scholarly journals Discussing Subsidiarity in Terms of Justification

2021 ◽  
Vol 49 ◽  
pp. 53-70
Author(s):  
Oxana Pimenova
Keyword(s):  
Research Question ◽  
Institutional Setting ◽  
Practical Implementation ◽  
Legislative Process ◽  
National Parliaments ◽  
Main Research ◽  
Regulation Policy ◽  
Subsidiarity Principle ◽  
Institutional Dimension ◽  
The Eu

This article attempts to study the inter-institutional dimension of the practical implementation of the subsidiarity principle in the EU legislative process. The main research question is whether the subsidiarity principle could be a real communicative tool in the EU’s multi-level regulation policy used to seek consensus between EU institutions and national parliaments on the justification of an appropriate level for EU actions (subsidiarity justification). The short answer is ‘yes’. Through the content analysis of the published documents and with the help of the theory of deliberation, the author argues for a subsidiarity justification procedure occurring at the beginning of each instance of the EU legislative process to provide an inter-institutional setting to move away from confirming (one-way) to deliberative (two-way) reasoning over the issue of potential subsidiarity violation in the EU legislative process.

National Parliaments in Subsidiarity Review: From Guardians to Partners

2018 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 287-299
Author(s):  
Oxana Pimenova
Keyword(s):  
Legislative Process ◽  
National Parliaments ◽  
Green Card ◽  
Better Regulation ◽  
Legislative Proposals ◽  
Subsidiarity Principle ◽  
Working Together ◽  
Political Value ◽  
Law Making ◽  
The Eu

Abstract With a clear emphasis on substantive political value that national legislatures are able to bring to the EU legislative process, this paper attempts to overcome skepticism about deepening national parliaments’ direct involvement in the decision-making process at the European level. The role of national parliaments in advancing their subsidiarity concerns within European law-making may be strengthened through a more intensive political dialogue with the Commission, when the former acts not just as the ‘guardians’ of the subsidiarity principle (in the framework of the existing yellow and orange card schemes) but also as active contributors to the law-making process encouraging the Commission to leverage the so-called green card procedure. Complemented by the yellow and orange card provisions, it forms a three-element subsidiarity review mechanism perfectly capable of dealing with subsidiarity concerns of national parliaments at various stages of the EU law-making process, thus transforming the chambers from wardens into partners working together with the Commission to reshape EU legislative proposals for the sake of better regulation.

scholarly journals The Subsidiarity Principle and National Parliaments Role: From Formal Need to Real Use of Powers

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 24
Author(s):  
Ani Matei ◽  
Adrian Stelian Dumitru
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Legislative Process ◽  
National Parliaments ◽  
Guiding Principle ◽  
Subsidiarity Principle ◽  
Legislative Procedure ◽  
Correct Application ◽  
The Eu

Subsidiarity constitutes a guiding principle of the EU exercising power and the idea of involving national parliaments in the EU legislative procedure was seen as the best solution to increase democracy and transparency of the EU decision-making process at the European Convention established in 2001. Such a mechanism enables national parliaments to ensure the correct application of the principle of subsidiarity by the institutions taking part in the legislative process. This article examines how this principle is implemented by the national parliaments and EU responsible institutions. What is the novelty derived from the Treaty of Lisbon? Do national parliaments participate actively in the implementation of subsidiarity? If yes, what are the tools at their disposal? To answer all of these questions we try to shape a framework for understanding the phenomenon.

10. EU Legislation

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ed Beale ◽  
Libby Kurien ◽  
Eve Samson
Keyword(s):  
Direct Access ◽  
Legislative Process ◽  
House Of Commons ◽  
National Parliaments ◽  
Eu Legislation ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Eu

This chapter examines the ways in which the UK Parliament formally constrains the government and engages with European Union (EU) institutions. The House of Lords and the House of Commons both have processes to ensure that legislation proposed at the EU level has been properly reviewed before it takes effect in UK law. The ‘scrutiny reserve’, which stipulates that ministers should not agree to proposals under scrutiny, is used to elicit information about the government's negotiating position. Parliament also has a role in examining EU legislation and providing direct access to European institutions. The chapter first provides an overview of the EU legislative process, focusing on three principal EU institutions: member states, the European Parliament (EP), and the European Commission. It also considers the formal role of national parliaments in the EU legislative process, the UK Parliament's scrutiny of the EU legislation and its effectiveness, and parliamentary scrutiny after Brexit.

National Parliaments and the European Union

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katrin Auel
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Effective Means ◽  
Democratic Legitimacy ◽  
Legislative Process ◽  
The European Union ◽  
National Parliaments ◽  
Direct Role ◽  
Member States ◽  
The Eu ◽  
The Way

The role and position of national parliaments in European Union (EU) affairs have undergone a long, slow, and sometimes rocky, but overall rather remarkable, development. Long regarded as the victims of the integration process, they have continuously strengthened their institutional prerogatives and have become more actively involved in EU affairs. Since the Lisbon Treaty, national parliaments even have a formal and direct role in the European legislative process, namely, as guardians of the EU’s subsidiarity principle via the so-called early warning system. To what extent institutional provisions at the national or the European level provide national parliaments with effective means of influencing EU politics is still a largely open question. On the one hand, national parliaments still differ with regard to their institutional prerogatives and actual engagement in EU politics. On the other hand, the complex decision-making system of the EU, with its multitude of actors involved, makes it difficult to trace outcomes back to the influence of specific actors. Yet it is precisely this opacity of the EU policymaking process that has led to an emphasis on the parliamentary communication function and the way national parliaments can contribute to the democratic legitimacy of the EU by making EU political decisions and processes more accessible and transparent for the citizens. This deliberative aspect is also often emphasized in approaches to the role of national parliaments in the EU that challenge the territorially defined, standard account of parliamentary representation. Taking the multilevel character of the EU as well as the high degree of political and economic interdependence between the member states into account, parliamentary representation is conceptualized as extending beyond the nation-state and as shared across the EU, with a strong emphasis on the links between parliaments through inter-parliamentary cooperation and communication as well as on the representation of other member states’ citizens interests and concerns in parliamentary debates. Empirical research is still scarce, but existing studies provide evidence for the development of an increasingly dense web of formal and informal interactions between parliaments and for changes in the way national parliamentarians represent citizens in EU affairs.

scholarly journals Media Framing: How Can the Constitutional Name of One Country Be Changed?

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-23
Author(s):  
Eleonora Serafimovska ◽  
Marijana Markovikj
Keyword(s):  
Research Question ◽  
Media Framing ◽  
Opinion Leaders ◽  
Media Content ◽  
Main Research ◽  
Republic Of Macedonia ◽  
Content Analyses ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Media Monitoring ◽  
The Eu

The Macedonian-Greek agreement to change the name of the Republic of Macedonia resulted in a referendum. The columns of relevant opinion leaders published in electronic media during the official referendum campaign was the focus of interest and research presented in this article. The sample comprised 57 columns by 19 columnists. The discussion of the findings in this paper is based on framing theory with media content analyses; the template for media monitoring was used as an instrument based on human coding. The main research question addressed in this paper is: “How are opinion leaders setting frames?” The hypothesis is that opinion leaders use different themes and scripts to construct media framing due to narrow public opinion “for” or “against/boycott” the change of the constitutional name. Two negative, emotionally charged frames were identified: the frame “for” promoted positive messages reinforced with ideas about the EU and NATO membership; the frame “against/boycott” promoted messages that Macedonian identity will be lost.

scholarly journals European Union and otherness: The case of Balkans

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dejana Vukasović
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Identity Construction ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Western Balkans ◽  
Main Research ◽  
The Balkans ◽  
The Asymmetry ◽  
The Difference ◽  
The Eu

European Union and otherness: The case of BalkansThe aim of this paper is to analyze the relation between the EU and the Balkans in the process of othering. The main research question raised here is in what way and to what extent the Balkans as Other was used in the process of the EU identity construction. The EU is perceived as a discursive self-construction establishing its own distinct identity against Others. It is thus argued that the Balkans identity has been dis- cursively constructed in opposition to the EU identity. Through the discursive process, by virtue of asymmetry of power, the EU self-constructed its identity by stigmatizing the difference of the Balkans — Other. The paper starts with the clarification of some conceptual premises concerning Self, Other and the concept of Otherness. It then focuses on the Balkans as Other in the process of EU identity construction. Finally, the Western Balkans as Other is also examined in the process of othering. Due to the asymmetry of power in the EU — Self and Balkans/Western Balkans—Other relation and the ability of the EU to impose the constructed dominant representa- tions, this relation is about inclusion and exclusion, superiority and inferiority. Unia Europejska a inność. Przypadek BałkanówNiniejszy artykuł ma na celu przeanalizowanie relacji pomiędzy Unią Europejską a Bałkanami w procesie stwarzania inności. Zadając główne pytanie badawcze, autorka docieka, w jaki sposób i jak dalece Bałkany jako Inny zostały wykorzystane dla budowania tożsamości Unii Europejskiej. Unia postrzegana jest jako dyskursywna autokonstrukcja ustanawiająca własną odrębną tożsamość w relacji do Innych. Zatem można dowodzić, że tożsamość bałkańska jest konstruowana dyskursywnie w opozycji do tożsamości unijnej. W tym dyskursywnym procesie, wobec asymetrii władzy, UE sama stworzyła swoją tożsamość poprzez stygmatyzowanie różnicy Bałkany – Inny. Artykuł najpierw objaśnia niektóre założenia pojęciowe odnoszące się do „Ja” i „Innego” oraz pojęcie „Inności”. Następnie koncentruje się na Bałkanach jako Innym w procesie konstruowania tożsamości UE. Wreszcie analiza obejmuje Bałkany Zachodnie jako Innego w procesie powstawania inności. W obliczu asymetrii w relacji Unia Europejska jako JA -- Bałkany/Bałkany Zachodnie jako Inny oraz faktu, że UE ma możność narzucenia skonstruowanych dominujących wyobrażeń, relacja ta obejmuje włączenie i wykluczenie, nadrzędność i podrzędność. [Transl. by Jacek Serwański]

scholarly journals Drama in Education and Its Influence on Adolescents’ Empathy

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 74-85
Author(s):  
George Mardas ◽  
Kostas Magos
Keyword(s):  
Research Question ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Social Situation ◽  
Practical Implementation ◽  
Drama In Education ◽  
Educational Drama ◽  
Main Research ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Present Case Study

Drama in education can trigger feelings and provoke thoughts in the school classroom. Children are invited to use their minds and senses and get in touch with their emotions. The participants, who get engaged in such an endeavour, undergo a transformation by impersonating different characters, fictional or real-life and come up with a variety of solutions to problems in a fictional framework. Through this process the students’ empathy could be developed. The present case study using qualitative research techniques analyzes the outcome of a practical implementation through drama in a Greek Secondary School. The main research question was whether and to what extent educational drama can influence in a positive way middle adolescents’ empathy. The research findings showed that the use of drama supported the participants to realize the importance of a specific social situation, and helped them grasp the difference between cognitive and emotional empathy.

The Role of National Parliaments in Governing the European Union

2015 ◽  
pp. 52-62
Author(s):  
M. Strezhneva
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
European Union ◽  
European Commission ◽  
National Level ◽  
Governance Structure ◽  
Lisbon Treaty ◽  
The European Union ◽  
National Parliaments ◽  
Subsidiarity Principle ◽  
The Eu

Institutional structures and decision-making processes, which have been established in the European Union, fall beyond the scope of national rules for the functioning of parliamentary government. National parliaments of the EU member states have not succeeded in acquiring solid positions in the multilevel constellation within the Union. Yet nowadays they are assigned an important mission in their efforts to overcome, alongside the European Parliament (EP), the growing democratic deficit at both the European and national levels. The article is meant to assess the potential of national parliaments in capitalizing on the Lisbon Treaty provisions and on new forms of their engagement with supranational institutions (the European Council, the European Commission and the EP in particular), aimed at enhancing their legitimizing influence. General paradigm for the analysis is determined by the multilevel governance concept (MLG). It allows for a picture of European decision-making, which is shared by actors placed at different levels of the governance structure. National parliaments are supposed to be provided with multiple access points to the political process in the European Union as well. But the MLG vision doesn't contradict the fact that the key role within the EU belongs to those who occupy the highest executive power positions at the national level. Three directions for the national parliaments to intensify their involvement are put into spotlight: parliamentary control over national executives; control of compliance with the subsidiarity principle in European legislative proposals and supranational decisions; political dialogue with the European Commission and interparliamentary cooperation. The analysis proves that conditions are ripe for more active stance of national parliaments in the EU affairs. The “system of early warning” of the subsidiarity principle violations, provided for in the Lisbon Treaty, seems most promising. But national parliaments themselves will still have to demonstrate more persistence when using new instruments. Acknowledgment. The article has been supported by a grant of the Russian Foundation for Humanities (RFH). Project № 14-07-00050.

scholarly journals Participation by national parliaments in the EU legislative process

ERA Forum ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam Cygan
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Institutional Framework ◽  
Legislative Process ◽  
National Parliaments ◽  
Treaty Of Lisbon ◽  
Political Dialogue ◽  
Eu Legislation ◽  
Democratic Practices ◽  
The Eu

AbstractEuropeanisation has marginalised national parliaments and their democratic practices leading to a ‘de-parliamentarisation’ within the EU. The Treaty of Lisbon included substantive provisions designed to improve participation by national parliaments in EU decision-making, the most significant of which is the allocation of subsidiarity monitoring. This was intended to address concerns that national parliaments are peripheral within the EU Polity, and that EU legislation lacks legitimacy amongst its citizens. Protocols 1 and 2 of the Treaty of Lisbon promote a horizontal political dialogue between national parliaments within subsidiarity monitoring, but, experience of the last ten year indicates that this has not improved legislative legitimacy, nor adequately addressed de-parliamentarisation. This article argues that, while the Treaty of Lisbon has enhanced the privileges of national parliaments, they have not been ‘re-centred’ as an influential collective bloc of actors within the EU’s institutional framework.

scholarly journals The EU Global Strategy – 5 Years After. The Appropriateness in Face of the Dynamic Strategic Realities

2021 ◽  
pp. 39-57
Author(s):  
Piotr Śledź
Keyword(s):  
Research Question ◽  
Regional Scale ◽  
Global Scale ◽  
International Order ◽  
Global Strategy ◽  
Research Approach ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Main Research ◽  
The Eu

The objective of the article is to verify to what extent the European Union Global Strategy (EUGS) keeps up with the main global trends (at the level of international order as well as in relation to the global distribution of power) and the processes shaping the EU member states security environment of a regional scale which are perceptible from the perspective of five years following the EUGS adoption. This is also what the main research question concerns – to what extent do the diagnosis and postulates formulated inside the discussed document follow such processes in relation to the 2016–2021 period? For this reason too, the key research approach employed within the study is a critical analysis of source material. The EU Global Strategy mostly appropriately diagnoses and interprets the realities affecting the member states security – especially when it comes to enduring processes of a global scale regarding the erosion of the liberal international order as well as the roots of possible threats for international security in its military dimension – and formulates the postulates that are pragmatic and detailed. At the same time the document underestimates some of important occurrences or even does not refer to them at all. Examples of such omissions were given in the paper.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document