2024-03-28T19:53:48Zhttp://aei.pitt.edu/cgi/oai2
oai:aei.pitt.edu:87
2011-02-15T22:14:47Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303339:4430303130333968756D616E726967687473
7375626A656374733D44:44303035:69646F7067:69646F7067646D706D
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:44303033303035
7375626A656374733D44:44303035:69646F7067:69646F70676D7369
74797065733D61727469636C65
Intergovernmental Conference 1996: Which Constitution for the Union?
Nentwich, Michael
Falkner, Gerda.
IGC 1996
multi-speed integration
human rights
decision making/policy-making
This paper addresses the five major structural issues on the agenda of the 1996 Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) of the Member States of the European Union: the option of replacing the treaty framework by a European constitution; the issue of fundamental rights in the Union; the future of the three-pillar structure; the puzzling question of how to allow for variations in European integration without endangering unity; and, finally, the political `evergreen' of the division of competencies between the Union and its Member States. The analysis is based on the contributions by EC institutions and a series of prominent (groups of) experts and scholars which were published before the political bargaining started with the establishment of the so-called reflection group preparing the formal agenda of the conference.
1996
Article
PeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/87/1/1996%2Delj.pdf
Nentwich, Michael and Falkner, Gerda. (1996) Intergovernmental Conference 1996: Which Constitution for the Union? European Law Journal, 2 (1). pp. 83-102.
http://aei.pitt.edu/87/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:111
2011-02-15T22:14:47Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:44303033303035
7375626A656374733D44:44303035:69646F7067:69646F706767656E6572616C
74797065733D61727469636C65
Die institutionelle Reformdiskussion im Vorfeld der EU-Regierungskonferenz 1996 = The debate about institutional reform in the wake of the EU intergovernmental conference 1996
Falkner, Gerda
Nentwich, Michael
IGC 1996
general
The paper reviews a series of official and semi-official contributions in the wake of the intergovernmental conference 1996. It is focussing on institutional and procedural issues.
1995
Article
PeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/111/1/1996%2Dint.pdf
Falkner, Gerda and Nentwich, Michael (1995) Die institutionelle Reformdiskussion im Vorfeld der EU-Regierungskonferenz 1996 = The debate about institutional reform in the wake of the EU intergovernmental conference 1996. Integration, 18 (4). pp. 223-234.
http://aei.pitt.edu/111/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:409
2011-02-15T22:15:33Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:706F6C69746963616C6166666169727331323334:7061666664656D6F637261637964656D6F63726174696364656669636974
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:44303033303035
7375626A656374733D41:41303239
74797065733D776F726B696E677061706572
Democracy and Integration Theory in the 1990s: A Study in European Polity-Formation. JMWP No. 14.98, June 1998
Chryssouchoou, Dimitris N.
IGC 1996
democracy/democratic deficit
integration theory (see also researching and writing the EU in this section)
[From the Introduction]. To begin our theoretical journey, students of European 'polity-formation' are confronted with a fundamental theoretical challenge: to conceptualise the emerging patterns of interaction between the collectivity and the segments by taking into account the intersection of different theoretical approaches. The aim is to enhance our understanding of the structural properties and operational dynamics of European governance after the formal conclusion of yet another formal treaty revision. However one classifies the end-product of the 1996/97 Intergovernmental Conference (IGC), the following set of questions warrant our attention. What is new about European integration in the 1990s? Is it possible to classify the emerging European polity under a comprehensive model of governance? If 'yes', then what conceptual and analytical lenses should be used? What are the limits and possibilities of an 'ever closer union' among distinct, yet highly interdependent, polities? Has a terminal state of integration become discernible? Finally, what is the dominant character of the relationship between democracy (as indirect demos control) and integration (as polity-formation)? These questions form part of a wider research agenda which revolves around a plurality of interrelated issues: the future of the European state system; the viability of democratic arrangements within and across pre-established borders; novel forms of large-scale community-building, multiple identity-holding and formal constitutional engineering; the locus of sovereignty over an ever expanding array of transnational activities; the relationship between the functional scope, territorial scale and integrative level of joint decision-making; the institutionalisation of new avenues of political communication, and the question of citizen identification with EU structures. The above list may well be extended to cover most areas of regional political life, cutting across the conventional disciplines in the study of the EU. In this article, such an ensemble of concepts and ideas is treated within the wider theoretical laboratory of European 'polity-formation': the creation of a profound locking together of distinct culturally defined and politically organised units within a larger, purposive whole.
Barbagallo, Valentina
1998-06
Working Paper
PeerReviewed
text/html
http://aei.pitt.edu/409/1/jmwp14.htm
Chryssouchoou, Dimitris N. (1998) Democracy and Integration Theory in the 1990s: A Study in European Polity-Formation. JMWP No. 14.98, June 1998. [Working Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/409/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:671
2011-02-15T23:44:00Z
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:803
2011-02-15T22:16:20Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303032:443030326673703139353031393932657063
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:44303033303035
7375626A656374733D44:44303032:44303032303032
74797065733D61727469636C65
The European Union's Common Foreign and Security Policy and the 1996 Intergovernmental Conference
Koliopoulos, Kostas
common foreign & security policy 1993--European Global Strategy
IGC 1996
foreign/security policy 1950s-1992 (includes EPC)
[From the Introduction]. The Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) was established by the Maastricht Treaty to form the Second Pillar of the European Union (EU). It is an upgraded version of European Political Cooperation (EPC), which developed gradually in the 1970s and 1980s. Despite receiving a treaty basis by way of the 1986 Single European Act, EPC remained a loose form of cooperation between Member States in the field of foreign policy. Political integration has proved to be slower and harder to achieve; foreign, security and defence policies are very sensitive sectors and Member States are reluctant to surrender their sovereign rights to the European level. The creation of a common foreign and security policy was therefore seen as a step forward, in line with integration in the economic fields.
1995
Article
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/803/1/2.htm
Koliopoulos, Kostas (1995) The European Union's Common Foreign and Security Policy and the 1996 Intergovernmental Conference. EIPASCOPE, 1995 (2). pp. 1-4.
http://aei.pitt.edu/803/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:827
2011-02-15T22:16:26Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:44303033303035
7375626A656374733D44:44303035:44303035303130
7375626A656374733D44:44303035:69646F7067:69646F706767656E6572616C
74797065733D61727469636C65
Building Capacities for Integration: The Future Role of the Commission
Metcalfe, Les
IGC 1996
general
European Commission
[From the Introduction]. The Maastricht Treaty contained a commitment to convene an Inter-Governmental Conference in 1996. The stated purpose of the 1996 IGC, (Maastricht II), is to examine 'the extent to which the policies and forms of cooperation introduced by this Treaty may need to be revised with the aim of ensuring the effectiveness of the mechanisms and the institutions of the Community'. Such an initiative is long overdue. A thorough examination of the requirements of effective performance in the EU is urgently needed as part of the general process of institutional reform. Inadequate administration and 'Eurobureaucracy' have always provided easy targets for opponents and critics of European integration. The organizational deficiencies of the Commission as well as fraud and misuse of Community funds regularly attract adverse comment and public criticism. In addition, the EU has set itself enormous challenges. Aside from its existing commitments, it is embarking on major new policy initiatives and opening up the prospect of a significant and difficult round of enlargement.
1996
Article
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/827/1/1.htm
Metcalfe, Les (1996) Building Capacities for Integration: The Future Role of the Commission. EIPASCOPE, 1996 (2). pp. 1-11.
http://aei.pitt.edu/827/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:829
2011-02-15T22:16:26Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:44303033303035
74797065733D61727469636C65
A Legal Escape to a Political Impasse: Agenda IGC 1996
Pappas, Spyros A.
IGC 1996
No abstract.
1995
Article
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/829/1/3.htm
Pappas, Spyros A. (1995) A Legal Escape to a Political Impasse: Agenda IGC 1996. EIPASCOPE, 1995 (3). pp. 1-4.
http://aei.pitt.edu/829/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:830
2011-02-15T22:16:27Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:44303033303035
74797065733D61727469636C65
Sutherland Speaks out on the European Union's Future
Sutherland, Peter
IGC 1996
[Preface]. Speaking in his personal capacity, Peter D. Sutherland, Director-General of the World Trade Organization, delivered the 17th Jean Monnet Lecture at the European University Institute in Florence on 10 February 1995. In his lecture, entitled 'The European Union: A Stage of Transition', Mr. Sutherland set out the external and internal challenges facing the Union in the run up to the 1996 Intergovernmental Conference. His message is that these challenges call for more, not less, European integration, and that this principle should guide the reforms of the Union's institutions which the 1996 Conference would have to address. A confident and outward-looking Europe, in touch with the liberal principles on which it was founded, and credible to its citizens, is vital for the prosperity and stability of the world and of Europe itself.
1995
Article
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/830/1/1.htm
Sutherland, Peter (1995) Sutherland Speaks out on the European Union's Future. EIPASCOPE, 1995 (2). pp. 1-12.
http://aei.pitt.edu/830/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:860
2011-02-15T22:16:33Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303035:44303035303132
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:44303033303035
74797065733D61727469636C65
L'avenir de la Cour de justice et du Tribunal de première instance des Communautés européennes dans la perspective de la Conférence intergouvernementale de 1996 = The future of the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance of the European Community in the perspective of the 1996 IGC
Dellis, George.
IGC 1996
European Court of Justice/Court of First Instance
[Introduction]. Si les agents de sécurité du bâtiment des instances communautaires situé à Luxembourg entendent tard dans la nuit des bruits suspects et voient des ombres se faufiler entre les murs, qu'ils ne s'inquiètent pas! Il s'agit sans aucun doute d'un juge ou d'un référendaire qui essaie de diminuer la masse des affaires pendantes, en travaillant à une heure de la nuit où toute autre personne se repose ou fait la fête. Il est vrai que le nombre d'affaires dont les organes juridictionnels communautaires ont été saisis ces dernières années s'est accru de façon considérable. Et pourtant, même si la Cour comme le Tribunal ont atteint leur point de saturation, ils continuent à remplir leurs tâches; à cet égard, il est particulièrement intéressant d'examiner comment ils envisagent de le faire à l'avenir et quel rôle ils veulent se voir reconnaître dans le processus de la construction européenne. Dans cette perspective, il est opportun de faire une brève lecture des rapports que ces deux instances ont établis et soumis au Groupe de réflexion chargé de préparer les travaux de la Conférence intergouvernementale de 1996, conférence prévue par le Traité de Maastricht pour relancer le processus de l'intégration européenne. Le rapport de la Cour est intitulé "Rapport de la Cour de justice sur certains aspects de l'application du Traité sur l'Union européenne", tandis que celui du Tribunal s'appelle "Contribution du Tribunal de première instance en vue de la conférence intergouvernementale de 1996". Ces rapports figurent dans la publication des activités de la Cour et du Tribunal de première instance des Communautés européennes de 1995, n° 15. Le lecteur pourra observer, déjà par le simple examen des rapports, une certaine divergence d'optique entre les deux organismes, qui est due aux rôles différents qui leur sont attribués. Cette distinction de rôles ne se limite pas au fait que le Tribunal statue en premier ressort sur certains litiges tandis que la Cour intervient pour contrôler ses décisions. La Cour a un impact sur les affaires européennes beaucoup plus important, en raison de son histoire - n'oublions pas que la création du Tribunal ne date pas de très longtemps - et de sa compétence reconnue par l'article 164 du traité CE, d'assurer "le respect du droit dans l'interprétation et l'application du présent traité". Il est en outre utile de rappeler que la Cour est parmi les seules institutions de la Communauté qui sont énumérées par l'article 4 du Traité CE. Mais il est préférable de laisser ces points de divergence apparaître au cours de la présentation des rapports rendus pour apprécier finalement leur importance; les deux instances voient-elles les choses différemment ou, en réalité, sont-elles inspirées par les mêmes idées et envisagent-elles l'avenir de la même façon?
1995
Article
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/860/1/4.htm
Dellis, George. (1995) L'avenir de la Cour de justice et du Tribunal de première instance des Communautés européennes dans la perspective de la Conférence intergouvernementale de 1996 = The future of the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance of the European Community in the perspective of the 1996 IGC. EIPASCOPE, 1995 (3). pp. 1-5.
http://aei.pitt.edu/860/
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:2654
2011-02-15T22:23:23Z
7374617475733D756E707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:44303033303035
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:706F6C69746963616C6166666169727331323334:70616666706F6C69746963616C70617274696573
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:706F6C69746963616C6166666169727331323334:706166666C65676974696D616379
74797065733D636F6E666572656E63655F6974656D
"Political parties and the problem of legitimacy in the European Union"
Ladrech, Robert.
IGC 1996
legitimacy
political parties
The European Union’s ‘legitimacy crisis’ and the possible undermining of the classic functions of political parties are bound up in a symbiotic manner. More precisely, the fortunes of political parties, that is, their continuing relevance as organisations promising purposive action in national government, and the legitimacy of the EU as the provider of certain collective goods, have become intertwined. The paper begins with a presentation of the EU’s legitimacy problem in terms of the attitudes of European citizens toward European integration and the expectation of material gain. This section will further develop the point noted above about public expectations unjustifiably attributed to the EU, thus adding to legitimacy problems. The second section will introduce the theme of national party difficulties, especially the potential for growing irrelevance as a consequence of increasing EU policy competence. The third section will then document activities to date concerning attempts by national party elites to influence the policy agenda of the EU. Here special focus is given to the manner in which transnational and supranational partisan organisations have been mobilised to achieve national goals in the context of the 1996/97 Intergovernmental Conference. Finally, the conclusion will address the implications of a more partisan EU, that is, the consequences that could result from the introduction of a Left-Right axis into EU politics.
1997
Conference or Workshop Item
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/2654/1/002559_1.pdf
Ladrech, Robert. (1997) "Political parties and the problem of legitimacy in the European Union". In: UNSPECIFIED, Seattle, WA. (Unpublished)
http://aei.pitt.edu/2654/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:2687
2011-02-15T22:23:33Z
7374617475733D756E707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:44303033303035
7375626A656374733D44:44303035:44303035303135
74797065733D636F6E666572656E63655F6974656D
"The European Parliament’s impact on the IGC process"
Nickel, Dietmar.
IGC 1996
European Parliament
Measuring the European Parliament’s concrete impact at this stage encounters two main problems: first, the European Parliament’s own position with regard to its definitive requirements, its bottom line, is not easy to describe. Its resolutions to this end are numerous and--quite normally--evolving throughout a large period accompanying preparation in the Reflection Group and the actual work in the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC). Still, one can distill a certain number of priorities: with regard to social policy issues they are the establishment of an area of freedom, security and justice, an enhanced Union citizenship with an extended non-discrimination clause, fundamental rights protection, general equality, an employment title, the inclusion and improvement of the social protocol including measures against social exclusion, improved protection of the environment, and the objective of sustainable development. With regard to institutional issues, the priorities are threefold: first, efficiency, especially in view of future enlargements and mainly concerning qualified majority voting in Council; second, transparency and openness, concerning the reduction of decision-making procedures to three (assent, co-decision and consultation), the simplification and codification of the Treaties, openness of the Council in its legislative capacity and public access to documents; and third, democracy, meaning Parliament’s own role. Second, it is virtually impossible to describe the results of the IGC a few weeks before its possible conclusion in the Amsterdam European Council on 16/17 June 1997. In such a negotiation procedure nothing is achieved until everything is achieved. Therefore, I will initially concentrate on what is on the table at this stage and then proceed to the issues which are most disputed where there is not even a formal presidency proposal, each time relating to Parliament’s position in the various areas. Finally, I shall dare to stick my neck out with some predictions as to the result.
1997
Conference or Workshop Item
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/2687/1/002765_1.PDF
Nickel, Dietmar. (1997) "The European Parliament’s impact on the IGC process". In: UNSPECIFIED, Seattle, WA. (Unpublished)
http://aei.pitt.edu/2687/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:2819
2011-02-15T22:24:04Z
7374617475733D756E707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303035:69646F7067:69646F7067646D706D
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:44303033303035
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:44303033303134
7375626A656374733D44:44303035:44303035303033
74797065733D636F6E666572656E63655F6974656D
"The vital cog: Agenda-shaping and brokerage by the Council Secretariat in IGC negotiations"
Beach, Derek.
IGC 1996
IGC 2000
Council of Ministers
decision making/policy-making
This paper highlights a significant oversight in the literature on European integration, where the role and impact of the Council Secretariat is all but ignored. This paper produces evidence that shows that the Council Secretariat has played a significant role in IGC negotiations. A bargaining model is developed that theorizes the causal impact that the IGC negotiation process can have upon how actors are able to translate bargaining resources into influence over IGC outcomes. The negotiation of the 1996-97 and 2000 IGCs are then investigated, showing that the Council Secretariat is in many respects the overlooked "vital cog" of the IGC process, significantly influencing IGC outcomes. The Council Secretariat is found to be influential due to a combination of its high level of expertise, reputation as a trusted assistant its privileged institutional position, and skillful use of pragmatic and behind-the-scenes agenda-shaping and brokering strategies. IGCs are, therefore, not always intergovernmental affairs due to high bargaining costs and boundedly rational actors. The negotiation process grants the Secretariat and other EU institutions opportunities to translate their bargaining resources into influence over outcomes. The context of the negotiations and strategies employed by EU institutions then determines the level of influence that they have over outcomes.
2003
Conference or Workshop Item
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/2819/1/086.pdf
Beach, Derek. (2003) "The vital cog: Agenda-shaping and brokerage by the Council Secretariat in IGC negotiations". In: UNSPECIFIED, Nashville, TN. (Unpublished)
http://aei.pitt.edu/2819/
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: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:7307
2011-02-15T22:47:30Z
7374617475733D756E707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:44303033303035
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:44303033303032
7375626A656374733D44:44303035:69646F7067:69646F706767656E6572616C
74797065733D636F6E666572656E63655F6974656D
"Enlarging the European Community/Union: National Preference Formation in the Member States"
Wennerlund, Kip.
IGC 1996
general
enlargement
[From the introduction]. With the ructions surrounding the passage of the Maastricht Treaty' receding into memory and the day of reckoning for Economic and Monetary Union likely no earlier than 1999, observers of the European Union (EU) are turning their attention to the coming battles over institutional reform in the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) set for 1996. High on the agenda of the IGC will be the institutional modifications necessary to fashion a viable Union enlarged beyond the present fifteen members. A Community built for six--and only modestly adjusted over the years--now entertains membership bids from its eastern European and Mediterranean neighbors and the likelihood of additional applicants from further afield. Many studies over the years have addressed the "widening" of the European Community, (2) an issue of integration nearly as perennial as the concern with "deepening." But these works usually focus on an individual episode of enlargement and deal with the issue from the perspective of the applicant country; that is, they tend to address the question of why a government decides to apply for membership. This paper takes that decision as given(3) and addresses instead the more difficult question of why the member state governments of the Community would open their club to new members. Any expansion of membership leads to a redistribution of the costs and benefits of membership among and within the existing member states. Governments-each of which holds a potential veto-must therefore decide whether to accept, and under what conditions, the relatively concentrated, short-run and certain costs that result from the trade, budgetary and institutional effects of enlargement in return for generally more dispersed, longer-run and less tangible benefits.
1995
Conference or Workshop Item
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/7307/1/002985_1.pdf
Wennerlund, Kip. (1995) "Enlarging the European Community/Union: National Preference Formation in the Member States". In: UNSPECIFIED, Charleston, South Carolina. (Unpublished)
http://aei.pitt.edu/7307/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:7338
2011-02-15T22:47:40Z
7374617475733D756E707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:44303033303035
7375626A656374733D44:44303035:69646F7067:69646F706767656E6572616C
7375626A656374733D44:44303032:44303032303032
74797065733D636F6E666572656E63655F6974656D
"The 1996 IGC - A Challenge for Europe"
Cameron, Fraser.
IGC 1996
common foreign & security policy 1993--European Global Strategy
general
[From the Introduction]. This brief article outlines the range of possible agenda items for the IGC, examines the current political debate about the future shape of Europe and concentrates on two priority areas of institutional reform and reform of the CFSP.
1995
Conference or Workshop Item
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/7338/1/003047_1.pdf
Cameron, Fraser. (1995) "The 1996 IGC - A Challenge for Europe". In: UNSPECIFIED, Charleston, South Carolina. (Unpublished)
http://aei.pitt.edu/7338/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:7938
2011-02-15T22:51:06Z
7374617475733D756E707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:44303033303033
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4430303349474331393931
7375626A656374733D44:44303035:69646F7067:69646F7067646D706D
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:44303033303035
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:44303033303134
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:49474332303037
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:696367303033
74797065733D636F6E666572656E63655F6974656D
Constitutional Talk: Exploring Institutional Scope Conditions for Effective Arguing
Kleine, Mareike,
Risse, Thomas.
IGC 1996
IGC 2000
IGC 1991
IGC 2003-4
IGC 2007
European Convention
decision making/policy-making
[From the introduction]. Arguing, understood as reason-giving, is all pervasive in international politics: Negotiating actors give reasons for their demands at almost any time, regardless of whether talks are con-ducted in public or behind closed doors. And yet, since negotiations have most often been conceived of as processes of bargaining in which actors seek to adjust their behavior through the exchange of threats and incentives, arguments have primarily been treated as rather epiphenomenal to strategic interaction. In this paper we argue that under certain circum-stances arguments affect negotiating actors’ preferences, and subsequently lead to outcomes that are not easily explained in pure bargaining terms. Arguing and bargaining as different modes of interaction, however, are not contending but rather complementing explanations. As a result, we have to ask which scope conditions are particularly conducive to enabling arguing to prevail in decentralized negotiations and, thus, to affect both process and outcome. In a structured-focused comparison of Intergovernmental Conferences (IGCs) with the European Convention we aim to unveil institutional factors that induce actors to take validity claims into account and change their preferences accordingly. At the example of negotiations on sim-plification and the single legal personality of the European Union we seek to demonstrate that the transparency of the debate in conjunction with a higher degree of uncertainty about appro-priate behavior made arguing in the Convention particularly effective.
2007
Conference or Workshop Item
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/7938/1/kleine%2Dm%2D12d.pdf
Kleine, Mareike, and Risse, Thomas. (2007) Constitutional Talk: Exploring Institutional Scope Conditions for Effective Arguing. In: UNSPECIFIED, Montreal, Canada. (Unpublished)
http://aei.pitt.edu/7938/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:32408
2011-10-18T16:26:48Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:44303033303035
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:6575726F7065616E69736174696F6E6575726F7065616E697A6174696F6E6E6174696F6E616C6964656E74697479
74797065733D776F726B696E677061706572
Bringing the Citizen Back In: The Case of the IGC 1996. IHS Political Science Series 63, July 1999
Melchior, Josef
IGC 1996
europeanisation/europeanization & European identity
The study investigates how the European Council, the Commission, the European Parliament, the Reflection Group and the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) 1996 conceptualised the relationship between the European Union and the citizens. Given the vague and undefined goal of “bringing the European Union closer to its citizens” the study identifies and compares the strategies of the different actors in this respect. The study shows that quite different approaches were adopted by the actors involved. Tensions exist between strategies which put emphasis on input in contrast to output oriented measures and between approaches which aim at promoting a single “community of European citizens” in contrast to a “European community of national citizens”. The study argues that, although these approaches seem to conflict, in fact, they could be reconciled. The last part of the study substantiates this claim by exploring the potentials and limits of strategies of promoting a European community of citizens in the societal, political, and cultural spheres.
1999-07
Working Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/32408/1/1208854750_pw_63.pdf
http://www.ihs.ac.at/vienna/IHS-Departments-2/Political-Science-1/Publications-18/Political-Science-Series-2/Publications-19/publication-page:7.htm
Melchior, Josef (1999) Bringing the Citizen Back In: The Case of the IGC 1996. IHS Political Science Series 63, July 1999. [Working Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/32408/
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/