The pillar structure of EU politics dates back to the Maastricht Treaty and has since then been subject to several reforms but has never been formally abolished. According to a standard view, there is a fundamental distinction between the allegedly 'supranational' first pillar and the 'intergovernmental' second and third pillars. This standard view asserts that policy making in foreign and interior affairs - those areas which are partly located in each of these pillars - also follows two different institutional logics. This thesis proposes a different perspective on foreign and interior policies and analyses the role of EU actors - the Commission, the European Parliament, the Council Secretariat, the Court of Justice and the Court of Auditors - in these two areas. It argues that policy making is not primarily characterised by the supranational-intergovernmental divide but rather by functionally induced cross pillar dynamics applying equally to both policy areas. It shows that EU actors were able to shape 'intergovernmental' bargains and that the primary division in foreign and interior policies is not on the supranational-intergovernmental dimension but rather between executive actors and those controlling the executive. Middle East and migration policies serve as case studies for this analysis. The thesis shows that both areas have since the Maastricht Treaty become an integral part of the political system of the EU. Moreover, the centralisation process in foreign and interior policies, which stretches beyond the pillar confines, has consolidated the specific functional feature of both areas. It is argued that both areas constitute one policy type, referred to as macro political stabilisation. The functional dynamics of macro political stabilisation policies affect the way in which capabilities have been delegated to EU actors within the cross pillar institutional setting of EU foreign and interior policies. Moreover, the preferences of actors as well as the specific patterns of interaction in the policy making process also have to be understood against this functional background.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

Public opinion on European integration has been studied extensively. However, much of the work has been conducted on an aggregate national level or individual level across nations without taking detailed account of the specificities of each member state, even though these distinctive features can be essential to explaining public views. The dissertation offers a comprehensive, comparative analysis of French and British public opinion on the EU from 1992 to 2001, in a period of significant changes brought out by integration. In particular it examines the effects of national and individual utilitarian appraisals on EU support and considers whether attachments to particular socio-economic models structure preferences for EU policy.

There are three main powers in any decision-making situation: agenda-setting, voting, and voice. One of these - 'the power of voice' - is the great unknown. To analyse this power, this dissertation develops a general model of law-making using two basic premises: (1) a distinction between policies and outcomes, and (2) the costs of transmission of policy-relevant information. The model divides the law-making game in two sub-games: a lobbying sub-game, where an indefinite number of lobbyists provide legislative bodies with information; and a legislative sub-game, where legislative bodies bargain with that information under a given decision rule. The general model is then applied to the three main EC legislative procedures (consultation, assent and co-decision), which produces a series of propositions about how the power of voice operates, relative to the power of veto. These propositions are then tested, using data on nearly two thousand legislative procedures from the 1989-1999 period and the results of an issue-based survey of political consultants. Two case studies then illustrate the workings of the powers of voice and veto, respectively. Finally, the conclusions focus on the nature of the power of voice, the informational rationale of its delegation, and the implications for the accountability of the EU.

This thesis aims to examine to what extent the European Union (EU) is a normative power in international relations. In the context of this, thesis normative power is defined as the successful attempt to diffuse commonly agreed principles that are intended to shape political and societal processes for the benefit of all. The originality of this thesis derives from the application of Ian Manners' technique of principles, action and impacts, which provides a methodological framework for testing whether the European Union is such a normative power. This technique is applied to the relationship between the EU and the Russian Federation in the period between 1999 and 2008, with a particular emphasis on trade policies, the promotion of democracy and human rights, as well as the European security approach towards Russia. The question in the analysis of this thesis is to what extent, with the help of Manners' technique, these three policy areas enable any statement on the role of the EU as a normative actor or power. The thesis examines to what degree an exercise of normative power by the EU is discernible in these areas when looking at each area separately and when attempting to draw any connection between these areas.

This thesis provides a theoretical and empirical analysis of European Technology Platforms (ETPs) and the important and interesting questions their emergence and impact raises about the nature and character of policymaking and governance in the EU; in particular, the role of knowledge and expertise in policymaking and the emerging threat of technocratic models of governance. The thesis seeks to examine whether ETPs are a manifestation of technocratic forms of policymaking, or represent a mechanism for assisting the European Commission to manage and control the increasing need for knowledge and expertise in policy formulation. The theoretical analysis focuses on policymaking approaches that place stakeholders, knowledge and expertise at the epicentre of policymaking (policy networks, epistemic communities, advocacy coalitions and technocracy) and the emergence of counter arguments that emphasize the complex interrelationship between institutions and actors in the process (new institutionalism). It examines whether either of these competing approaches can accurately describe and explain the role of ETPs in policymaking. The empirical analysis questions whether ETPs form part of a well‐established knowledge process that has evolved out of the unique institutional architecture of the EU manifested in what has been described as the ‘Community Method’ based on the legacy of Jean Monnet. The thesis finds that through the development of ETPs the Commission has developed an effective mechanism for gathering the necessary knowledge, expertise and stakeholder support on which to legitimise policy proposals and shape member state preference. Furthermore, through ETPs, the Commission is able mobilise competing stakeholder interests within a deliberative policy forum to provide an effective safeguard against expert domination in the highly complex and technical areas of policy that have become the cornerstone of a modern knowledge‐based economy.

This thesis is a study of revolutionary change in European international society. The core argument is that the appearance of supranational union in the 1950s is best comprehended as the outcome of a contested attempt to remake the states system in Europe. The project 0f Six presented two central challenges to power-politics precepts: an aspiration to permanent peace among states; and prescriptions for partial cessions of national sovereignty in pursuance of that object. The enterprise yielded five major attempts to institutionalise peaceful union in the period 1947-57. Two resulted in major triumphs: the ECSC and EEC Three, however, were from the federalist standpoint sensational failures: the OEEC Council of Europe, and EDC. How and why did European integration progress even as it failed so spectacularly? I There is no systematic analysis which subjects this puzzle to theoretical an~ empirical evaluation from an international relations perspective. This work seeks to produce such an analysis. It draws from the "English School"-a much neglected approach in European studies-to provide a coherent account of integration in the lead up to the 1957 accords . .As a preliminary to the historical investigation, the thesis formulates a conceptual framework appropriate for the evaluation of deep change in the system of states. I redevelops the central concepts of "international society" and "world society" to provide a benchmark for assessing distinct paradigms of European union and the types of international change implied by them. The historical argument proceeds on two planes The "micro" story explains specific successes and failures in integration as products 0f material and ideological forces acting in concert. This demonstrates that it is detrimental to analysis to consider either set of factors in isolation, as is the tendency of the dominant theoretical approaches in international relations, rationalism and constructivism. There is also a "macro" story: the study shows that the Rome attainment was possible because the dynamics of ideological contestation which preceded it led to the reconfiguration or supranationality as a middle course of integration, itself enabled and constrained by the, configuration of material interests. What emerged in 1957 was not a fully-fledged world society postulated on the liquidation of the nation state, as envisaged by radical federalists. Nor was it a loose association of states consonant with the goals and values of pluralist international society, as pursued by Britain. The union of Six represented instead a genus of federalism which combined a Grotian understanding of the primacy of the nation state with a deep commitment to lasting comity in Europe.

The European Union's (EU) Cohesion policy accounts for a major share of the EU budget and is central to socio-economic development in many EU Members States, yet it is also one of the most complex and misunderstood EU policies. The collection of articles presented in this PhD by Publication aim to advance understanding on EU Cohesion policy while contributing to wider theoretical agendas on the EU policy process and governance. Based on a decade of research and employing qualitative methods, the collective contribution of the articles to the state of the art is three-fold. First, mainstream accounts of EU Cohesion policy development and governance are revised. Second, new insights and understanding of Cohesion policy and EU governance are provided, particularly through the use of theoretical lenses and concepts that have not been previously applied to this policy. Third, new lines of research for developing EU Cohesion policy and governance scholarship are suggested.