2024-03-28T11:53:20Zhttp://aei.pitt.edu/cgi/oai2
oai:aei.pitt.edu:307
2011-02-15T22:15:09Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:44303033303031
74797065733D64697363757373696F6E7061706572
Der Vertrag von Amsterdam: Herausforderung für die Europäische Union = The Amsterdam Treaty: Challenge for the European Union. ZEI Discussion Paper: 1999, C 37
Gil-Robles, José Maria
Amsterdam Treaty
[From the Introduction]. Die Europäische Union in ihrer gegenwärtigen Form hat wenig mit der EWG gemeinsam, zu deren Gründungsmitgliedern die Bundesrepublik Deutschland gehörte. Europa und die Union haben sich seither beträchtlich verändert: Jede der nachfolgenden Erweiterungen führte über kurz oder lang zu einer verstärkten wirtschaftlichen und auch politischen Integration. Gleichzeitig veranlaßte dies die Regierungen der Mitgliedstaaten, die repräsentativsten Gemeinschaftsinstitutionen - das Parlament und die Kommission - zu stärken. Das Parlament, das im Laufe der Zeit schrittweise seine Zuständigkeiten errungen hat, hat sich parallel zu diesem dualen Prozeß der Erweiterung und Integration entwickelt. Ehe ich mich dem Vertrag von Amsterdam zuwende, möchte ich einige spezifische Informationen zum Europäischen Parlament darlegen, da der öffentliche Eindruck des Parlaments infolge der kontinuierlichen Entwicklung der Institution häufig lediglich aus einer Reihe von Klischees besteht, die nicht länger der Wirklichkeit entsprechen. Lassen Sie mich einen gewagten Vergleich anstellen: Mit dem Parlament verhält es sich genau so wie mit Astronomen und den Sternen: Die Entfernung wirkt sich so aus, daß das, was wir sehen, nicht dem derzeit bestehenden Zustand entspricht, sondern lediglich eine Projektion der Vergangenheit darstellt.
1999
Discussion Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/307/1/dp_c37_gil%2Drobles.pdf
Gil-Robles, José Maria (1999) Der Vertrag von Amsterdam: Herausforderung für die Europäische Union = The Amsterdam Treaty: Challenge for the European Union. ZEI Discussion Paper: 1999, C 37. [Discussion Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/307/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:337
2011-02-15T22:15:13Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D46:46303033
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:44303033303031
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:706F6C69746963616C6166666169727331323334:706166664575726F7065616E656C656374696F6E73
74797065733D64697363757373696F6E7061706572
The Danish Referendum on the Treaty of Amsterdam Europas? ZEI Discussion Papers: 1998, C 17
Petersen, Nikolaj
Denmark
Amsterdam Treaty
European elections/voting behavior
[From Introduction]. On May 28, 1998, the Danish people approved the Amsterdam Treaty in a referendum by 55.1 per cent of the vote. This was the fifth referendum on Europe since 1972, and more referenda may be in the offing over the next few years. This raises several questions, which this paper tries to answer: Why do referenda play such a major role in the Danish decision system concerning Europe? What is the particular role of referenda in the formulation of Denmark’s EU policy? And what explains the outcome of the recent referendum?
1998
Discussion Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/337/1/dp_c17_petersen.pdf
Petersen, Nikolaj (1998) The Danish Referendum on the Treaty of Amsterdam Europas? ZEI Discussion Papers: 1998, C 17. [Discussion Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/337/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:361
2011-02-15T22:15:17Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303032:44303032303032
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:44303033303031
74797065733D64697363757373696F6E7061706572
Die Gemeinsame Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik nach Amsterdam = The Common Foreign and Security Policy after Amsterdam. ZEI Discussion Papers: 1998, C 14
Ischinger, Wolfgang
common foreign & security policy 1993--European Global Strategy
Amsterdam Treaty
[From the Introduction]. Die Gemeinsame Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik der Europäischen Union (GASP) hat mit dem Amsterdamer Vertrag einen neuen Stellenwert erhalten, der an vier Fragen erläutert werden soll: 1. Frage: Was ist eigentlich die außenpolitische Leistung der Europäischen Union? 2. Frage: Wird Europa nach dem Vertrag von Maastricht und insbesondere nach den Ergänzungen von Amsterdam bei der nächsten außenpolitischen Krise eine bessere Figur machen als bisher? 3. Frage: Ist eigentlich der Beweis erbracht, daß die Bundesrepublik Deutschland die GASP braucht? 4. Frage: Gibt es zwischen den Mitgliedstaaten der EU noch so etwas wie Außenpolitik.
1998
Discussion Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/361/1/dp_c14_ischinger.pdf
Ischinger, Wolfgang (1998) Die Gemeinsame Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik nach Amsterdam = The Common Foreign and Security Policy after Amsterdam. ZEI Discussion Papers: 1998, C 14. [Discussion Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/361/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:671
2011-02-15T23:44:00Z
oai:aei.pitt.edu:703
2011-02-15T23:44:17Z
oai:aei.pitt.edu:787
2011-02-15T22:16:17Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303035:69646F7067:69646F7067646D706D
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:44303033303035
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:44303033303031
74797065733D61727469636C65
A Contemplative View on the First Pillar of the New European Union
Guggenbühl, Alain
IGC 1996
Amsterdam Treaty
decision making/policy-making
[From the Introduction]. The Amsterdam Summit of the European Council on 16 and 17 June this year was awaited with great anticipation. With the prospect of enlargement in sight, the institutions and the decision-making procedures of the European Union needed to be revised whilst maintaining a careful balance between flexible integration on the one hand and social and political legitimacy on the other hand. For this reason, the Member States submerged themselves in a long bargaining process, which has resulted in a text larded with political compromises.... Below, you will find a first analysis of parts of the draft Treaty by three EIPA Faculty members who also presented their views during the IGC-afternoon. Due to the publication date of this EIPASCOPE issue, their comments naturally concern the draft in circulation prior to the date of signing due to take place in Amsterdam in October 1997.
1997
Article
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/787/1/Scop97_2_1.pdf
Guggenbühl, Alain (1997) A Contemplative View on the First Pillar of the New European Union. EIPASCOPE, 1997 (2). pp. 1-5.
http://aei.pitt.edu/787/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:799
2011-02-15T22:16:19Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303339:74706A6861706A63636D67656E6572616C
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:44303033303031
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303339:74706A6861706A63636D667265656D6F76656D656E74
74797065733D61727469636C65
Step by Step Progress: An Update on the Free Movement of Persons and Internal Security
den Boer, Monica
free movement/border control
general
Amsterdam Treaty
[From the Introduction]. A New Title ‘Visas, asylum, immigration and other policies related to the free movement of persons’ (IIIa). In the ‘old’ Third Pillar construction, there are nine matters of common interest. Some of these matters have been found eligible for transfer to Community law, namely immigration, asylum, external borders (Visa Policy) and judicial cooperation in civil matters. This Title – in which communautarian instruments, methods of decision-making and legislation will apply. The new Treaty of Amsterdam has been characterized as extraordinarily difficult by dignitaries, journalists and academics alike. The tremendous complexity of the Amsterdam Treaty is largely due to the many changes that were made in the area of Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Cooperation. Before Amsterdam, cooperation in this field was already split between communautarian and intergovernmental action. In particular visa policy, fraud, money laundering, customs cooperation and drugs were topics that were scattered around in the Treaty. The fragmentation of some justice and home affairs issues will continue after Amsterdam. The three main ‘zones’ of cooperation will be: 1) A New Title ‘Free Movement of Persons, Asylum and Immigration’, which will eventually be subject to full Community competence; 2) The incorporation of the Schengen Acquis into the new Treaty; and 3) A revamped Third Pillar with provisions on Police and Judicial Cooperation.
1997
Article
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/799/1/Scop97_2_3.pdf
den Boer, Monica (1997) Step by Step Progress: An Update on the Free Movement of Persons and Internal Security. EIPASCOPE, 1997 (2). pp. 1-4.
http://aei.pitt.edu/799/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:1476
2011-02-15T22:18:46Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:706F6C69746963616C6166666169727331323334:70616666676F7665726E616E6365
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:44303033303033
7375626A656374733D46:46303036
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:44303033303035
7375626A656374733D46:46303031
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:44303033303134
7375626A656374733D46:46303234
7375626A656374733D46:46303038
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:44303033303031
7375626A656374733D46:46303236
7375626A656374733D46:46303134
7375626A656374733D46:46303138
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:44303033303133
7375626A656374733D44:44303035:44303035303131
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:6575726F7065616E69736174696F6E6575726F7065616E697A6174696F6E6E6174696F6E616C6964656E74697479
7375626A656374733D46:46303131
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:44303033303038
7375626A656374733D46:46303035
7375626A656374733D46:46303233
7375626A656374733D46:46303037
7375626A656374733D44:44303035:44303035303130
7375626A656374733D41:41303239
7375626A656374733D46:46303032
7375626A656374733D46:46303033
7375626A656374733D46:46303130
7375626A656374733D44:44303035:44303035303135
7375626A656374733D44:44303035:44303035303033
7375626A656374733D46:46303135
74797065733D626F6F6B
National Parliaments on their Ways to Europe. Losers or Latecomers?
Ireland
Belgium
europeanisation/europeanization & European identity
Italy
Denmark
Finland
Amsterdam Treaty
Luxembourg
France
Spain
Netherlands
Germany
European Convention
Sweden
Greece
Nice Treaty
IGC 1996
Portugal
U.K.
IGC 2000
Maastricht Treaty
European Commission
Council of Ministers
European Council
governance: EU & national level
European Parliament
integration theory (see also researching and writing the EU in this section)
Austria
[Table of Contents]. Preface, etc., 15-26; National Parliaments in the European Architecture: From Latecomers' Adaptation Towards Permanent Institutional Change?, by Andreas Maure, 27-76; The Federal Parliament of Belgium: Between Wishes, Rules and Practice, by Claire Vandevivere, 77-98; The Danish Folketing and Its European Affairs Committee: Strong Players in the National Policy Cycle, by Finn Laursen, 99-116; The German Bundestag: From Benevolent 'Weakness' towards Supportive Scrutiny, by Sven Holscheidt, 117-146; The Parliament of Greece: Slow but Constant Moves Toward European Integration?, by Peter Zervakis and Nikos Yannis, 147-172; The Parliament of Finland: A Model Case for Effective Scrutiny?, by Tapio Raunio, 173-198; The Parliament of Spain: Slowly Moving onto the European Direction?, by Felipe Basabe Llorens and Maria Teresa Gonzalez Escudero, 199-222; The French Parliament and the EU: Progressive Assertion and Strategic Investment, by Andrea Szukala and Olivier Rozenberg, 223-250; The Parliament of Ireland: A Passive Adapter Coming in from the Cold, by Brigid Laffan, 251-268; The Parliament of Italy: From Benevolent Observer to Active Player, by Federiga Bindi Calussi and Steffano B. Grassi, 269-300; The Luxemburg Chamber of Deputies: From a Toothless Tiger to a Critical Watchdog?, by Danielle Bossaert, 301-312; The Parliament of Austria: A Large Potential with Little Implications, by Barbara Blumel and Christine Neuhold, 313-336; The Parliament of the Netherlands and the European Union: Early Starter, Slow Mover, by Ben J.S. Hoetjes, 337-358; The Parliament of Portugal: Loyal Scrutiny and Informal Influence, by Ana Fraga, 359-376; The Parliament of Sweden: A Successful Adapter in the European Arena, by Hans Hegeland, 377-394; The Parliament of the United Kingdom: From Supportive Scrutiny to Unleased Control?, by Caitriona A. Carter, 395-424; National Parliaments after Amsterdam: From Slow Adapters to National Players, 425-476; The Reticent Acknowledgement of National Parliaments in the European Treaties: A Documentation, by Astrid Krekelberg, 477-490.
Nomos Verlag
Maurer, Andreas
Wessels, Wolfgang
2001
Book
PeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/1476/1/National_Parliaments_Losers_or_Latecomers.pdf
Maurer, Andreas and Wessels, Wolfgang, eds. (2001) National Parliaments on their Ways to Europe. Losers or Latecomers? Nomos Verlag, p. 521.
http://aei.pitt.edu/1476/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:2215
2011-02-15T22:21:44Z
7374617475733D756E707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:706F6C69746963616C6166666169727331323334:70616666676F7665726E616E6365
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:44303033303031
7375626A656374733D44:44303032:44303032303032
7375626A656374733D41:41303239
74797065733D636F6E666572656E63655F6974656D
"The Amsterdam CFSP Components: A Lowest Common Denominator Agreement?”
Anderson, Stephanie B.
governance: EU & national level
common foreign & security policy 1993--European Global Strategy
Amsterdam Treaty
integration theory (see also researching and writing the EU in this section)
The ‘new and improved’ CFSP has also been criticized as a weak foreign policy organ. This paper seeks to examine how the revamped CFSP components came into being by investigating the interstate negotiations behind them. Are they weak, and if so is it because they were the product of a lowest common denominator agreement among the Fifteen? Is Liberal Intergovernmentalism a useful tool in understanding these security components?
1999
Conference or Workshop Item
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/2215/1/002657_1.PDF
Anderson, Stephanie B. (1999) "The Amsterdam CFSP Components: A Lowest Common Denominator Agreement?”. In: UNSPECIFIED, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. (Unpublished)
http://aei.pitt.edu/2215/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:2893
2011-02-15T22:24:25Z
7374617475733D756E707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303035:44303035303136
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4430303349474331393931
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:44303033303035
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:44303033303031
7375626A656374733D44:44303035:44303035303131
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:706F6C69746963616C6166666169727331323334:70616666707569657075
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:44303033303038
7375626A656374733D46:46303135
74797065733D636F6E666572656E63655F6974656D
"Understanding the Dutch Presidency's influence at Amsterdam: A constructivist analysis"
Mazzucelli, Colette.
IGC 1991
European Council-Presidency
Amsterdam Treaty
political union & integration/European Political Union
Netherlands
IGC 1996
Maastricht Treaty
European Council
During the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) on Political Union in late September 1991, the Dutch Presidency of the Council introduced a draft Treaty on European Union text that departed significantly from that of its Luxembourg predecessor. This draft, which presented a unified Treaty structure, reflected the federalist convictions of politicians within the Dutch coalition government. The Dutch Presidency, during the initial months of its tenure, relied more on the Delors Commission than on the Council Secretariat and thereby alienated ten of the other eleven member states in the Treaty negotiations. What, if any, lesions did the Dutch Presidency learn from this experience that led to its success in the Presidency during the Amsterdam intergovernmental conference in June 1997? This paper draws on social constructivist analysis to present a diachronic study of the role of the Dutch Presidency during Treaty revision negotiations. In this context, its comparative findings shed light on the extent to which the Dutch Presidency fulfilled a "brokerage" function among the IGC participants and the extent to which its respective tenures as Chair shaped distributive or integrative outcomes
2003
Conference or Workshop Item
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/2893/1/132.pdf
Mazzucelli, Colette. (2003) "Understanding the Dutch Presidency's influence at Amsterdam: A constructivist analysis". In: UNSPECIFIED, Nashville, TN. (Unpublished)
http://aei.pitt.edu/2893/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:3079
2011-02-15T22:25:21Z
7374617475733D756E707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:436F6E7374346575726F7065
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:44303033303031
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303339:74706A6861706A63636D6173796C756D706F6C696379
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:44303033303133
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303339:74706A6861706A63636D696D6D6967726174696F6E706F6C696379
74797065733D636F6E666572656E63655F6974656D
"Dynamics and countervailing pressures of visa, asylum and immigration policy Treaty revision: explaining change and inertia from the Amsterdam IGC to the Constitutional Treaty"
Niemann, Arne.
Constitution for Europe
Amsterdam Treaty
immigration policy
Nice Treaty
asylum policy
This paper seeks to explain the varying, and sometimes intriguing, outcomes of the past three Treaty revisions in the area of visa, asylum and immigration. Focusing on decision rules and the institutional set-up of these policies, the results of the Amsterdam Treaty, the Treaty of Nice and the Constitutional Treaty are subjected to a (causal) analysis. The paper argues that six explanatory factors can account for the Treaty outcomes: (1) functional pressures; (2) the role of supranational institutions; (3) socialisation, deliberation and learning processes; (4) exogenous pressures; (5) the role of organised interests; and (6) countervailing forces. The framework, especially through its dialectical nature (combining both dynamics and countervailing factors), may also enable us to explain some more specific aspects of decision outcomes.
2005
Conference or Workshop Item
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/3079/1/EUSA2005_paper_A.Niemann_JHA%2Dfinal.pdf
Niemann, Arne. (2005) "Dynamics and countervailing pressures of visa, asylum and immigration policy Treaty revision: explaining change and inertia from the Amsterdam IGC to the Constitutional Treaty". In: UNSPECIFIED, Austin, Texas. (Unpublished)
http://aei.pitt.edu/3079/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:3080
2011-02-15T22:25:21Z
7374617475733D756E707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:44303033303035
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:436F6E7374346575726F7065
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:44303033303134
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:44303033303031
7375626A656374733D44:44303032:696E7465726E6174696F6E616C7472616465
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:44303033303133
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:696367303033
74797065733D636F6E666572656E63655F6974656D
"Conceptualising Common Commercial Policy Treaty revision: explaining dynamics and inertia from the Amsterdam IGC to the Constitutional Treaty"
Niemann, Arne.
Nice Treaty
IGC 1996
IGC 2000
IGC 2003-4
Constitution for Europe
Amsterdam Treaty
international trade
This paper seeks to explain the varying, and sometimes intriguing, outcomes of the past three revisions of the Treaty concerning the Community’s Common Commercial Policy. How can the failure to extend Community competencies at the Amsterdam IGC be explained in one of the most integrated fields despite substantial pressures stemming from the changing international trade agenda? Why has the last Treaty revision managed to achieve considerable progress concerning the extension of Community competence in contested areas, which the previous three IGCs failed to bring about? The paper argues that six explanatory factors can account for these outcomes: (1) functional pressures; (2) the role of supranational institutions; (3) socialisation, deliberation and learning processes; (4) exogenous pressures; (5) the role of organised interests; and (6) countervailing forces. The framework, especially through its dialectical nature (combining both dynamics and countervailing factors), also enables us to account for more specific aspects of decision outcomes. In addition, I suggest that for dynamics to have an impact structural and more agency-based pressures have to occur concurrently.
2005
Conference or Workshop Item
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/3080/1/EUSA2005_paper_A.Niemann_CCP_final.pdf
Niemann, Arne. (2005) "Conceptualising Common Commercial Policy Treaty revision: explaining dynamics and inertia from the Amsterdam IGC to the Constitutional Treaty". In: UNSPECIFIED, Austin, Texas. (Unpublished)
http://aei.pitt.edu/3080/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:7063
2011-02-15T22:46:07Z
7374617475733D756E707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:44303033303031
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:44303033303133
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:44303033303038
7375626A656374733D44:44303035:44303035303135
74797065733D636F6E666572656E63655F6974656D
"Necessary but not sufficient: understanding the impact of treaty reform on the internal development of the European Parliament."
Kreppel, Amie.
Nice Treaty
European Parliament
Maastricht Treaty
Amsterdam Treaty
This paper examines the impact of exogenous treaty reform on the internal organization of the European Parliament (EP). After each major reform of the EU's treaties the European Parliament took the opportunity to fully revise its own internal Rules of Procedure (RoP). This work reviews the key revisions of the Single European Act, Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice Treaties relative to the EP to gain an understanding of what types of internal EP reform were required by each new treaty. The actual reforms then undertaken by the EP to its RoP are then analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively. This research highlights some broad patterns of Rules reform, but also how these have changed over time. In particular the balance between required Rules reforms and internally and externally oriented strategic reforms is examined.
2003
Conference or Workshop Item
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/7063/1/000450_1.pdf
Kreppel, Amie. (2003) "Necessary but not sufficient: understanding the impact of treaty reform on the internal development of the European Parliament.". In: UNSPECIFIED, Nashville, Tennessee. (Unpublished)
http://aei.pitt.edu/7063/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:8994
2011-02-15T22:58:13Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:65636F6E6F6D696366696E616E6369616C61666661697273:65666167656E6572616C
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:44303033303031
74797065733D706F6C6963797061706572
Beyond left and right? Neoliberalism and regulated capitalism in the Treaty of Amsterdam. CES Working Paper, vol. 2, no. 2, 1998
Pollack, Mark A.
Amsterdam Treaty
general
[From the Introduction]. ...this chapter examines the 1997 Treaty of Amsterdam, asking whether the new treaty represents an advance or a setback to the respective projects of neoliberalism or regulated capitalism. Before moving to the Treaty of Amsterdam, however, I begin by surveying, all too briefly, the three most important constitutive treaties in the history of the European Community/Union, namely the Treaties of Rome (1957), the Single European Act (1986), and the Maastricht Treaty (1992). The basic argument here is straightforward: From Rome to Maastricht, the fundamental thrust of the treaties has been neoliberal, in the sense that each of the Community’s constitutive treaties facilitated the creation of a unified European market, while setting considerable institutional barriers to the regulation of that same market. The Treaty of Rome, for example, featured important powers for the EEC in the areas of free movement, competition policy, and external trade policy, while granting the Community few powers of positive regulation and only a modestly redistributive Common Agricultural Policy. The Single European Act picked up this basic theme, focusing primarily on the completion of the internal market by 1992, and limiting institutional reforms largely to this goal. And the Maastricht Treaty focused primarily on the project for Economic and Monetary Union, which has turned out to be a neoliberal project in effect if not in its original conception.
1998
Policy Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/8994/1/pollack.pdf
Pollack, Mark A. (1998) Beyond left and right? Neoliberalism and regulated capitalism in the Treaty of Amsterdam. CES Working Paper, vol. 2, no. 2, 1998. [Policy Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/8994/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:32421
2011-09-14T19:18:32Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303035:69646F7067:69646F7067646D706D
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:44303033303035
7375626A656374733D46:46303031
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:44303033303031
74797065733D776F726B696E677061706572
Crafting the "Common Will." The IGC 1996 from an Austrian Perspective. IHS Political Science Series No. 52, December 1997
Melchior, Josef
Amsterdam Treaty
IGC 1996
Austria
decision making/policy-making
The paper analyses the negotiations that took place in the framework of the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) 1996/97 leading to the modification and amendment of the founding treaties of the European communities. Taking the Austrian case as an example the interaction between the various actors at the national and the international level is reconstructed. The author criticises the “intergovernmental approach” to the analysis of decision making mechanisms in the EU showing that the negotiations did not follow the logic of state power and multilateral bargaining but a “logic of mutual adaptation of expectations and positions”. The IGC 1996/97 exemplifies the ongoing institutionalisation of peculiar decision making procedures and the proliferation of working methods that were developed in the various arenas of European negotiations. A key element of these methods is the importance of mediating roles like the role played by the Council presidency during the IGC. It is argued that the Amsterdam Treaty represents some sort of a “common will” rather than a diplomatic bargain between sovereign states. This is due to the particular setting of the IGC 1996/97 and organisational arrangements that undermine the boundaries between the intergovernmental and the supranational, the national and the international arena, between international and domestic negotiations, and between the national and the European interest.
1997-12
Working Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/32421/1/1208945914_pw_52.pdf
http://www.ihs.ac.at/vienna/IHS-Departments-2/Political-Science-1/Publications-18/Political-Science-Series-2/Publications-19/publication-page:8.htm
Melchior, Josef (1997) Crafting the "Common Will." The IGC 1996 from an Austrian Perspective. IHS Political Science Series No. 52, December 1997. [Working Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/32421/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:71649
2016-02-15T23:01:13Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303035:69646F7067:69646F7067646D706D
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:436F6E7374346575726F7065
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:44303033303031
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:44303033303038
7375626A656374733D44:44303035:69646F7067:69646F706768646F63
74797065733D61727469636C65
The EU’s Decision-Making Process
Changes in the Constitutive Treaties
Calapod, Andrei
Matei, Ani
Constitution for Europe
Amsterdam Treaty
Maastricht Treaty
Lisbon Treaty
decision making/policy-making
historical development of EC (pre-1986)
Since the beginning of its existence in the form of communities, the European Union’s decision-making process underwent constant evolution. There were continuous adjustments that transformed a pure
intergovernmental process into one having rather federal features. Based on the hypothesis that changes have
occurred at the decision level in regards to the actors, procedures, influence and ways of taking decisions in
order for the new realities, needs and will at the European level to be properly addressed, this paper aims to
present the reforms performed through the adoption of new treaties and the modification of the existing ones.
The reality is that in order for the European dream and integration to go on and also for further development
of the European Union, finally becoming an entity far beyond the founders expectations, decision makers had
to constantly and carefully adapt the decision-making process. The purpose of this paper will be achieved by
conducting a research based on the qualitative method, analyzing the related researches on this topic and the
consolidated versions of the treaties. Thus, we will finally validate our research hypothesis that there was an
evolution in what the EU’s decision-making process and decision procedures are concerned.
Danubius University,Galati,Romania
2015-05-19
Article
PeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/71649/1/Calapod_Matei_EU_decisioon_making.pdf
http://www.proceedings.univ-danubius.ro/index.php/eirp/
Calapod, Andrei and Matei, Ani (2015) The EU’s Decision-Making Process Changes in the Constitutive Treaties. European Integration - Realities and Perspectives. Proceedings. pp. 184-191. ISSN 2067-9211
http://aei.pitt.edu/71649/