scholarly journals Dilema Kebijakan Sanksi Swiss dalam Merespon Krisis Ukraina (2014-2020)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Muhammad Fachrie
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
European Union ◽  
Qualitative Method ◽  
National Interest ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
The European Union ◽  
National Interests ◽  
State Actors ◽  
And Behavior ◽  
Attitudes And Behavior

This research analyzes how Switzerland faces dilemmatic options in responding to the European Union Sanctions towards Russia in the crisis of Ukraine. Switzerland faces dilemmatic options, because it has good political and economic European Union. In this research, journals, books and reports are collected and used as data and theory in order to analyze the problem. Eventually, this research found that Switzerland decides to not directly relations with the European Union (EU) and Russia. In this study, the qualitative method is used to analyze the attitudes and behavior of Switzerland as a country in considering its national interests. Neoliberalism is used as a framework in analyzing the attitude and behavior of Swiss in imposing sanctions towards Russia as a response of its national interest, because this country considers non-state actors in decision making process in relations between Switzerland and European Union. Finally, this research found that Switzerland decides not to unequivocally support EU sanctions against Russia and choices for pragmatic behaviors.

The Decision-Making Process

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Panos Koutrakos
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
European Union ◽  
External Action ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
The European Union

A main feature of the European Union’s constitutional arrangements, as laid down in the Treaty on the European Union (TEU) and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), is the organization of the rules governing external policies around the theme of integration. This is illustrated in different ways. First, the external policies of the Union are all part of what the Treaties describe as the Union’s ‘external action’. Terms such as ‘external policies’ or ‘actions’ are avoided. Instead, the choice of the reference to ‘external action’ signifies the design of the EU’s foreign affairs as a coherent whole.

The European Union in Nice: A Minimalist Approach to a Historic Challenge

2001 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 184-208 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karlheinz Neunreither
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
European Union ◽  
Common Good ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
The European Union ◽  
National Interests ◽  
National Elections ◽  
Minimalist Approach ◽  
National Leaders ◽  
The Eu

In Early December 2000 The Political Leaders Of The European Union (EU) met in Nice in order to decide on the treaty adaptations needed before the enlargement envisaged for the next decade. The overall goal was to render the EU more efficient and its decision making more transparent. The outcome of this important event was widely considered as disappointing. Some observers even came to the conclusion that there were no leaders of the EU as such, but only rather narrow-minded, egotistical national leaders who did not – with minor exceptions – care about the ‘common good’ at all. Never had it become so evident, in the opinion of some, that the European perspective had been fading away for many years, and that it was being replaced by national considerations which are often short-sighted and limited to the horizon of the next national elections. One of the classical theories on European integration, neo-functionalism, measures the progress of integration in terms of the Europeanization of its political elites. From this perspective, the top decision-makers seem to be on a downward trend. Is it then a case for the opposite theory, that of intergovernmentalism, which claims that national interests continue to be in the centre of EU decision-making and that tough bargaining is of its very nature?

14. Coreper: National interests and the logic of appropriateness

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey Lewis
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
European Union ◽  
Institutional Environment ◽  
The European Union ◽  
National Interests ◽  
Council Of Ministers

This chapter examines the role of the Committee of Permanent Representatives (Coreper) in the European Union. Coreper originated as a diplomatic forum to meet regularly and prepare meetings of the Council of Ministers. It evolved into a locus of continuous negotiation and de facto decision-making, gaining a reputation as ‘the place to do the deal’. Coreper is the site in EU decision-making where national interests and European solutions interact more frequently, more intensively, and across more issue areas than any other. The chapter first provides an overview of the origins of Coreper before discussing its structure and powers. It then considers how Coreper, as an institutional environment, gives rise to what neo-institutionalists call ‘logic of appropriateness’, which informs bargaining behaviour and influences everyday decision-making outcomes.

Legal and political hybridity of the European Union – genetically modified organisms’ case

2020 ◽  
pp. 125-144
Author(s):  
Monika Szkarłat
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
European Union ◽  
Genetically Modified Organisms ◽  
Genetically Modified ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Gm Plants ◽  
Decision Making System ◽  
Modern Biotechnology ◽  
The Eu

The European Union can be described as a particular hybrid integration structure that combines features of a state and intergovernmental organisation. Its institutional framework, legal system and division of competences are examples of a supranational organisation or a transnational decision-making system. The decision-making process is an outcome of network interactions between multiple actors, whose relations are non-hierarchically ordered. Genetically modified organisms (GMO) as an example of modern biotechnology application is a highly polarising subject in the EU, as well as globally. Thus, the policy towards GMO is an exemplification of legal and political hybridity of the EU. The analysis of the EU’s legal and political hybridity will be narrowed down to the GM plants case and methodologically organised around the concept of decision-making analysis that is composed of five categories: decision-making situation, actors, decision-making process, decision, implementation of the decision

The EU Guidelines on Promoting Compliance with International Humanitarian Law

2009 ◽  
Vol 78 (4) ◽  
pp. 541-552 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pål Wrange
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
European Union ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
The Eu

AbstractIn 2005, the European Union (EU) adopted Guidelines on Promoting Compliance with International Humanitarian Law(IHL). The Guidelines are designed to be implemented by any officer in the foreign services of the EU, including its member states. After outlining the main features of IHL, the Guidelines have provisions on the decision-making process and on possible action to take. The Guidelines, which have been quite widely implemented according toa survey, should be an important tool in keeping IHL issues on the EU's agenda.

Equitable Voting in the EU?: Options for Change

Politics ◽  
1995 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 79-87
Author(s):  
Mark Baimbridge ◽  
Brian Burkitt
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
European Union ◽  
Population Size ◽  
Majority Voting ◽  
European Council ◽  
Alternative Methods ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Qualified Majority ◽  
The Eu

The disagreement within the European Union (EU) concerning the system of qualified majority voting highlighted the inequalities within the present allocation of votes. With enlargement these inequalities are likely to intensify. We suggest that the EU should examine alternative methods for the allocation of Council votes. Two possible scenarios are allocation according to population size, and second, allocation based upon contributions to the EU budget. We conclude that either of these methods would offer a greater degree of equity, stability and flexibility in the decision-making process of the European Council.

scholarly journals Framework for Decision-Making Process in Granting Rights to Use Hydropower in the European Context

Water ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (7) ◽  
pp. 930 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guillaume Voegeli ◽  
Ludovic Gaudard ◽  
Franco Romerio ◽  
Werner Hediger
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
European Union ◽  
Sustainable Development ◽  
Sustainable Development Goals ◽  
Water Rights ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Step Process ◽  
Energy Projects ◽  
Development Goals

The European electricity landscape is facing an ambivalent situation between: (1) common market platforms; and (2) national and subnational jurisdictions, which impose their specific rules on energy sectors. This particularly affects hydropower, as the latter faces inequalities in the procedures needed for the attribution of water rights. Besides jurisdictional disparities, the European Union requires this attribution to follow competitive processes and the integration of sustainable development goals for energy projects, while other countries connected to the European grid such as Switzerland and Norway still know different procedures and requirements. Therefore, this article addresses concerns regarding the lack of harmonization of water regimes in Europe. Imposing a common jurisdiction to countries connected to the European grid would be politically very challenging. Our approach overcomes this challenge by proposing a process adaptable to specific local rules and allows a comparison of water rights attribution procedures. In this frame, we propose a nine-step process, based on three goals: (1) to enhance competitive access by ensuring the highest rent transfer related to water rights; (2) to prioritize projects closer to sustainability goals; and (3) to ensure the efficiency of the process itself.

scholarly journals The Role of Lobbying in the Decision-Making Process in the European Union

2021 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 219-224
Author(s):  
Veronika Stoilova
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
European Union ◽  
Political Process ◽  
Modern World ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Decision Making Processes ◽  
Process Event ◽  
Representation Of Interests

Abstract Lobbying in the modern world is becoming part of decision-making processes at the local, state, supranational and global levels. The lobbying process is characterized by the use of various techniques and tools, which is why there are many definitions. In the European Union, it is perceived as a European representation of interests, through which different groups try to influence the decision-making process in the various institutions. Lobbying is often referred to when it is necessary to describe a particular political process, event or phenomenon that has not reached the general public or has remained opaque due to its specific nature. As lobbying becomes increasingly important, this article aims to clarify what lobbying is and what its legitimate and acceptable forms are. It is not without reason that there is a general distrust of the lobbying process and, in particular, of the real intentions of lobbyists. Therefore, many people believe that such activities distort the political process in terms of transparency, integrity and influence. Given the sensitive nature of the topic of lobbying, some good practices from existing lobbying rules at European level will also be considered.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document