Pour les partis politiques attachés à des idéaux pacifiques et internationalistes, comme les partis socialistes, la période de préparation à la Conférence mondiale du désarmement, soit entre 1925 et 1932, put paraître pleine de possibilités pour la réduction des armements nationaux. Bien que ces partis aient partagé un lien transnational, par leur adhésion à l’Internationale ouvrière socialiste, ils étaient avant tout des organisations évoluant dans des cadres nationaux différents. Ainsi, les positions qu’ils mirent de l’avant afin de convaincre leur électorat respectif ne purent être totalement semblables. Dans ce mémoire, le discours public, ainsi que les arguments le sous-tendant, de la SFIO et du Labour concernant le désarmement entre le 12 décembre 1925 et le 3 février 1932 est décrit, analysé et comparé. Les raisons du désarmement, les appréciations des développements sur la question autant dans le contexte de la SDN que dans les autres réunions internationales ainsi qu’au niveau strictement national pour les deux partis sont l’objet de cette étude. Il apparaît que la SFIO et le Labour ont présenté des arguments similaires afin de justifier le désarmement. De plus, bien qu’ils aient tous deux appuyé un potentiel rôle d’arbitrage pour la SDN, alors que les socialistes ont insisté sur leur rôle de lobbyistes, les travaillistes tablèrent plutôt sur les responsabilités des chefs d’État et des « grands hommes » dans le processus, tout particulièrement lorsque leur parti fut au pouvoir. Les travaillistes démontrèrent également une ouverture pour toute avancée du désarmement, même minime, alors que les socialistes préférèrent manifestement les ententes globales. Finalement, des approches nationales aux implications différentes furent promues : l’organisation de la nation en temps de guerre en France et la promotion d’un esprit de paix en Grande-Bretagne. / For political parties which held pacifist and internationalist ideals, particularly socialist parties, the period leading to the World Disarmament Conference of Geneva, between 1925 and 1932, might have appeared as full of possibilities for national arms control and reduction. While these parties shared a transnational link, through their membership in the Labour and Socialist International, they were, first and foremost, organisations active at the national level. As such, the policies that they advocated in order to convince voters could not be totally similar. In this master’s thesis, the public discourse, as well as the underlying arguments, advocated by the French Section française de l’Internationale ouvrière (SFIO) and the British Labour party on the disarmament process between December 12, 1925 and February 3, 1932 are described, analysed and compared. The reasons to disarm, the opinions on the disarmament process at the League of Nations and on other international stages as well as at the national level for both parties, are the subjects of this study. It appears that the SFIO and the Labour employed similar arguments in order to explain the importance of disarmament. Moreover, even though they both supported a potential arbitration role for the League, while the French Socialists considered themselves principally as lobbyists, the British Labourites insisted on the responsibilities of heads of states and other “great figures” in the process, particularly when their party held power in the United Kingdom. The Labour party also demonstrated openness towards any progress on disarmament, even small developments, while the SFIO favoured a more general approach. Finally, the two parties promoted national endeavours with very different implications: the organisation of the nation during wartime in France and the promotion of a global, if somewhat vague, peace spirit in the United Kingdom.

In a series of landmark rulings on patient mobility and cross-border healthcare, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has made clear that Member States’ healthcare systems have to comply with the rules of the EU’s Internal Market when it comes to individual patient rights and the non-discrimination of healthcare providers. The rulings increased the possibilities for EU Member State citizens to get medical treatment in another Member State (“cross-border healthcare”), yet providing that under certain conditions the home Member State has to pay for these treatments in the other country. After a decade of negotiations, these rulings have been codified in a European Directive. Assuming that European integration has an impact on national welfare states and taking the example of European rules on access to cross-border healthcare, this thesis suggests analyzes the domestic impact of European integration in terms of Europeanization of the Austrian healthcare system within the context of the interplay between actors’ interests and practices on the one hand, and institutional effects on the other. European cross-border healthcare in forms of regional projects and privately or publicly organized healthcare arrangements has already become a reality in many European countries, especially in border regions. The main research questions which guides this thesis can be be put as follows: How does European integration in healthcare impact on the interests, practices and strategies of national actors that operate between national institutional constraints and European opportunities? And if national actors’ interests and strategies change, does this in turn have repercussions on the national institutional rules of healthcare governance? Given that European integration in healthcare delivery is a rather a “recent” phenomenon, and based on the assumption that actors’ strategies change more easily than national institutions, the following hypothesis is tested: Even if national healthcare actors use Europe – and hence their practices and strategies change – their interests remain largely determined by the national institutional set-up of the healthcare system. The institutional boundaries of the national healthcare system may have become porous, but for the time being they remain intact. The main findings of this study confirm the hypothesis and can be summarized as follows: Austrian actors responsible for the delivery of healthcare actively integrate various usages Europe into their existing practices of healthcare governance. These usages of Europe are more frequent at European level than at national level. Those actors who have important legal competencies, financial resources, and hence power in healthcare governance at national level, are also in a better position to use Europe effectively than those actors who lack such national resources. Limited usages of Europe at national level by corporate actors can best be accounted for by practices of consensually governing a typically Bismarckian healthcare system. None of the actors analysed, no matter how critical their stance vis-à-vis their own healthcare system might be, puts into question the legitimacy of the national healthcare system in the light of increased European competencies in regulating cross-border healthcare. Advancing European integration, mainly through the ECJ’s rulings on cross-border healthcare, might have rendered national institutional boundaries porous, but national institutions retain – at least for the time being – their power of channelling actors’ interests and of influencing corresponding practices of healthcare governance. These results invite us to further investigate which kind of healthcare governance structures are being developed at European level in parallel to those existing at national level, and to what extent Bismarckian welfare regimes might be showing resistance to institutional change induced by European integration. / Doctorat en Sciences politiques et sociales / info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublished