4. The Council of the European Union:

2021 ◽  
pp. 78-105
Author(s):  
Uwe Puetter

The Council is an institution of day-to-day policymaking in which the interests of member state governments are represented by cabinet ministers who meet, according to their policy portfolio, in different Council configurations and within the Eurogroup. According to the Treaty of Lisbon, the Council has a dual mandate. It acts as a legislative organ as well as an executive and policy-coordinating institution. This dual role is reflected in the organization and meeting practices of the different Council configurations. Those groupings of ministers dealing primarily with executive decisions and policy coordination tend to meet more often and are regarded as being more senior than those formations of the Council which engage predominantly in legislative decision-making. As a legislative institution, the Council has increasingly acquired features of an upper chamber in a bicameral separation of powers system, working in tandem with the European Parliament. In contrast, Council decision-making relating to executive issues and policy coordination in important policy domains, such as economic governance and foreign policy, is closely aligned with the European Council. In these areas, the Council can be considered to constitute, together with the Commission, a collective EU executive.

Author(s):  
N. Kaveshnikov

Most of existing researches on the methods of governance in the European Union (EU) are rather narrow in scope. Many of them investigate particular policies of the EU for the purpose of identifying and describing the details of the governance mode in use. Other researches provide a comparative analysis of the application of a particular method of governance in several EU policies. However, there is a clear lacuna in the field of systematization of all methods of governance usable in the EU. This article reveals a comprehensive system of EU methods of governance. They are based on six key principles: 1) EU methods of governance are not reducible to combinations of communitarian and intergovernmental approaches. 2) Methods of governance are linked with the level of decision-making (super-system, system and subsystem decisions). 3) There are seven basic methods of governance in the EU. Classic intergovernmental method is used to make “historic” decisions at the super-system level. Communitarian approach and intensive trans-governmentalism are the most common methods at the system level. One can distinguish four methods of governance at the subsystem level: regulation, distribution, policy coordination and executive method. 4) There is no univocal correspondence between methods of policy setting (system level) and policy implementation (subsystem level). 5) Identified methods of governance are the ideal types. In practice, implementation of particular policy in the EU is usually a combination of various governance methods. 6) Methods of governance used at the level of policy implementation could change in the course of time. The concept proposed reflects the inter-coupling between the level of decision-making and a method of governance in the EU. It offers a consistent systematization of EU methods of governance, and discloses the correspondence between methods of governance and EU policies. Developed theoretical concept can be used as a methodological basis for the research of EU activities in particular policy areas, of decision-making process in the EU, of the evolution of governance in particular policy areas.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-26
Author(s):  
Dermot Hodson ◽  
Uwe Puetter ◽  
Sabine Saurugger

The European Union (EU) cannot be understood without reference to its institutions. But scholars differ on the questions of what precisely EU institutions are, what they do, and why they matter. This chapter defines EU institutions as decision-making bodies. It refers to the notion of EU institutional politics as the sphere of informal and formal rules, norms, procedures, and practices that shape such decision-making. The chapter explores how different theoretical traditions—international relations, integration theory, new institutionalism, the separation of powers, governance, public policy and administration approaches, and critical perspectives—think about EU institutions. Drawing on these traditions, this chapter encourages readers to think about EU institutions along five dimensions: intergovernmental versus supranational, international versus transnational, separated versus fused power, leaders versus followers, and contested versus legitimate. Seeing how the Union’s decision-making bodies move within and between these dimensions offers a deeper understanding of why EU institutions matter.


Author(s):  
Robert Schütze

This chapter discusses the four major European Union institutions: the European Parliament, the European Council, the European Commission, and the European Court. The provisions dealing with the EU institutions are split between the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Directly elected by the European citizens, the Parliament constitutes not only the most democratic institution; it is also the most supranational institution of the EU. Ultimately, each of the EU institutions is characterized by its distinct composition and its decision-making mode. Importantly, the EU is not based on a strict separation of functions between its institutions but follows a ‘checks and balances’ version of the separation-of-powers principle. This means that various EU institutions share in the exercise of various governmental functions.


Res Publica ◽  
1998 ◽  
Vol 40 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 435-461
Author(s):  
Bart Kerremans

The European Union bas recently started negotiations on its enlargement with a first group of six countries. This will probably be followed by a second wave of enlargements that would include five or six more countries. A question that can be raised in whether the institutional structure of the EU is ready to cope with an expanded membership. This article aims at analyzing this question as far as the Council of Ministers is concerned. It points at the rising tension between the capacity of the Council to act and the extent of control that each member states can exert on Council decision-making. The IGC that resulted in the Amsterdam Treaty basically failed to resolve this problem. The article looks at the reasons why it failed since these reasons expound the problems the EU will have to face in the near future when preparing its institutions for an expanded membership.


2016 ◽  
pp. 54-66
Author(s):  
Monika Poboży

The article poses a question about the existence of the rule of separation of powers in the EU institutional system, as it is suggested by the wording of the treaties. The analysis led to the conclusion, that in the EU institutional system there are three separated functions (powers) assigned to different institutions. The Council and the European Parliament are legislative powers, the Commission and the European Council create a “divided executive”. The Court of Justice is a judicial power. The above mentioned institutions gained strong position within their main functions (legislative, executive, judicial), but the proper mechanisms of checks and balances have not been developed, especially in the relations between legislative and executive power. These powers do not limit one another in the EU system. In the EU there are therefore three separated but arbitrary powers – because they do not limit and balance one another, and are not fully controlled by the member states.


This book provides the first comprehensive analysis of the withdrawal agreement concluded between the United Kingdom and the European Union to create the legal framework for Brexit. Building on a prior volume, it overviews the process of Brexit negotiations that took place between the UK and the EU from 2017 to 2019. It also examines the key provisions of the Brexit deal, including the protection of citizens’ rights, the Irish border, and the financial settlement. Moreover, the book assesses the governance provisions on transition, decision-making and adjudication, and the prospects for future EU–UK trade relations. Finally, it reflects on the longer-term challenges that the implementation of the 2016 Brexit referendum poses for the UK territorial system, for British–Irish relations, as well as for the future of the EU beyond Brexit.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document