Community.

In general, the Declaration can be described as a proposal to establish an organised Europe with close economic links with a view to maintaining peaceful relations between European countries.

The background to the Schuman Declaration was the tense climate following the Second World War pervaded by the ‘cold war’ and fear of a third world war. Also the European industry was threatened with a crisis due to overproduction of steel.

There was a widespread view that it was necessary for the Western European countries to enter into new patterns of cooperation in order to meet the security and economic challenges of the time; in particular, it was considered necessary to establish cohesion between West Germany and the other Western European countries.

Through the Schuman Declaration, the French Government proposed that Franco-German coal and steel production be placed under the jurisdiction of a common body known as the ‘High Authority’ (the precursor of the Commission) in an organisation which would also be open to other European countries to join.

After the presentation of the Schuman Declaration, things moved rapidly.

Against the background of the Declaration, an intergovernmental conference was convened in Paris to conduct negotiations on a new form of international cooperation, and the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community was signed in Paris on 18 April 1951 (the ECSC Treaty).

The six countries which signed the Treaty were France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Italy. The ECSC Treaty came into forceon 23 July 1952, and the European Coal and Steel Community became a reality.

Consent (Assent Procedure)

In certain legislative areas, the European Parliament is requested to give its consent, as a special legislative procedure under Article 289(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

The consent procedure gives Parliament the right of veto. Parliament’s role is thus to approve or reject the legislative proposal without further amendments and the Council cannot overrule Parliament’s opinion.

Consent is also required as a non-legislative procedure when the Council is adopting certain international agreements.

Formerly know as the assent procedure, it was introduced by the 1986 Single European Act in two areas:

1. association agreements and 2. agreements governing accession to the European Union.

The scope for the application of the procedure was extended by all subsequent modifications of the Treaties.

As a non-legislative procedure, it usually applies to the ratification of certain agreements negotiated by the European Union, or is applicable most notably in the cases of serious breach of fundamental rights under Article 7 Treaty on European Union (TEU) or for the accession of new EU members or arrangements for the withdrawal from the EU.

As a legislative procedure, it is to be used also when new legislation on combating discrimination is being adopted and it now gives the European Parliament a veto also when the subsidiary general legal basis is applied in line with Article 352 TFEU.