EU-ropean practices in second pillar institutions: not so different after all?

Seidendorf, Stefan (2009) EU-ropean practices in second pillar institutions: not so different after all? In: UNSPECIFIED.

Preview

PDF - Published Version Download (257Kb) | Preview

Abstract

In political and institutional terms, the “first” and the “second” pillar of the European Union’s (EU) decision-making machinery seem strictly different. They concern different policies, and they represent different institutional frameworks. This apparent difference is reflected in integration theory: most of the attempts to explain the European model of ‘politics beyond the nation-state’ either tackle the first or the second pillar – and more often do we find explanations why a particular theory or model cannot be applied to both pillars, than attempts to compare findings in the two pillars. This paper proposes a shift of perspective. Instead of assuming from the outset that there are two distinctive and different experiences, it proposes to compare EU-ropean practices over different policy-fields. How do EU-ropeans act as EU-ropeans, in EU-ropean institutional settings? To assess potentially different institutional and political phenomena, I propose to look at the form that some of the alleged effects of the ‘new institutionalisms’ (socialization, principles, rules and practices) take in the second pillar. How does ‘socialization’ work, and what does it mean in CFSP? What is ‘norm-building’ in institutions, and how does it work in CFSP? What fosters institutional change and what are the ‘feedback loops’ that lead to path-dependency in CFSP? Finally, I advance that neo-functionalism is not at all restricted to ‘first-pillar’ experiences and that – in a modified way – it may well account for events and evolutions in CFSP.

Actions (login required)