Methods of Governance in the European Union

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.

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 124-130
Author(s):  
Gavrilov Doina

AbstractThe EU decision-making process is one that has changed over time with the Treaties, with the extension, modification of EU policies and the areas where the EU is acting. In addition to the above, in 2016 we have one more reason to add to the changing of the decisional process “-Brexit”- a political turnaround that stimulates new changes at the decision-making level and raises questions about the future of the European Union. Federalists claim that these events will lead to a strengthening of the Union, and euro-skeptics claim that this is a step towards breaking the Union. Two years after the Brexit started, the European Union continues to remain a prominent actor in the international arena, but another question is being raised: “Will EU institutions act on the same principles? Or will there be changes in the decision-making process?”. In this article, we will analyse the state coalitions in the decision-making process, and the role of Brexit in forming coalitions for establishing a decisional balance in the European Council. Following the analysis of the power rapport in the European Council, we refer to small and medium-sized states that work together closely to counterbalance the decisions of the big states, and the new coalitions to achieve their goals in the new political context.


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.


2002 ◽  
Vol 56 (3) ◽  
pp. 551-574 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Ballmann ◽  
David Epstein ◽  
Sharyn O'Halloran

Although relatively unknown outside of Europe, comitology committees are an object of considerable controversy in the European Union (EU). Controversy stems from their pivotal role in overseeing policy implementation authority delegated from the Council of Ministers (Council) to the European Commission (Commission). In this article, we employ a game-theoretic model to analyze the influence of these, committees on policy outcomes. Our analysis provides three important insights. First, we show that, contrary to the conventional wisdom, comitology committees move outcomes toward the Commission's preferred policies rather than the Council's. Second, we demonstrate that the possibility of a Council veto may also move outcomes away from Council members' policy preferences and toward the Commission's. Third, the 1999 changes to the comitology procedures, designed to enhance the Commission's autonomy in policymaking, may have had the exact opposite effect. Paradoxically, we conclude that comitology serves to enhance the Commission's role in policy implementation and thereby strengthens the separation of powers within the EU.


IG ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 43 (4) ◽  
pp. 278-294
Author(s):  
Niklas Helwig ◽  
Juha Jokela ◽  
Clara Portela

Sanctions are one of the toughest and most coercive tools available to the European Union (EU). They are increasingly used in order to respond to breaches of international norms and adverse security developments in the neighbourhood and beyond. However, the EU sanctions policy is facing a number of challenges related to the efficiency of decision-making, shortcomings in the coherent implementation of restrictive measures, as well as the adjustments to the post-Brexit relationship with the United Kingdom. This article analyses these key challenges for EU sanctions policy. Against the backdrop of an intensifying global competition, it points out the need to weatherproof this policy tool. The current debate on the future of the EU provides an opportunity to clarify the strategic rationale of EU sanctions and to fine-tune the sanctions machinery.


2020 ◽  
Vol 152 ◽  
pp. 102-111
Author(s):  
Igor V. Pilipenko ◽  

This article considers how to enhance the institutional structure of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) in order to enable timely decision-making and implementation of governance decisions in the interests of Eurasian integration deepening. We compare the governance structures of the EAEU and the European Union (EU) using the author’s technique and through the lens of theories of neofunctionalism and intergovernmentalism elaborated with respect to the EU. We propose to determine a major driver of the integration process at this stage (the College of the Eurasian Economic Commission or the EAEU member states), to reduce the number of decision-making bodies within the current institutional structure of the EAEU, and to divide clearly authority and competence of remaining bodies to exclude legal controversies in the EAEU.


2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (01) ◽  
pp. 65-83
Author(s):  
Laode Muhamad Fathun

This paper describes the phenomenon Brexit or Britain Exit on the future of EU regionalism and its impact on Indonesia. This paper will explain in detail the reason for the emergence of a number of policies Brexit. Brexit event caused much speculation related to Brexit in the European Union. The policy is considered full controversial, some experts say that Brexit in the European Union (EU) showed the independence of Britain as an independent state. Other hand, that Britain is the "ancestor" of the Europeans was struck with the release of the policy, meaning European history can not be separated from the history of Britain. In fact the above reasons that Britain came out associated with independence as an independent state related to EU policies that are too large, as a result of the policy model is very holistic policy while Britain desire is wholistic policy, especially in the economic, political, social and cultural. In addition, the geopolitical location of the EU headquarters in Brussels who also became the dominant actor in a union policy that demands as EU countries have been involved in the formulation of development policy, including controversial is related to the ration immigrants. Other reason is the prestige associated with the currency. Although long since Britain does not fully adopt the EU rules but there is the possibility in the EU currency union can only occur with the assumption that the creation of functional perfect integration.


2019 ◽  
Vol 55 (3) ◽  
pp. 230-249
Author(s):  
Andrzej Żurawski

Abstract This article explores Bruno Amable’s Diversity of Capitalism approach to analyze educational systems in the European Union (EU28). The main goal is to identify the main clusters of educational systems with regard to their institutional characteristics. Second goal of the analysis is to evaluate the impact of several EU policies and initiatives on the institutional structure of European educational systems. This article identified six clusters in terms of general education and five clusters in terms of higher education systems. The clustering shows, that – with some exceptions (notably the United Kingdom and Ireland) – European education systems have similar structure to other institutional areas, in particular, it confirms the existence of post-communist (in terms of Farkas) or patchwork (in terms of Rapacki et al.) capitalism. The article shows, as well, that subsystem of higher education is much less diverse, what may have a significance for future discussions on the capitalisms in the EU. Results suggests also that there exist significant differences in performance between the clusters, something that may have a crucial importance for an educational policy.


Author(s):  
Andrea Lenschow

This chapter focuses on the European Union’s environmental policy, the development of which was characterized by institutional deepening and the substantial expansion of environmental issues covered by EU decisions and regulations. Environmental policy presents a host of challenges for policy-makers, including the choice of appropriate instruments, improvement of implementation performance, and better policy coordination at all levels of policy-making. The chapter points to the continuing adaptations that have been made in these areas. It first considers the historical evolution of environmental policy in the EU before discussing the main actors in EU environmental policy-making, namely: the European Commission, the Council of the European Union, the European Parliament, the Court of Justice of the European Union, and environmental interest groups. The chapter also looks at the EU as an international actor.


Author(s):  
Christopher Hill ◽  
Michael Smith ◽  
Sophie Vanhoonacker

This edition examines the contexts in which the European Union has reflected and affected major forces and changes in international relations (IR) by drawing on concepts such as balance of power, multipolarity, multilateralism, interdependence, and globalization. It explores the nature of policymaking in the EU's international relations and the ways in which EU policies are pursued within the international arena. Topics include the EU's role in the global political economy, how the EU has developed an environmental policy, and how it has attempted to graft a common defence policy onto its generalized foreign and security policy. This chapter discusses the volume's methodological assumptions and considers three perspectives on IR and the EU: the EU as a subsystem of IR, the EU and the processes of IR, and the EU as a power in IR. It also provides an overview of the chapters that follow.


2018 ◽  
Vol 24 (83) ◽  
pp. 6-32 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dejan Jović

Abstract This paper focuses on perceptions of the European Union (EU) and external actors (such as the United States, Russia, and Turkey) in six countries of the Western Balkans (WB) and Croatia in a comparative perspective. We present data generated by public opinion polls and surveys in all countries of that region in order to illustrate growing trends of EU indifferentism in all predominately Slavic countries of the region. In addition, there is an open rejection of pro-EU policies by significant segments of public opinion in Serbia and in the Republic of Srpska, Bosnia-Herzegovina. On the contrary, there is much enthusiasm and support for the West in general and the EU in particular in predominately non-Slavic countries, Kosovo and Albania. We argue that the WB as a region defined by alleged desire of all countries to join the the EU is more of an elite concept than that shared by the general population, which remains divided over the issue of EU membership. In explaining reasons for such a gap we emphasise a role of interpretation of the recent past, especially when it comes to a role the West played in the region during the 1990s.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document