Balance

Author(s):  
Signe Rehling Larsen

This chapter is about the internal contradictions of the federation as a political form manifest in its dual telos, that is, the creation of an ‘ever closer union’ and the protection of the autonomy and diversity of its Member States. The endurance of the federation is predicated on a balance between these forces and the absence of existential conflicts between its Member States. This can be achieved if there is a relative political homogeneity among the Member States. The substance of this homogeneity is not ‘natural’ or ‘pregiven’ but rather a political and constitutional construct unique to any given federation. The political homogeneity set out by the constitutional order of the EU is a part of the post-WWII project of ‘constrained democracy’, a project that has been more dominant in some Member States than others. As the rise of authoritarianism in Poland and Hungary shows, the EU’s constitutional equilibrium is precarious.

Author(s):  
Petr YAKOVLEV

The decision on Britain’s secession from the European Union, taken by the British Parliament and agreed by London and Brussels, divided the Union history into “before” and “after”. Not only will the remaining member states have to “digest” the political, commercial, economic and mental consequences of parting with one of the largest partners. They will also have to create a substantially new algorithm for the functioning of United Europe. On this path, the EU is confronted with many geopolitical and geo-economic challenges, which should be answered by the new leaders of the European Commission, European Council, and European Parliament.


Author(s):  
Signe Rehling Larsen

The conclusion sums up the main arguments of the book: the EU is not an association sui generis. Rather, it belongs to the political form of the federation: a discrete form of political association on a par with, though differentiated from, the other two forms of political modernity, namely, the state and the empire. The federation is a political union of states founded on a federal and constitutional compact that does not absorb the Member States into a new federal state. Federations come into existence because of the instability of the state as a political form. States decide to come together in a federation because they are incapable of maintaining their own political autonomy. Nevertheless, the federation is characterized by its own unique internal contradictions that always threaten its stability and survival. Federal emergency politics brings these contradictions to the fore by eroding the political autonomy of the Member States.


Significance The EP vote could in theory lead to sanctions under Article 7 of the EU Treaty (TEU). An 'illiberal state' has emerged in Hungary since 2010, profoundly and durably modifying the functioning of the political system, entrenching the power of the ruling Fidesz party and weakening the opposition. Impacts Fidesz will renew its strong majority in the 2018 elections and further consolidate its power in years to come. Member states are unlikely to agree on the deep reform of EU rule of law procedures that would allow a systematic response. Neighbouring states and candidate countries are likely to drift increasingly away from the liberal model.


2009 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 347-366
Author(s):  
Jari Pirjola

AbstractThe tension between universal human rights commitments and particular interests of the EU or its Member States is at the heart of the creation of a common asylum system. This article explores some of the inherent and structural contradictions as well as the sometimes hidden paradoxes that affect the creation of common asylum policies. The development of the European asylum system is examined as a process of including and excluding. It is argued that open, abstract and empty human rights commitments can provide only limited guidance on how to develop migration and asylum policies in Europe. We should not try to hide the development of the European asylum system behind the obscurity of legal reasoning or institutionalized rights language, but see the emerging common asylum system as a result of different and often conflicting priorities, power struggles and ideological influences.


2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-70
Author(s):  
Matteo Bonelli

Abstract The EU has not yet found effective answers to constitutional crises in its Member States, in particular Hungary and Poland. Due to systemic problems of compliance with the common values of Art. 2, the legitimacy of the EU constitutional order and its smooth functioning are under threat, but the EU lacks instruments of direct enforcement and coercion. Several authors have therefore proposed to ‘federalize’ EU mechanisms and to guarantee to EU institutions, in particular the Court of Justice, more powers to intervene vis-à-vis Member States. However, the current Treaty framework presents a series of obstacles to federal-like enforcement. Solutions to national crises must ultimately respect the constitutional balance between the Union and the Member States.


Author(s):  
Andrii Martynov

The politics of the European Union are different from other organizations and states due to the unique nature of the EU. The common institutions mix the intergovernmental and supranational aspects of the EU. The EU treaties declare the EU to be based on representative democracy and direct elections take place to the European Parliament. The Parliament, together with the European Council, works for the legislative arm of the EU. The Council is composed of national governments thus representing the intergovernmental nature of the European Union. The central theme of this research is the influence of the European Union Political system the Results of May 2019 European Parliament Election. The EU supranational legislature plays an important role as a producer of legal norms in the process of European integration and parliamentary scrutiny of the activities of the EU executive. The European Parliament, as a representative institution of the European Union, helps to overcome the stereotypical notions of a “Brussels bureaucracy” that limits the sovereignty of EU member states. The European Parliament is a political field of interaction between European optimists and European skeptics. The new composition of the European Parliament presents political forces focused on a different vision of the strategy and tactics of the European integration process. European federalists in the “European People’s Party” and “European Socialists and Democrats” consider the strategic prospect of creating a confederate “United States of Europe”. The Brexit withdrawal from the EU could help the federalists win over European skeptics. Critics of the supranational project of European integration do not have a majority in the new composition of the European Parliament. But they are widely represented in many national parliaments of EU Member States. The conflicting interaction between European liberals and far-right populists is the political backdrop for much debate in the European Parliament. The result of this process is the medium term development vector of the European Union.


Author(s):  
Bożena Gierat-Bieroń ◽  

The EU is promoting cultural relations with Asian countries. While building interpersonal and institutional connections, the EU pays special attention to Japan. The image of the EU and its mutual relations with Japan are generally recognised as predominantly good and trustworthy. This paper will examine the process of building creative/progressive cultural relations between the EU and Japan based on two hypotheses; fi rst: despite the fact that the EU tried to develop cultural relations within Japan, the embassies of the EU Member States are far more active in cultural programs than the EU Delegation; and secondly: the reception of the EU as a historic and cultural project is rather fragmented (as opposed to being holistic) in Japan. The aim of this research is to analyse, compare, and evaluate both the effort and achievements made by the EU and Japan in the process of building creative cultural relations. The research will demonstrate an analytical approach in the political sciences discipline.


Author(s):  
Kees van Kersbergen ◽  
Bertjan Verbeek

Since the Maastricht Treaty (1993), subsidiarity has guided the political process surrounding the distribution of competences between administrative layers in the European Union (EU). The EU’s subsidiarity regime affects the politics and governance of the EU, because the notion of subsidiarity allows for continuous negotiation over its practical use. The constant battle over subsidiarity implies that the notion changes its meaning over time and alters the power relations between different actors within the EU. Since the Lisbon Treaty (2009), subsidiarity has mainly strengthened the position of member states at the expense of the Commission.


Author(s):  
Mary Daly

Social policy has a particular character and set of associated politics in the European Union (EU) context. There is a double contestation involved: the extent of the EU’s agency in the field and the type of social policy model pursued. The former is contested because social policy is typically and traditionally a matter of national competence and the latter because the social policy model is crucial to economic and market development. Hence, social policy has both functional and political significance, and EU engagement risks member states’ capacity to control the social fate of their citizens and the associated resources, authority, and power that come with this capacity. The political contestations are at their core territorially and/or social class based; the former crystalizes how wide and extensive the EU authority should be in social policy and the latter a left/right continuum in regard to how redistributive and socially interventionist EU social policy should be. Both are the subject of a complicated politics at EU level. First, there is a diverse set of agents involved, not just member states and the “political” EU institutions (Parliament and Council) but the Commission is also an important “interested” actor. This renders institutional politics and jockeying for power typical features of social policymaking in the EU. Second, one has to break down the monolith of the EU institutions and recognize that within and among them are actors or units that favor a more left or right position on social policy. Third, actors’ positions do not necessarily align on the two types of contestation (apart perhaps from the social nongovernmental organizations and to a lesser extent employers and business interests). Some actors who favor an extensive role for social policy in general are skeptical about the role of the EU in this regard (e.g., trade unions, some social democratic parties) while others (some sectors of the Commission) wish for a more expansive EU remit in social policy but also support a version of social policy pinned tightly to market and economic functions. In this kind of context, the strongest and most consistent political thrust is toward a type of EU social policy that is most clearly oriented to enabling the Union’s economic and market-related objectives. Given this and the institutional set-up, the default position in EU social policy is for a market-making social policy orientation on the one hand and a circumscribed role for the EU in social policy on the other.


Author(s):  
Anca Gurzu

Critics have often highlighted that the 1999 Tampere decision to establish a common European Union (EU) asylum system has been too focused on security and not enough on human rights, leading to increased denial of protection for asylum seekers. This paper focuses on a controversial asylum policy, which is part of this debate: the safe country of origin (SCO) policy. This policy revolves around having a list of countries deemed "safe" which ensures asylum seekers from these countries are fast tracked through the system and likely denied asylum in the end, based on a general assumption that the application is unfounded. Human rights groups have argued the SCO policy violates the Geneva Convention. Widely used at the national level, officials proposed the creation of a supranational SCO list in the early 2000s. However, disagreements among Member States over what countries to deem “safe" as well as the need to place the European Parliament in a co-decision (as opposed to consultative) position for the creation of the EU SCO list have led to an impasse. This paper employs two major European integration theories, neofunctionalism and liberal intergovernmentalism, to explain the bargaining dynamics between Member States and their failure to agree on what “safe" means. Factors such as different national migratory pressures, varied procedural understandings and applications of the SCO policy, a limited successful harmonization in related asylum policies, along with a reluctance to have the European Parliament in a co-decision position all contributed to the non-adoption of a supranational SCO list.   Full text available at: https://doi.org/10.22215/rera.v7i1.212


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document