2024-03-28T21:55:18Zhttp://aei.pitt.edu/cgi/oai2
oai:aei.pitt.edu:7539
2011-02-15T22:48:44Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:436F6E7374346575726F7065
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
74797065733D706F6C6963797061706572
The Treaty of Lisbon - How much 'Constitution' is left? An Overview of the Main Changes. CEPS Policy Brief No. 147, 11 December 2007
Kurpas, Sebastian.
Lisbon Treaty
Constitution for Europe
[From the introduction] On 13 December European Leaders will sign the “Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community”. Some commentators already take its long title to mean that it may not be quite the ‘mini-treaty’ Nicolas Sarkozy had promised, and much of the public debate on the text has focussed on the question of ‘how much constitution’ it still contains. This paper intends to provide a concise overview of the most important innovations introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon (ToL), comparing it at the same time to the abandoned Constitutional Treaty (CT).
2007-12
Policy Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/7539/1/147.pdf
Kurpas, Sebastian. (2007) The Treaty of Lisbon - How much 'Constitution' is left? An Overview of the Main Changes. CEPS Policy Brief No. 147, 11 December 2007. [Policy Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/7539/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:8208
2011-02-15T22:52:49Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:436F6E7374346575726F7065
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
74797065733D706F6C6963797061706572
La complejidad internacional del Tratado Constitucional de 2004 y del Tratado de Reforma de 2007. = The complexity of the international Constitutional Treaty of 2004 and the Reform Treaty of 2007. EUMA Papers, Vol. 4 No. 16 July 2007
Martin, Araceli Mangas.
Constitution for Europe
Lisbon Treaty
[From the introduction]. Algunas críticas al non nato Tratado constitucional vertidas por medios periodísticos tachaban al texto europeo de excesivamente complejo y largo. Sólo en parte tenían razón si lo comparaban con cualquier constitución nacional, por ejemplo, con la Constitución española que tiene 169 artículos y unas cuantas disposiciones complementarias. Ciertamente, el fracasado Tratado constitucional, con su estructura omnicomprensiva de todo el derecho originario, no podía tener esa longitud, entre otras cosas porque no era una Constitución. El error estribó en querer que emulara a una Constitución, quererlo comparar y analizar como si fuera una constitución. En definitiva, el Tratado constitucional era inevitablemente largo y complejo al querer incluir todo y dejarlo todo regulado con todo detalle. Ese “puntillismo” tanto de los aspectos jurídico-institucionales como de las políticas materiales, que ocupaban la Parte III, no se incluye nunca en una constitución nacional, con las que no se debe comparar por su diferente naturaleza, alcance y finalidad ni hacer reduccionismos miméticos con el único fundamento científico de que el Tratado de 2004 utilizaba el término de “Constitución”.
2007-07
Policy Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/8208/1/AracelimangasEUMA.pdf
Martin, Araceli Mangas. (2007) La complejidad internacional del Tratado Constitucional de 2004 y del Tratado de Reforma de 2007. = The complexity of the international Constitutional Treaty of 2004 and the Reform Treaty of 2007. EUMA Papers, Vol. 4 No. 16 July 2007. [Policy Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/8208/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:8209
2011-02-15T22:52:49Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:436F6E7374346575726F7065
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
7375626A656374733D44:44303032:44303032303032
74797065733D706F6C6963797061706572
The Reform Treaty: Its Impact on the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). EUMA Papers, Vol. 4 No. 17 July 2007
Lorca, Maria.
common foreign & security policy 1993--European Global Strategy
Constitution for Europe
Lisbon Treaty
[Introduction]. The Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) was created in 1993 by the Maastricht Treaty1 as the second of the three pillars that shapes the European Union. The main coordinator of the CFSP is the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy (High Representative CF/SP). Under the ¨European Constitution¨ the pillar structure was going to disappear, which meant that the role of the CFSP would be further incorporated into the functions of the rest of the Union. Moreover, the office of the High Representative was going to be merged with the post of the Commissioner for Foreign Affairs to create a “Union Minister for Foreign Affairs.” However, the project of the ¨European Constitution¨ is programmed to be transformed into a ¨Reform Treaty¨. This paper will examine how the “Reform Treaty” will modify the functions of the CFSP, the position of High Representative CF/SP, and its role on the international stage.
2007-07
Policy Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/8209/1/LorcaCFSP%2DEUMA07.pdf
Lorca, Maria. (2007) The Reform Treaty: Its Impact on the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). EUMA Papers, Vol. 4 No. 17 July 2007. [Policy Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/8209/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:8265
2011-02-15T22:53:08Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
7375626A656374733D46:46303130
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:706F6C69746963616C6166666169727331323334:706166664575726F7065616E656C656374696F6E73
74797065733D706F6C6963797061706572
spotlight europe 2008/05, May 2008: Green Light from the Emerald Isle? Ten Questions and Answers about Ireland
Hierlemann, Dominik
Heydecker, Christian
Ireland
European elections/voting behavior
Lisbon Treaty
On 12 June 2008 Europeans will be looking intently at Ireland, for the Irish electorate is the only one in Europe which is being permitted to vote on the Treaty of Lisbon. For a long time the referendum seemed to be a foregone conclusion. However, as the poll approaches, a “Yes” vote is be-ginning to seem more uncertain. Ten questions and answers shed some light on the current situation.
2008-05
Policy Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/8265/1/xcms_bst_dms_24416_24417_2.pdf
Hierlemann, Dominik and Heydecker, Christian (2008) spotlight europe 2008/05, May 2008: Green Light from the Emerald Isle? Ten Questions and Answers about Ireland. [Policy Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/8265/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:8266
2011-02-15T22:53:08Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
7375626A656374733D46:46303130
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:706F6C69746963616C6166666169727331323334:706166664575726F7065616E656C656374696F6E73
74797065733D706F6C6963797061706572
spotlight europe 2008/05: Grünes Licht von der Grünen Insel? Zehn Fragen zu Irland = spotlight europe 2008/05: Green Light from the Emerald Isle? Ten Questions and Answers about Ireland
Hierlemann, Dominik
Heydecker, Christian.
Ireland
European elections/voting behavior
Lisbon Treaty
Am 12. Juni 2008 richten sich alle europäischen Blicke nach Irland. Die irischen Bürger sind die Einzigen, die über den Vertrag von Lissabon ab-stimmen dürfen. Lange Zeit schien das Referendum im pro-europäischen Irland reine Formsache zu sein. Doch je näher die Abstimmung rückt, de-sto unsicherer wird das "Ja". Ein Überblick in zehn Fragen.
2008-05
Policy Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/8266/1/xcms_bst_dms_24414_24415_2.pdf
Hierlemann, Dominik and Heydecker, Christian. (2008) spotlight europe 2008/05: Grünes Licht von der Grünen Insel? Zehn Fragen zu Irland = spotlight europe 2008/05: Green Light from the Emerald Isle? Ten Questions and Answers about Ireland. [Policy Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/8266/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:8359
2014-07-18T00:23:05Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
7375626A656374733D46:46303130
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:706F6C69746963616C6166666169727331323334:706166664575726F7065616E656C656374696F6E73
74797065733D706F6C6963797061706572
spotlight europe special edition 2008/06: Irish Vote, Europe's Future: Four options after the "No"
Hierlemann, Dominik.
Ireland
European elections/voting behavior
Lisbon Treaty
Ireland has rejected the Treaty of Lisbon. More than six years after the start of the constitutional process, the work and effort of the European Union seems to have been in vain. The intention was to make the com-munity more effective and far more democratic. All that remains is a feel-ing of helplessness. What, if anything, can European policymakers do in this situation?
2008-06
Policy Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/8359/1/xcms_bst_dms_24757_24758_2.pdf
Hierlemann, Dominik. (2008) spotlight europe special edition 2008/06: Irish Vote, Europe's Future: Four options after the "No". [Policy Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/8359/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:8363
2014-07-18T00:24:25Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
7375626A656374733D46:46303130
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:706F6C69746963616C6166666169727331323334:706166664575726F7065616E656C656374696F6E73
74797065733D706F6C6963797061706572
spotlight europe spezial 2008/06: Was nun, Europa? Vier Optionen nach dem irischen "Nein" = Irish Vote, Europe's Future: Four options after the "No"
Hierlemann, Dominik
Ireland
European elections/voting behavior
Lisbon Treaty
Irland hat den Vertrag von Lissabon abgelehnt. Mehr als sechs Jahre nach Ausrufung des Verfassungsprozesses steht die Europäische Union vor dem Trümmerhaufen ihrer Bemühungen. Effektiver und demokratischer sollte die Gemeinschaft werden. Geblieben ist allein Ratlosigkeit. Welche Möglichkeiten bleiben der europäischen Politik?
2008-06
Policy Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/8363/1/xcms_bst_dms_24749_24750_2.pdf
Hierlemann, Dominik (2008) spotlight europe spezial 2008/06: Was nun, Europa? Vier Optionen nach dem irischen "Nein" = Irish Vote, Europe's Future: Four options after the "No". [Policy Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/8363/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:8907
2011-02-15T22:57:35Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:706F6C69746963616C6166666169727331323334:70616666676F7665726E616E6365
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
74797065733D776F726B696E677061706572
Los parlamentos nacionales en la Union Europea tras el Tratado de Lisboa. = National parliaments in the European Union after the Treaty of Lisbon. Jean Monnet/Robert Schuman Paper Series Vol. 8 No. 16, August 2008
Martin de Vidales, Covadonga Ferrer.
governance: EU & national level
Lisbon Treaty
[From the Introduction]. La cuestión de la participación de los Parlamentos Nacionales en la construcción europea no es novedosa sino que viene siendo discutida desde hace varias décadas. El proceso de integración ha conllevado la transferencia de toda una serie de competencias del nivel nacional al nivel europeo, transferencia que ha supuesto una disminución del papel de los Parlamentos nacionales en sus respectivos sistemas políticos: en su función legislativa, presupuestaria y de control del ejecutivo. En cuanto a su función legislativa, puesto que la normativa proveniente del nivel comunitario es, en la mayoría de los casos, directamente aplicable en el territorio de los Estados miembros sin necesidad alguna de su intervención(1), mientras que, en otros casos, su participación es ciertamente limitada (2). En cuanto a su función de control de control, pues no se puede controlar eficazmente a las instituciones que realmente toman las decisiones: Consejo y Consejo Europeo (3).
2008-08
Working Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/8907/1/deVidalesEUparliamentosLong08edi.pdf
Martin de Vidales, Covadonga Ferrer. (2008) Los parlamentos nacionales en la Union Europea tras el Tratado de Lisboa. = National parliaments in the European Union after the Treaty of Lisbon. Jean Monnet/Robert Schuman Paper Series Vol. 8 No. 16, August 2008. [Working Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/8907/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:8912
2011-02-15T22:57:36Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303032:44303032303232
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
74797065733D776F726B696E677061706572
European Union-Latin American Relations after Lima and Lisbon. Jean Monnet/Robert Schuman Paper Series Vol. 5 No. 6, March 2008
Arias, Aimee Kanner.
EU-Latin America
Lisbon Treaty
[From the Introduction] The fifth European Union-Latin American/Caribbean Summit that took place in Lima, Peru, in May 2008 presented a series of challenges and opportunities for the future relations between these two regions. The fact that current relations are in a period of minor difficulties is not news, nor is the idea that both regions have a vested interest in revitalizing interregional relations, a process to which all relevant actors are at least theoretically committed. The European Commission has addressed this situation by commissioning a “Study on Relations between the European Union and Latin America: New Strategies and Perspectives”, and by proposing in December 2005 a renewed strategy for “A Stronger Partnership between the European Union and Latin America”.
2008-03
Working Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/8912/1/KannerEU_LACrelationsEdiEUMA08.pdf
Arias, Aimee Kanner. (2008) European Union-Latin American Relations after Lima and Lisbon. Jean Monnet/Robert Schuman Paper Series Vol. 5 No. 6, March 2008. [Working Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/8912/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:8966
2011-02-15T22:57:59Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D45:45303035
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
7375626A656374733D44:44303032:44303032303032
74797065733D706F6C6963797061706572
The Lisbon Treaty and ESDP: Transformation and integration. Egmont Papers No. 24, June 2008
Biscop, Sven,
Algieri, Franco.
common foreign & security policy 1993--European Global Strategy
Lisbon Treaty
NATO
In the few years since its inception following the 1998 Franco-British Saint- Malo Summit, the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) has progressed enormously, certainly when compared with the preceding fifty years. A whole new politico-military dimension has been added to the EU. ESDP is not just a paper exercise, as a dozen ongoing operations involving more than 8,000 troops and 500 civilians demonstrate. If other operations in which EU Member States participate are counted as well (national, NATO, UN and ad hoc coalitions) the number of Member States’ armed forces that is constantly deployed stands at 70 to 80,000. Yet these impressive figures also represent more or less the maximum effort that Member States can make today, in spite of the fact that together the twentyseven number nearly 2 million men and women in uniform. Europe’s armed forces thus still face an enormous problem of efficiency and effectiveness. Ten years since the beginning of ESDP is a short time to judge its impact, yet the question must be asked whether the existing mechanisms, those of NATO included, are really sufficient to achieve the required transformation. The Lisbon Treaty and its clauses on ESDP (to be renamed CSDP) offers an occasion to draw up the “state of the union” in this area. On 28-29 April 2008 Egmont – The Royal Institute for International Relations and the Austrian Institute for European and Security Policy (AIES) brought together practitioners and academics from a wide range of Member States and institutions at a seminar in the Egmont Palace in Brussels, in order to assess Europe’s defence effort, including in the NATO context, and explore the Treaty’s potential to realize a quantum leap. The seminar focussed in particular on the question whether a shift could and should be made from the current national focus of Member States and bottom-up nature of ESDP to a truly integrative approach. This Egmont Paper includes a summary of the debates as well as contributions from a number of speakers. The editors hope it can serve as a useful contribution to the debate on European defence.
2008
Policy Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/8966/1/ep24.pdf
Biscop, Sven, and Algieri, Franco. (2008) The Lisbon Treaty and ESDP: Transformation and integration. Egmont Papers No. 24, June 2008. [Policy Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/8966/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:8967
2011-02-15T22:57:59Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D45:45303035
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
7375626A656374733D44:44303032:44303032303032
7375626A656374733D44:44303032:636F6E726573
74797065733D706F6C6963797061706572
Balancing defence and security efforts with a permanently structured scorecard. Egmont Paper, no. 23, June 2008
Wouters, Patrick.
common foreign & security policy 1993--European Global Strategy
Lisbon Treaty
conflict resolution/crisis management
NATO
Two major developments are set to change defence and security landscapes in the coming decade: the Lisbon treaty will affect in a significant way the European Union’s ‘external action’ and at Bucharest, NATO’s Heads of State & Government decided to overhaul Defence Planning to make it more integrated and harmonised across all disciplines, which should in turn provide a blueprint for leaner and more efficient structures. At least, that’s the plan. And it had better be a good one, since defence planning for both organisations accounts for approximately 780 billion dollar per annum, on average 2,8% of the GDP their member states produce (i.e. 2/3 of the wealth produced across the globe). This paper will explore how ‘theological’ criteria could be translated to key performance indicators of a pragmatic and balanced scorecard for defence and security efforts, both in the NATO and EU framework. Whether they are then also used as discriminators towards PermStrucCoop is a matter of political debate, but tailoring targets to the different profiles of possible contenders by checking and balancing the scorecard indicators should provide a positive, yet challenging roadmap for convergence. Concerning the other major challenge brought to the fore by PermStrucCoop – generating forces and capabilities for NATO or EU-led operations – it can be argued that current burden and risksharing mechanisms (or the lack thereof) are to be reviewed and rethought: food for those thoughts will be presented.
Biscop, Sven.
2008
Policy Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/8967/1/ep23.pdf
Wouters, Patrick. (2008) Balancing defence and security efforts with a permanently structured scorecard. Egmont Paper, no. 23, June 2008. [Policy Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/8967/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:8969
2011-02-15T22:58:00Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
7375626A656374733D44:44303032:44303032303032
74797065733D706F6C6963797061706572
European Defence in the wake of the Lisbon Treaty. Egmont paper, no. 21, May 2008
Angelet, Bruno,
Vrailas, Ioannis.
common foreign & security policy 1993--European Global Strategy
Lisbon Treaty
The Lisbon Treaty contains a significant number of important innovations in the fields of CFSP and ESDP. As we have seen, those are institutional rather than related to decision-making. We maintain that those could potentially be of great consequence, provided however that the modalities of implementation are carefully thought over. The new post of HR/VP will need to be filled by a “Superman” or a “Bionic Woman”. Multiple-hatting will probably facilitate synergies but also absorb more energy in the search for internal compromise, at the expense of strategic thinking and outward-looking action. Staffs from the Commission, the Council and the Member States will have to be amalgamated in a hurry within the EEAS, but this presupposes that differing working methods and mentalities will be overcome. This may lead to a lack of focus, not only in the realm of foreign policy but also in the field of European defence, even though they both need much closer attention.
2008
Policy Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/8969/1/ep.21.pdf
Angelet, Bruno, and Vrailas, Ioannis. (2008) European Defence in the wake of the Lisbon Treaty. Egmont paper, no. 21, May 2008. [Policy Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/8969/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:9020
2011-02-15T22:58:22Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:443030316C61776C6567616C61666661697273
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:436F6E7374346575726F7065
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
74797065733D776F726B696E677061706572
La Teoria Constitucional ante el Derecho Comunitario Europeo. = Constitutional Theory regarding European Community law. EUMA Papers, Vol. 5, No. 4 February 2008
Nieto, Carlos Hakansson.
Constitution for Europe
law & legal affairs-general (includes international law)
Lisbon Treaty
[From the Introduction]. El fracaso de las consultas populares de Holanda y Francia para aprobar el Tratado que establecía una Constitución para Europa motivó a la Presidencia alemana del Consejo de la Unión Europea, y los delegados de veintisiete estados miembros, a presentar el 19 de mayo de 2007 un proyecto de reforma. Como primera medida, se decidió excluir el término de “Constitución”, que tanta polémica ocasionó, para promover la elaboración de un documento internacional clásico que introduzca enmiendas al primer proyecto. De esta manera, el llamado tratado de reforma fue firmado en Lisboa por los representantes de todos los estados miembros de la Unión Europea el 13 de diciembre de 2007 y sustituye al proyecto de Constitución europea. Sin embargo, como lo importante es perseguir el concepto más que el enunciado, pese al cambio de denominación, pensamos que la esencia del proyecto de Constitución europea se mantiene viva y que el Tratado de Lisboa ha sido una fórmula política transaccional para aprobar un documento con resistencias doctrinales provenientes de una concepción europea continental de la teoría constitucional; por eso, en el presente trabajo, apoyándonos en la teoría clásica de esta disciplina, proponemos un enfoque que defienda los fueros constitucionales del proceso de integración europeo y valor histórico del intento fallido de una Constitución para Europa.
2008-02
Working Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/9020/1/HakanssonTeoriaLong2008ediREV.pdf
Nieto, Carlos Hakansson. (2008) La Teoria Constitucional ante el Derecho Comunitario Europeo. = Constitutional Theory regarding European Community law. EUMA Papers, Vol. 5, No. 4 February 2008. [Working Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/9020/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:9021
2011-02-15T22:58:22Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:436F6E7374346575726F7065
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
74797065733D776F726B696E677061706572
Correcting Past Mistakes: The Failure of the European Constitution and Its Resurrection as the Lisbon Treaty. Jean Monnet/Robert Schuman Paper Series Vol. 5, No. 12 May 2008
Kreidman, Adam.
Constitution for Europe
Lisbon Treaty
[From the Introduction]. The failure of the EU Constitution was seen as a major blow to European integration, but European leaders are determined to ensure that it is only a minor setback. With the causes of the Constitution’s rejection still fresh in memory, the EU has crafted the Lisbon Treaty, which is intended to fulfill most of the same objectives while avoiding those aspects which incited the greatest controversies. Both in terms of concept and in marketing, it appears that the EU has been successful in pinpointing the weaknesses of the Constitution, and the Lisbon Treaty should therefore achieve the success that the Constitution never had.
2008-05
Working Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/9021/1/KreidmanCorrectingPastEUMA08ediCORRECTED.pdf
Kreidman, Adam. (2008) Correcting Past Mistakes: The Failure of the European Constitution and Its Resurrection as the Lisbon Treaty. Jean Monnet/Robert Schuman Paper Series Vol. 5, No. 12 May 2008. [Working Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/9021/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:9056
2011-02-15T22:58:38Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303035:44303035303136
7375626A656374733D46:46303036
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:706F6C69746963616C6166666169727331323334:706166667075626C69636F70696E696F6E
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:436F6E7374346575726F7065
7375626A656374733D44:44303035:44303035303130
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
7375626A656374733D44:44303035:44303035303131
7375626A656374733D46:46303135
7375626A656374733D44:44303035:44303035303135
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:706F6C69746963616C6166666169727331323334:706166664575726F7065616E656C656374696F6E73
74797065733D64697363757373696F6E7061706572
Recovering from the constitutional failure. An analysis of the EU reflection period. ZEI Discussion Paper C182 2008
Amado, Diana
Buchmann, Tobias
Colella, Aurore
Deyanova, Lili
Dienhart, Michaela
Dojcinova, Hristina
Flamm, Laura
Gulbinowicz, Ewelina
Soo-Yeon Jin, Laura
Judge, Niall
Konigs, Claus
Lafitte, Elodie
Muller, Anke
Niemann, Anna
Ozgur, Deniz
Prata, Cristina-Gabriela
Richter, Robert
Roese, Claudia
Rothfuss, Annette
Schroder, Sonja Ana Luise
Speciale, Fabio
Stanojevic, Milos
Staszkiewicz, Maria Zofia
Tosevski, Filip
Trias, Ana
Tunick, Meredith Catherine
Varavkin, Vladimir
France
Netherlands
European Commission
Lisbon Treaty
European Council
European Parliament
Constitution for Europe
European Council-Presidency
European elections/voting behavior
public opinion
[From the Introduction]. After the rejection of the European Union’s (EU) Constitutional Treaty in Spring 2005 by both France and the Netherlands, the heads of state and government called for a “reflection period” to provide opportunities to resolve constitutional difficulties, and to further engage Member State citizen populations, national parliaments and political parties. The ultimate aim was to provide sufficient time for Member States to further the Constitutional debate and garner enough support to continue the ratification process. Initially, the reflection period had not been intended to last longer than a year, but in June 2006 the European Council outlined a timeline to reach a solution, extending the deadline until the end of 2008. Through a six-part analysis, this paper will examine how the European Union used its self-imposed “reflection period” to overcome the constitutional deadlock. To begin, the paper will provide a historical overview, including origins of the Constitutional Treaty and the initial signs of tribulations during the referenda process. Given the significance of the treaty rejections in France and the Netherlands, the second part of this paper devotes special attention to public opinion polls and attempts to identify the motivations of French and Dutch voters in their decisions to vote “no.” In the third part, this paper takes a closer look at the three main EU institutions, European Commission, European Parliament and European Council, and attempts to illustrate the actions that were taken in response to their call to “reflect.” This section also briefly describes Member States’ activities during this time. These include various strategies to ensure EU institutions remain both accountable and reliable and establish a long-lasting link between the Union and its citizens. An overview of several academic contributions to the reflection period debate is presented in the fourth section. Research activities related to this discussion are presented in summary form from a selection of key European research institutes. In the fifth section of analysis, the EU Council Presidency debates are addressed. This section attempts to highlight the discrepancies that existed between the public debate and the negotiations occurring behind the “closed doors” of Member State governments. As the Lisbon Treaty (i.e. Reform Treaty) was the result of this government bargaining process, the sixth and final section of this paper summarizes the content of the Lisbon Treaty and provides a short comparison of its changes to the modifications envisaged in the Constitutional Treaty.
Niemann, Anna
Schroeder, Sonja Ana Luise
Tunick, Meredith Catherine.
von der Osten, Denise-Christine
Yu, Wan Tung Perlie
Yanarisik, Oguzhan.
2008
Discussion Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/9056/1/dp_c182_master.pdf
Amado, Diana and Buchmann, Tobias and Colella, Aurore and Deyanova, Lili and Dienhart, Michaela and Dojcinova, Hristina and Flamm, Laura and Gulbinowicz, Ewelina and Soo-Yeon Jin, Laura and Judge, Niall and Konigs, Claus and Lafitte, Elodie and Muller, Anke and Niemann, Anna and Ozgur, Deniz and Prata, Cristina-Gabriela and Richter, Robert and Roese, Claudia and Rothfuss, Annette and Schroder, Sonja Ana Luise and Speciale, Fabio and Stanojevic, Milos and Staszkiewicz, Maria Zofia and Tosevski, Filip and Trias, Ana and Tunick, Meredith Catherine and Varavkin, Vladimir (2008) Recovering from the constitutional failure. An analysis of the EU reflection period. ZEI Discussion Paper C182 2008. [Discussion Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/9056/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:9057
2011-02-15T22:58:38Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
74797065733D64697363757373696F6E7061706572
Making and breaking promises. The European Union under the Treaty of Lisbon. ZEI Discussion Paper C 181, 2008
Horeth, Marcus
Sonnicksen, Jared.
Lisbon Treaty
[From the Introduction]. The most surprising aspect of Europe’s newest treaty is not so much its content, but more the way it came into being. For the first time in the history of European integration, a treaty is not the result of a “night of the long knives” at an EU Summit, but rather a several-year process. This process, characterized by a series of advances and setbacks, began with the “Laeken Declaration” (1), in which the Heads of State and Government of the EU Member States recognized that the usual modes of diplomacy no longer represented an appropriate means for setting the course of future European politics. Consequently in February 2002, a Convention presided by former French president Valery Giscard d’Estaing was convened for the purpose of working on proposals on institutional and constitutional reforms of the European Union. Moreover, the Convention sought to find a “European Constitution” that would guarantee democratic principles in the enlarged EU while at the same time preserving its effectiveness both domestically and externally. In July 2003, a Draft Constitutional Treaty was submitted to the European Heads of State and Government (2) and, after approximately one year of further negotiations, was approved by the European Council. However, it did not take long for the ratification process to be derailed by the rejections of the Constitutional Treaty in the French and Dutch referenda of 2005. Once again, the quo vadis Europa question pervaded EU political discourse and the European Council subsequently called for a period of reflection....In the following, we attempt to examine what the next treaty really has to offer and to assess to what extent the Treaty of Lisbon can fulfil its promise of more transparency, efficiency and democracy.
2008
Discussion Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/9057/1/dp_c181_hoereth_sonnicksen.pdf
Horeth, Marcus and Sonnicksen, Jared. (2008) Making and breaking promises. The European Union under the Treaty of Lisbon. ZEI Discussion Paper C 181, 2008. [Discussion Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/9057/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:9062
2011-02-15T22:58:40Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303032:44303032303230
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
7375626A656374733D44:44303032:44303032303032
74797065733D776F726B696E677061706572
The Lisbon Treaty and the Emergence of Third Generation Regional Integration. Jean Monnet/Robert Schuman Paper Series Vol. 8, No. 9 June 2008
Van Langenhove, Luk.
Marchesi, Daniele.
common foreign & security policy 1993--European Global Strategy
regionalism, international
Lisbon Treaty
[From the Introduction]. Especially in external relations, some major innovations would be introduced such as the legal personality for the EU, the new President of the European Council and the High Representative and Vice President of the Commission, assisted by an External Action Service. This article explores the implications of these new institutional developments for the emergence of the EU as a “third generation regional organization”, i.e. becoming a fullyfledged actor in international relations, engaging proactively and in a unitary way with other regions and at the multilateral level. To tackle this key issue, this paper is divided in two parts. The first part will look at the typology of three-generational regionalism and at how the EU fits into this scheme. The second part, focuses on the challenges for the EU’s foreign policy and looks at the external implications of the Lisbon treaty and, particularly, on its possible impact on the EU’s actorness in the UN. By doing so, the paper hopes also to shed some further light on the interrelation and possible synergies between regionalism studies and European studies in understanding the EU as an international actor. It will be argued that the Lisbon Treaty could constitute an institutional opportunity for the EU to develop into a more coherent and visible player on the international stage. This opportunity, however, is limited by the UN structure itself - which is still impervious to regional organisations - and by the ambiguities in the EU’s member states strategies and motivations. These ambiguities in turn, preserve the originality of the EU a new type of global actor, different from a state.
2008-06
Working Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/9062/1/VanLangenhoveLisbonThirdGenerationLong08edi.pdf
Van Langenhove, Luk. and Marchesi, Daniele. (2008) The Lisbon Treaty and the Emergence of Third Generation Regional Integration. Jean Monnet/Robert Schuman Paper Series Vol. 8, No. 9 June 2008. [Working Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/9062/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:9072
2011-02-15T22:58:44Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303035:69646F7067:69646F706767656E6572616C
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
74797065733D6F74686572
Concurrence et différenciation des présidences : Les nouveaux défis institutionnels = Competition and Contrasting Presidencies: New Institutional Challenges, Egmont - European Affairs Publication, Speech, April 2008
de Schoutheete, Philippe.
general
Lisbon Treaty
La principale difficulté systémique est le caractère hybride du régime adopté par le traité de Lisbonne. La présidence n’est plus tout à fait rotative, elle n’est pas non plus tout à fait permanente. On a détruit l’unicité de la présidence, du haut en bas de l’échelle, qui était un instrument utile, sans la remplacer par quelque chose d’aussi cohérent. De toute évidence le système sera rempli de tensions potentielles à plusieurs niveaux et dans toutes les directions. Cela ne conduit pas nécessairement au désastre mais demande que des précautions soient prises lorsque la chose est encore possible. • Une première précaution consisterait à essayer de mieux définir in tempore non suspecto, c'est-à-dire avant la désignation des personnalités, les terms of reference des différentes fonctions et la manière dont elles s’articulent entre elles. • Une deuxième précaution, qui se situe dans l’évolution des dernières années, consisterait à systématiser la programmation stratégique, opérationnelle et financière qui encadre les différentes activités de l’Union pendant une période qui est souvent de deux ans et demi. L’existence d’un cadre, convenu et approuvé d’avance, diminuerait les risques d’affrontement ou de dérapage. • Plus fondamentalement le fonctionnement effectif du système dépendra des hommes, de leur caractère, de leur disposition à travailler ensembles et à rechercher les compromis permettant de faire avancer les choses. Ces qualités devraient être très présentes à l’esprit des dirigeants au moment du choix des personnes.
2008
Other
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/9072/1/080429%2DULB.Ph.d.S.%2Dpresidence.pdf
de Schoutheete, Philippe. (2008) Concurrence et différenciation des présidences : Les nouveaux défis institutionnels = Competition and Contrasting Presidencies: New Institutional Challenges, Egmont - European Affairs Publication, Speech, April 2008. UNSPECIFIED.
http://aei.pitt.edu/9072/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:9075
2011-02-15T22:58:45Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
74797065733D706F6C6963797061706572
The Treaty of Lisbon: Implementing the Institutional Innovations. Egmont European Affairs Publication, November 2007
Kurpas, Sebastian,
Crum, Ben,
de Schoutheete, Philippe,
Keller, Jacques
Dehousse, Franklin
Andoura, Sami,
Missiroli, Antonio,
Hagemann, Sara,
Bribosia, Herve,
Lisbon Treaty
The fact is that, over that two year period, much less attention has been given to the practical implementation of new institutional proposals included in the proposed treaty. Even a cursory examination indicates that the implementation of some of these proposals is likely to be uneasy, and in some cases could be a source of future problems or difficulties. This is why three Brussels based think-tanks have thought it useful to join efforts in analysing potential implications of the most significant proposals in the field of institutions. Seven issues have been identified, shared out and debated in working groups, and this publication contains the results of that collective effort. Our aim is to highlight, and if possible, clarify potential problems. We have worked on the basis of the Reform Treaty approved at Lisbon in October 2007, without wishing to cross the lines of the presidency or to pre-empt the conclusions of the ongoing process.
2007-11
Policy Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/9075/1/Joint_Study_complet.pdf
Kurpas, Sebastian, and Crum, Ben, and de Schoutheete, Philippe, and Keller, Jacques and Dehousse, Franklin and Andoura, Sami, and Missiroli, Antonio, and Hagemann, Sara, and Bribosia, Herve, (2007) The Treaty of Lisbon: Implementing the Institutional Innovations. Egmont European Affairs Publication, November 2007. [Policy Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/9075/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:9383
2012-04-03T16:19:36Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D46:46303036
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
7375626A656374733D46:46303130
7375626A656374733D46:46303135
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:706F6C69746963616C6166666169727331323334:706166664575726F7065616E656C656374696F6E73
74797065733D706F6C6963797061706572
Essential Steps for the European Union after the “No” Votes in France, the Netherlands & Ireland. CEPS Policy Briefs No. 166, 26 August 2008.
Lang, John Temple.
Gallagher, Eamonn.
Ireland
France
European elections/voting behavior
Netherlands
Lisbon Treaty
This Policy Brief outlines a number of steps that need to be taken to make the EU more comprehensible and acceptable to all its peoples – and not only the peoples of France, the Netherlands and Ireland. In the authors’ view, among these steps, three in particular are indispensable: Council discussions must be made public, Commissioners must make a much greater effort to explain EU policies, and one Commissioner for each member state must be permanently assured. In combination, these measures will hopefully address the widespread mistrust that has prevented the EU from having the support it needs to move ahead. The authors are both former senior officials of the EU. John Temple Lang is a lawyer with Cleary Gottlieb Steen and Hamilton LLP, Brussels and London; Professor, Trinity College, Dublin; and Visiting Senior Research Fellow, Oxford. Eamonn Gallagher is former Director General in the European Commission and former EC Ambassador to the United Nations, New York.
2008-08
Policy Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/9383/2/9383.pdf
Lang, John Temple. and Gallagher, Eamonn. (2008) Essential Steps for the European Union after the “No” Votes in France, the Netherlands & Ireland. CEPS Policy Briefs No. 166, 26 August 2008. [Policy Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/9383/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:9386
2012-04-03T16:16:16Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
74797065733D706F6C6963797061706572
What next? How to Save the Treaty of Lisbon. CEPS Policy Brief No. 163, 19 June 2008
Gros, Daniel.
Kurpas, Sebastian.
Lisbon Treaty
In the wake of the Irish no-vote on the Treaty of Lisbon, numerous scenarios are currently being debated. This paper critically assesses the legality and political feasibility of the principal proposals and then puts forward an alternative ‘Plan B’, which the authors believe would amply satisfy both criteria.
2008-06
Policy Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/9386/2/9386.pdf
Gros, Daniel. and Kurpas, Sebastian. (2008) What next? How to Save the Treaty of Lisbon. CEPS Policy Brief No. 163, 19 June 2008. [Policy Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/9386/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:9403
2014-08-07T01:26:57Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
7375626A656374733D44:44303032:44303032303032
74797065733D6F74686572
The Institutional Architecture of CFSP after the Lisbon Treaty: Constitutional breakthrough or challenges ahead? CEPS Challenge Paper No. 10, 23 June 2008
Wessels, Wolfgang.
Bopp, Franziska.
common foreign & security policy 1993--European Global Strategy
Lisbon Treaty
This paper analyses the impact of the Lisbon Treaty on the institutional architecture of CFSP and the overall external action of the Union. The Lisbon Treaty has introduced some remarkable changes which might substantially influence the (inter-)institutional balance in this policy field. The authors offer two different possible readings of the CFSP provisions of the Lisbon Treaty: they could be interpreted as a major step forward in the direction of a strengthened, more coherent and more effective international actor with more supranational elements; but they may also be seen as demonstrating an ever-refined mode of ‘rationalised intergovernmentalism’. After an in-depth analysis of the ideas and norms contained in the new treaty, the institutions and the instruments, the authors find more evidence for the second interpretation, but also traces for a ‘ratched fusion’ as a third alternative explanation.
2008-06
Other
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/9403/2/9403.pdf
Wessels, Wolfgang. and Bopp, Franziska. (2008) The Institutional Architecture of CFSP after the Lisbon Treaty: Constitutional breakthrough or challenges ahead? CEPS Challenge Paper No. 10, 23 June 2008. UNSPECIFIED.
http://aei.pitt.edu/9403/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:9744
2011-02-15T23:03:37Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D46:46303036
7375626A656374733D46:46303037
7375626A656374733D46:46303239
7375626A656374733D46:46303137
7375626A656374733D46:46303236
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
7375626A656374733D46:46303130
7375626A656374733D46:46303131
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:706F6C69746963616C6166666169727331323334:706166664575726F7065616E656C656374696F6E73
74797065733D706F6C6963797061706572
spotlight europe 2008/13 - December 2008: Lessons from the Treaty Fatigue.
Hierlemann, Dominik.
Ireland
Italy
France
European elections/voting behavior
Germany
Poland
U.K.
Czech Republic
Lisbon Treaty
The Irish Government has decided to hold a second referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon. A Bertelsmann Stiftung survey demonstrates that 92 per cent of the Irish reject the idea of their country leaving the European Union. This percentage is higher than in Germany (86 per cent) or Poland (83 per cent). 59 per cent of Ireland’s British neighbours want to remain in the EU, and only 32 per cent are in favour of leaving. In the December edition of the Bertelsmann Stiftung’s spotlight europe Dominik Hierlemann analyses the results of the survey from seven EU member states. A movement away from the EU is nowhere to be seen. However, as Hierlemann points out, trouble is still brewing not only in Ireland, but also in the Czech Republic, despite the pro-ratification ruling of its constitutional court.
2008-12
Policy Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/9744/1/Engl_spotlight_europe_Lessons_Treaty_Fatigue_08%2D12%2D15.pdf
Hierlemann, Dominik. (2008) spotlight europe 2008/13 - December 2008: Lessons from the Treaty Fatigue. [Policy Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/9744/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:9745
2011-02-15T23:03:38Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:44303033303133
74797065733D706F6C6963797061706572
spotlight europe 2008/13, Dezember 2008: Nizza, Lissabon, Dublin – und zurück? = Nice, Lisbon, Dublin: and back?
Hierlemann, Dominik.
Nice Treaty
Lisbon Treaty
Unavailable.
2008-12
Policy Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/9745/1/xcms_bst_dms_26895_26912_2.pdf
Hierlemann, Dominik. (2008) spotlight europe 2008/13, Dezember 2008: Nizza, Lissabon, Dublin – und zurück? = Nice, Lisbon, Dublin: and back? [Policy Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/9745/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:11040
2011-02-15T23:12:16Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
74797065733D61727469636C65
From Rome to Lisbon: Really the End of the Road? EIPASCOPE Journal Articles, January 2008
Best, Edward.
Lisbon Treaty
No abstract.
2008-01
Article
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/11040/1/20080509183544_SCOPE2008%2D1%2D1_EdwardBest.pdf
Best, Edward. (2008) From Rome to Lisbon: Really the End of the Road? EIPASCOPE Journal Articles, January 2008. EIPAScope, 2008 (1). pp. 1-2.
http://aei.pitt.edu/11040/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:11041
2011-02-15T23:12:16Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:706F6C69746963616C6166666169727331323334:70616666676F7665726E616E6365
7375626A656374733D44:44303035:69646F7067:69646F7067646D706D
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
74797065733D61727469636C65
The Lisbon Treaty: A Qualified Advance for EU Decision-Making and Governance
Best, Edward.
governance: EU & national level
Lisbon Treaty
decision making/policy-making
No abstract.
2008-01
Article
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/11041/1/20080509183728_SCOPE2008%2D1%2D2_EdwardBest.pdf
Best, Edward. (2008) The Lisbon Treaty: A Qualified Advance for EU Decision-Making and Governance. EIPAScope, 2008 (1). pp. 1-6.
http://aei.pitt.edu/11041/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:11042
2011-02-15T23:12:16Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
7375626A656374733D44:44303032:44303032303032
74797065733D61727469636C65
The Lisbon Treaty and External Relations.
Duke, Simon.
common foreign & security policy 1993--European Global Strategy
Lisbon Treaty
No abstract.
2008-01
Article
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/11042/1/20080509183907_SCOPE2008%2D1%2D3_SimonDuke.pdf
Duke, Simon. (2008) The Lisbon Treaty and External Relations. EIPAScope, 2008 (1). pp. 1-6.
http://aei.pitt.edu/11042/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:11043
2011-02-15T23:12:16Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303339:74706A6861706A63636D67656E6572616C
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
74797065733D61727469636C65
Justice and Home Affairs in the Lisbon Treaty: A Constitutionalising Clarification?
Donnelly, Brendan.
general
Lisbon Treaty
No abstract.
2008-01
Article
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/11043/1/20080509184107_SCOPE2008%2D1%2D4_BrendanDonnelly.pdf
Donnelly, Brendan. (2008) Justice and Home Affairs in the Lisbon Treaty: A Constitutionalising Clarification? European Institute of Public Administration, 2008 (1). pp. 1-5.
http://aei.pitt.edu/11043/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:11044
2011-02-15T23:12:18Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303035:69646F7067:69646F70676D7369
7375626A656374733D44:44303035:69646F7067:69646F706768646F63
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
74797065733D61727469636C65
Flexibility within the Lisbon Treaty: Trademark or Empty Promise?
Tekin, Funda
Wessels, Wolfgang.
historical development of EC (pre-1986)
multi-speed integration
Lisbon Treaty
No abstract.
2008-01
Article
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/11044/1/20080509184449_SCOPE2008%2D1%2D5_TekinandWessels.pdf
Tekin, Funda and Wessels, Wolfgang. (2008) Flexibility within the Lisbon Treaty: Trademark or Empty Promise? EIPAScope, 2008 (1). pp. 1-7.
http://aei.pitt.edu/11044/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:11045
2011-02-15T23:12:19Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:44303033303032
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
74797065733D61727469636C65
The Treaty of Lisbon: New Signals for Future Enlargements?
Piedrafita, Sonia.
enlargement
Lisbon Treaty
No abstract.
2008-01
Article
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/11045/1/20080509184645_SCOPE2008%2D1%2D6_SoniaPiedrafita.pdf
Piedrafita, Sonia. (2008) The Treaty of Lisbon: New Signals for Future Enlargements? EIPAScope, 2008 (1). pp. 1-6.
http://aei.pitt.edu/11045/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:11052
2011-02-15T23:12:23Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
74797065733D776F726B696E677061706572
The (Reform) Treaty of Lisbon: What’s in it? How Significant. Jean Monnet/Robert Schuman Paper Series Vol. 9 No. 1, January 2009
Laursen, Finn.
Lisbon Treaty
[From the Introduction]. The European Union is currently based on the treaty framework which emerged as the Treaty of Nice entered into force in 2003 (European Union, 2003). The Constitutional Treaty elaborated during the Convention on the Future of Europe, 2002-2003, and finally negotiated during the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC), 2003-2004, proposed a number of changes in that framework, but the treaty was rejected in referenda in France and the Netherlands in May and June 2005 (Laursen, 2008). After a reflection period it was decided to negotiate a so-called Reform Treaty. The German Presidency played an important role in securing agreement on a mandate for a new IGC in June 2007. During the Portuguese Presidency in the autumn of 2007 that IGC then produced a new treaty, the Lisbon Treaty (European Union 2007). In this paper we shall outline the most important provisions of the Lisbon Treaty. Will the Lisbon Treaty improve the efficiency, democratic legitimacy “as well as the coherence of its external action,” as the mandate from June 2007 claimed it should? (Council of the European Union, 2007).
2009-01
Working Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/11052/1/LaursenLisbonTreatyLong09edi.pdf
Laursen, Finn. (2009) The (Reform) Treaty of Lisbon: What’s in it? How Significant. Jean Monnet/Robert Schuman Paper Series Vol. 9 No. 1, January 2009. [Working Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/11052/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:11057
2011-02-15T23:12:24Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
7375626A656374733D46:46303130
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:706F6C69746963616C6166666169727331323334:706166664575726F7065616E656C656374696F6E73
74797065733D776F726B696E677061706572
The Treaty of Lisbon and the Irish Impasse. Jean Monnet/Robert Schuman Paper Series Vol. 8, No. 18, August 2008
Lorca, Francisco J.
Ireland
European elections/voting behavior
Lisbon Treaty
No abstract.
2008-08
Working Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/11057/1/LorcaFranciscoLisbonLong08edi.pdf
Lorca, Francisco J. (2008) The Treaty of Lisbon and the Irish Impasse. Jean Monnet/Robert Schuman Paper Series Vol. 8, No. 18, August 2008. [Working Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/11057/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:11060
2011-02-15T23:12:26Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:44303033303033
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:436F6E7374346575726F7065
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
74797065733D61727469636C65
The EU Treaty Reform Process since 2000: The Highs and Lows of Constitutionalising the European Union
Christiansen, Thomas.
European Convention
Lisbon Treaty
Constitution for Europe
No abstract.
2008-01
Article
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/11060/1/20080611150801_SCOPE2008%2D1%2D7_ThomasChristiansen.pdf
Christiansen, Thomas. (2008) The EU Treaty Reform Process since 2000: The Highs and Lows of Constitutionalising the European Union. EIPAScope, 2008 (1). pp. 1-6.
http://aei.pitt.edu/11060/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:11077
2011-02-15T23:12:32Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D46:46303035
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
74797065733D706F6C6963797061706572
Lisbon Treaty Ratification: Will the Åland Islands become Finland’s Greenland? EPIN Commentaries No. 1, 12 May 2008
Alilonttinen, Pia
Ruà, Savino.
Finland
Lisbon Treaty
In a curious twist of historical, constitutional and legislative provisions, the future of the Åland Islands, the Finnish archipelago located between Finland and Sweden in the Baltic Sea, may be strongly implicated in the future of the Lisbon Treaty and vice versa.
2008-05
Policy Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/11077/1/1775[1].pdf
Alilonttinen, Pia and Ruà, Savino. (2008) Lisbon Treaty Ratification: Will the Åland Islands become Finland’s Greenland? EPIN Commentaries No. 1, 12 May 2008. [Policy Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/11077/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:11093
2011-02-15T23:12:38Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031727270
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:65636F6E6F6D696366696E616E6369616C61666661697273:65666165636F6E6F6D6963706F6C696379
74797065733D706F6C6963797061706572
A bit more clarity, please, M. de Larosière. CEPS Commentaries, 3 March 2009
Lannoo, Karel.
economic policy
regulations/regulatory policies
Lisbon Treaty
This Commentary assesses the report by the high-level group on financial supervision, chaired by former IMF Managing Director and Bank of France Governor Jacques de Larosière. The author, CEPS CEO Karel Lannoo, finds that the group’s recommendations offer a useful first step, but that its proposals need to be clarified and simplified, and their implementation accelerated. In his view, the report should lead to a clear roadmap to be adopted by the EU Council and some choices need to be thought through more carefully, procedures more fully specified and structures elaborated. Moreover, he advocates amending the EU Treaty to establish a European System of Financial Supervisors – a question carefully avoided by the report.
2009-03
Policy Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/11093/1/1808[1].pdf
Lannoo, Karel. (2009) A bit more clarity, please, M. de Larosière. CEPS Commentaries, 3 March 2009. [Policy Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/11093/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:11100
2011-02-15T23:12:40Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
7375626A656374733D46:46303130
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:706F6C69746963616C6166666169727331323334:706166664575726F7065616E656C656374696F6E73
74797065733D706F6C6963797061706572
Inching towards a Second Irish Referendum. CEPS Commentaries, 15 December 2008
Kurpas, Sebastian
Kaczyński, Piotr Maciej.
Ireland
European elections/voting behavior
Lisbon Treaty
Since the Irish rejection of the Treaty of Lisbon on 12 June 2008, the European decision-making machinery has done what it does best: cooling down a hot political debate and carefully building a consensus. The European Summit has now determined what concessions will be made to the Irish in exchange for their ratification of the treaty: the College of Commissioners will continue to comprise one member per country beyond the year 2014 and Ireland will receive “necessary legal guarantees” on certain sensitive matters. Despite this progress, however, the authors warn that it may prove inadequate to extract approval from the Irish in a second referendum.
2008-01
Policy Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/11100/1/1767[1].pdf
Kurpas, Sebastian and Kaczyński, Piotr Maciej. (2008) Inching towards a Second Irish Referendum. CEPS Commentaries, 15 December 2008. [Policy Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/11100/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:11101
2011-02-15T23:12:40Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
7375626A656374733D46:46303130
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:706F6C69746963616C6166666169727331323334:706166664575726F7065616E656C656374696F6E73
74797065733D706F6C6963797061706572
Ireland’s plan to resurrect the Lisbon Treaty to be unveiled at the Brussels summit. CEPS Commentaries, 4 December 2008
O’Brennan, John.
Ireland
European elections/voting behavior
Lisbon Treaty
Ireland’s fiscal position has severely degraded by the global financial crisis and the Government has been forced to introduce austerity measures not seen for a quarter of a century. Now, in advance of the European Council’s December summit, expectations are growing that the Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen will provide a clear roadmap for an Irish solution to the EU’s constitutional dilemma and enable the EU to resolve the impasse created by the Irish electorate’s rejection of the Treaty in June.
2008-12
Policy Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/11101/1/1763.pdf
O’Brennan, John. (2008) Ireland’s plan to resurrect the Lisbon Treaty to be unveiled at the Brussels summit. CEPS Commentaries, 4 December 2008. [Policy Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/11101/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:11475
2011-02-15T23:14:52Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D46:46303037
7375626A656374733D46:46303239
7375626A656374733D46:46303137
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
7375626A656374733D46:46303130
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:706F6C69746963616C6166666169727331323334:706166664575726F7065616E656C656374696F6E73
74797065733D776F726B696E677061706572
Ratification of the Lisbon Treaty: Problems not only in Ireland. EPIN Working Papers No. 18, September 2008
Kaczyński, Piotr Maciej
Kurpas, Sebastian
ó Broin, Peadar.
Ireland
Czech Republic
European elections/voting behavior
Germany
Lisbon Treaty
Poland
After the Irish voters rejected the Treaty of Lisbon in a public referendum on 12 June 2008, European Union leaders decided nevertheless to continue the ratification process, with the aim of achieving 26 ratifications by mid-October 2008. This plan failed, however, due to rising political and legal problems in a number of countries. Apart from its rejection in Ireland, the Treaty of Lisbon’s ratification is now being contested in the Constitutional Courts of Germany and the Czech Republic and it faces political challenges in the Czech Republic and Poland. This paper presents the state of play of the ratification process and the national debates in the four countries where the treaty’s future is most called into question: Ireland, Germany, the Czech Republic and Poland.
2008-09
Working Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/11475/1/1716.pdf
Kaczyński, Piotr Maciej and Kurpas, Sebastian and ó Broin, Peadar. (2008) Ratification of the Lisbon Treaty: Problems not only in Ireland. EPIN Working Papers No. 18, September 2008. [Working Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/11475/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:11578
2014-04-08T13:34:02Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
7375626A656374733D46:46303130
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:706F6C69746963616C6166666169727331323334:706166664575726F7065616E656C656374696F6E73
74797065733D706F6C6963797061706572
spotlight europe 2009/09, September 2009: Ireland's second attempt
Hierlemann, Dominik.
Ireland
European elections/voting behavior
Lisbon Treaty
Irish voters are about to go to the polls for a second time to decide the fate of the Treaty of Lisbon. On 2 October the outcome of the referendum will determine whether or not the EU, after eight years of debate and numer-ous false starts, can finally adopt a new basic treaty. What are the chances of success? Here are a brief look at the ratification process, the mood in Ireland, and the consequences of the economic crisis-and five scenarios of what might happen if there is another No vote.
2009-09
Policy Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/11578/1/spotlight_europe_%2D_Ireland's_Second_Attempt.pdf
Hierlemann, Dominik. (2009) spotlight europe 2009/09, September 2009: Ireland's second attempt. [Policy Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/11578/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:11579
2011-02-15T23:15:26Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
7375626A656374733D46:46303130
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:706F6C69746963616C6166666169727331323334:706166664575726F7065616E656C656374696F6E73
74797065733D706F6C6963797061706572
spotlight Europe 2009/09, September 2009: Irlands zweiter Versuch. = Ireland's second attempt
Hierlemann, Dominik.
Ireland
European elections/voting behavior
Lisbon Treaty
No abstract.
2009-09
Policy Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/11579/1/xcms_bst_dms_29567_29583_2.pdf
Hierlemann, Dominik. (2009) spotlight Europe 2009/09, September 2009: Irlands zweiter Versuch. = Ireland's second attempt. [Policy Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/11579/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:11588
2011-02-15T23:15:29Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
7375626A656374733D46:46303130
74797065733D706F6C6963797061706572
Plan B. CEPS Commentaries, 16 June 2008
Gros, Daniel.
Ireland
Lisbon Treaty
CEPS Director Daniel Gros argues in this Commentary that the solution to the 'Irish crisis' could be simple if the other countries are really determined to go ahead. At the forthcoming European Council meeting in Brussels, he suggests that member countries could simply sign the consolidated text of the Treaties which results from the incorporation of the amendments of the Lisbon Treaty into the old Treaty. While the Irish government could not put its signature to such a Treaty at this time, it could be invited by the European Council to submit a set of protocols, or opt-outs, which would allow it to sign the treaty and have a reasonable certainty that the next referendum would have a different outcome. In the meantime, the consolidated text would thus be signed by 26 member states (perhaps 25 if the Czech government judges that ratification is difficult). This consolidated text, representing a new coherent treaty, could enter into force once it is ratified by all the 26 countries that have signed it now. Ratification of the consolidated text should be possible to achieve within a short period of time as no further referenda would be necessary and all 26 members (25?) are committed to ratifying the Lisbon Treaty using parliamentary procedures (with 18 having already done so).
2008-06
Policy Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/11588/1/1674[1].pdf
Gros, Daniel. (2008) Plan B. CEPS Commentaries, 16 June 2008. [Policy Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/11588/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:11591
2011-02-15T23:15:31Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303339:74706A6861706A63636D67656E6572616C
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:436F6E7374346575726F7065
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:44303033303032
7375626A656374733D44:44303035:69646F7067:69646F70676D7369
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303230
7375626A656374733D44:44303035:69646F7067:69646F706767656E6572616C
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303139
74797065733D706F6C6963797061706572
The European Union 2005-2008: Crisis, impasse or renewed progress? CEPS Commentaries, 16 May 2008
Ruding, H. Onno.
Constitution for Europe
enlargement
energy policy (Including international arena)
multi-speed integration
general
general
Lisbon Treaty
environmental policy (including international arena)
In this CEPS Commentary, H. Onno Ruding, Director of the CEPS Board of Directors, explores whether the European Union was plunged into a state of real crisis following the negative referenda in France and the Netherlands in mid-2005 (and in which it is still mired) or is it simply experiencing one of the many hiccups or temporary impasses that have characterised the European integration process since the beginning. He finds the latter description more to the point. Moreover, he argues that what is now urgently needed – both for the sake of achieving further progress in European integration and creating more guidance and clarity for the citizens – is agreement on a political roadmap in pursuit of three distinct categories of action for Europe. The remainder of the paper outlines his action plan.
2008-05
Policy Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/11591/1/1656[1].pdf
Ruding, H. Onno. (2008) The European Union 2005-2008: Crisis, impasse or renewed progress? CEPS Commentaries, 16 May 2008. [Policy Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/11591/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:11607
2011-02-15T23:15:36Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
74797065733D706F6C6963797061706572
Two for the price of one?. CEPS Commentaries, 22 October 2007
Gros, Daniel
Micossi, Stefano.
Lisbon Treaty
The new 'Lisbon Treaty' agreed at the European Council meeting on 18-19 October 2007, preserves most of the substance of the failed Constitution; it will serve the EU well. As usual, however, Europe has taken a step forward by creating a new disequilibrium; new Treaty revisions are likely to be proposed even before all the provisions of this present one have been implemented.
2007-10
Policy Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/11607/1/1550[1].pdf
Gros, Daniel and Micossi, Stefano. (2007) Two for the price of one?. CEPS Commentaries, 22 October 2007. [Policy Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/11607/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:11708
2011-02-15T23:16:17Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
7375626A656374733D46:46303130
74797065733D706F6C6963797061706572
Ireland and the Lisbon Treaty: Quo Vadis?. CEPS Policy Brief No. 176, October 2008
O'Brennan, John.
Ireland
Lisbon Treaty
This paper seeks to contribute to the debate on ratification and to provide policy-makers with an assessment of the options before them. Before proceeding to outline those options this paper sets out four key assumptions upon which the arguments made are based. It also outlines the importance of securing a clarification of the constitutional position via a Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of the Lisbon Treaty and the desirability of finding EU agreement on the right of all 27 member states to permanent representation on the European Commission.
2008-10
Policy Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/11708/1/1741.pdf
O'Brennan, John. (2008) Ireland and the Lisbon Treaty: Quo Vadis?. CEPS Policy Brief No. 176, October 2008. [Policy Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/11708/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:11751
2016-01-29T23:55:55Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
74797065733D6F74686572
The Treaty of Lisbon: Implementing the Institutional Innovations. CEPS Special Reports, November 2007
Kurpas, Sebastian
Crum, Ben
de Schoutheete, Philippe
Keller, Jacques
Dehousse, Franklin
Andoura, Sami
Missiroli, Antonio
Hagemann, Sara
Bribosia, Hervé.
Lisbon Treaty
After a long period of internal introspection and deadlock over the Constitutional Treaty, the EU can now see some light at the end of the tunnel. If successfully ratified, the new European Treaty agreed by the Head of States and Government in Lisbon may provide the appropriate institutional tools for the EU to function with 27 member states. However, the success of institutional innovations depends not only on legal provisions, but also on the way in which the provisions are implemented. Indeed, even a cursory examination indicates that the implementation of the new proposals is unlikely to be easy, and in some cases could be a source of serious difficulties in the future. In the absence of serious analysis aimed at this latter question, three Brussels-based think-tanks have joined forces in a collaborative effort to fill this gap. Our aim is to highlight potential problems and, where possible, to suggest ways to avoid or attenuate their negative effects. The analysis has focused on seven main institutional and policy domains: the European Parliament, the European Commission, the Presidency of the Council, the qualified majority voting in the Council, the role of national Parliaments, enhanced cooperation and foreign policy. These issues have been intensively debated in working groups composed of researchers, external experts, and practitioners in the field. This report reflects the substance of that collective effort.
2007-11
Other
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/11751/1/1554.pdf
Kurpas, Sebastian and Crum, Ben and de Schoutheete, Philippe and Keller, Jacques and Dehousse, Franklin and Andoura, Sami and Missiroli, Antonio and Hagemann, Sara and Bribosia, Hervé. (2007) The Treaty of Lisbon: Implementing the Institutional Innovations. CEPS Special Reports, November 2007. UNSPECIFIED.
http://aei.pitt.edu/11751/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:12055
2014-01-28T20:39:52Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303035:69646F7067:69646F706767656E6572616C
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
74797065733D706F6C6963797061706572
spotlight europe 2009/11, November 2009: Yet another president.
Hierlemann, Dominik.
general
Lisbon Treaty
The Treaty of Lisbon does not bestow a president on Europe, but at least the European Council is getting one. The character of the new office will be determined to some extent by the incumbent. Now that the squabbling about the treaty is over, the European Union badly needs someone who is genuinely a people's president.
2009-11
Policy Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/12055/1/xcms_bst_dms_30013__2.pdf
Hierlemann, Dominik. (2009) spotlight europe 2009/11, November 2009: Yet another president. [Policy Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/12055/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:12056
2011-02-15T23:18:08Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303035:69646F7067:69646F706767656E6572616C
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
74797065733D706F6C6963797061706572
spotlight europe 2009/11: Ein Präsident für alle. = Yet another president
Hierlemann, Dominik.
general
Lisbon Treaty
No abstract.
2009-11
Policy Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/12056/1/xcms_bst_dms_29974_29975_2.pdf
Hierlemann, Dominik. (2009) spotlight europe 2009/11: Ein Präsident für alle. = Yet another president. [Policy Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/12056/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:12225
2011-02-15T23:19:15Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D46:46303239
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:706F6C69746963616C6166666169727331323334:70616666706F6C69746963616C70617274696573
74797065733D776F726B696E677061706572
Understanding Klaus; The Story of Czech Eurorealism. CEPS EPIN Working Paper No. 26, November 2009
Braun, Matts.
Czech Republic
Lisbon Treaty
political parties
It is somewhat ironic that Czech eurosceptics managed to delay the ratification process of the Lisbon Treaty at a time when they seem to be in decline as a political force. President Klaus and his allies are becoming increasingly isolated within Czech political circles and lack the support of any established political party other than the Communists. The twin pressures of domestic vote utilisation and socialisation at the EU level are making Czech eurorealists within the Civic Democratic Party less eurosceptic. It is still too early to speak of any complete change within the party, however, and any evidence of a reorientation of the party’s EU policy remains ambiguous.
2009-11
Working Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/12225/1/understanding%2Dklaus%2Dstory%2Dczech%2Deurorealism%2D1.pdf
Braun, Matts. (2009) Understanding Klaus; The Story of Czech Eurorealism. CEPS EPIN Working Paper No. 26, November 2009. [Working Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/12225/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:13692
2011-02-15T23:28:37Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:436F6E7374346575726F7065
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303335:737067656E6572616C
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
74797065733D776F726B696E677061706572
Il ruolo potenziale dei diritti sociali fondamentali nel Trattato costituzionale dell'Unione Europea. = The potential role of fundamental social rights in the EU Constitutional Treaty. WP C.S.D.L.E. "Massimo D'Antona" .INT - 54/2007
Mutarelli, Matteo Maria.
Constitution for Europe
Lisbon Treaty
general
No abstract.
2007
Working Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/13692/1/mutarelli_n54%2D2007int.pdf
Mutarelli, Matteo Maria. (2007) Il ruolo potenziale dei diritti sociali fondamentali nel Trattato costituzionale dell'Unione Europea. = The potential role of fundamental social rights in the EU Constitutional Treaty. WP C.S.D.L.E. "Massimo D'Antona" .INT - 54/2007. [Working Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/13692/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:13833
2011-02-15T23:29:29Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303032:44303032303132
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
7375626A656374733D44:44303032:44303032303032
74797065733D776F726B696E677061706572
The Lisbon Treaty stipulations on Development Cooperation and the Council Decision of 25 March 2010 (Draft) establishing the organisation and functioning of the European External Action Service. EIPA Working Paper 2010/W/01
Duke, Simon
Blockmans, Steven.
common foreign & security policy 1993--European Global Strategy
development
Lisbon Treaty
Contrary to the emerging legal advice on the potential role of the European External Action Service (EEAS) and development cooperation under the Lisbon Treaty, this legal brief argues that the stipulations concerning this area contained in the proposal for a Council decision of 25 March 2010 on the EEAS, are entirely consonant with the Treaty. In particular this brief argues that development cooperation is a shared competence and not, as is often argued, an exclusive competence. It is also noted that the Treaty places the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) on an equal footing with other EU external relations policies and brings an end to the default setting of, for instance, EU policy in development cooperation. The legally binding obligation for the Union to ensure consistency between the different areas of external action and between these and its other policies again provides the overarching rationale. Finally, it is observed that the elevation of the eradication of poverty to an objective of the Union in its external action offers far greater leverage for a development perspective in EU external actions, rather than any alleged illegal politicisation of development cooperation.
2010-05
Working Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/13833/1/20100504131133_RiposteEurostep3May2010_A4.pdf
Duke, Simon and Blockmans, Steven. (2010) The Lisbon Treaty stipulations on Development Cooperation and the Council Decision of 25 March 2010 (Draft) establishing the organisation and functioning of the European External Action Service. EIPA Working Paper 2010/W/01. [Working Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/13833/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:13834
2012-05-09T16:14:03Z
oai:aei.pitt.edu:14411
2011-02-15T23:33:29Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:443030316C61776C6567616C61666661697273
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303339:4430303130333968756D616E726967687473
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:4430303170707061
7375626A656374733D44:44303035:69646F7067:69646F706767656E6572616C
7375626A656374733D44:44303035:44303035303132
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:706F6C69746963616C6166666169727331323334:706166666C65676974696D616379
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303339:74706A6861706A63636D667265656D6F76656D656E74
74797065733D626F6F6B
Normativity, Fundamental Rights and Legal Order in the EU
Timsit, Gerard
Gnes, Matteo
Mathieu, Bertrand
Nihoul, Pierre
Opperman, Thomas
Raulus, Helen
Jacque, Jean Paul.
free movement/border control
law & legal affairs-general (includes international law)
general
public policy/public administration
human rights
legitimacy
Lisbon Treaty
European Court of Justice/Court of First Instance
Two years ago, specifically on 23 May 2008, the European Public Law Organization (EPLO) Branch in Bucharest was established in the presence of Prof.Dr. Spyridon Flogaitis, Director, President of the Board of Directors and important Romanian and Hellenic officials. Hosted by the National School of Political Studies and Public Administration (NSPSPA) through the Faculty of Public Administration, the EPLO Branch in Bucharest has marked an important moment in view of extending and developing EPLO specific activities and has encompassed an activity of collaboration of over a decade between the two institutions. The forms of collaboration, already traditional: joint European programmes, participation in the European Public Law Academy, mobility of students, doctoral students and teaching staff will be diversified. The start of a cycle of conferences on actual topics of the European Union construction, legal, administrative and managerial substantiation of the important processes represents such a form. Conducted under the aegis "The Dialogues of EPLO at NSPSPA", the conferences have enjoyed the participation of recognized academic personalities from prestigious European universities. The conferences have carried forth scientific events for the Romanian academia, in view to increase EPLO prestige, to acquire knowledge and disseminate its activities. The current volume gathers the content of the first conferences, circumscribing to important concepts of the theory and practice of the EU construction: normativity, fundamental rights or legal order. Of course the reader's thorough analysis when studying the current volume will get us close or far away from the three concepts, already stated. Thus, the first topic "La Regulation, une forme moderne de la normativite?" of Professor Gérard Timsit debates, from doctrine view, the specific difference between "regulation" and "reglementation", taking into consideration "the crisis of traditional normativity" developing towards "a new social normativity". Considering the societies' complexity, the author identifies another crisis of "the deficit of legitimacy", leading to "the deficit of societies' complexity and their governance systems". Professor Timsit, whose work substantiates the programmes on theory and science of administration within the framework of NSPSPA, reveals the necessity of new changes in view of better understanding the complexity: transforming the bureaucratic state into a strategic state, thus triggering a reshaped administration, able to deal the society's empirical realities in times of crisis or disaster. The issues specific for the transformations of the European institutions after the Lisbon Treaty are approached by Professor Jean Paul Jacque, who insists on "strengthening the effectiveness of the EU institutional system" through the democratisation of law-making within the Council, enlargement of the scope of the co-decision procedure etc. The comparative analysis between the provisions of the former EU Constitution and those of Lisbon Treaty emphasises the necessity of national parliaments' participation and promotion of participative democracy in view of democratization of law-making within the Council. In the conclusions of the conference, the author presents "the open democratic space that has to be occupied by political actors and citizens", which should abandon the traditional behaviour in the European elections, insisting on relevant matters concerning the competences and contents of the EU policies. The perspective opened by Lisbon Treaty on fundamental rights protection in the European Union provides for the first time a mandatory set of fundamental rights. Corroborating this fact with the provisions of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, common questions emerge, finding an answer in Professor Helena Raulus's conference. The questions refer to the meaning of that new fundamental rights system for the Union or Member States as well as to the EU role in strengthening the fundamental human rights and creating a new mechanism for monitoring the human rights infringement by the Member States. A final conclusion, quite interesting for the debated topic refers to the fact that in the emphasised context, the Union does not gain any new competences or tasks on human rights protection and the provisions of the Charter are mainly directed to the Union institutions and to the Member States only when they are acting within the scope of the Union law. Matteo Gnes's conference tries to address other question: "European legal integration: new possibilities for EU and non-EU citizens?" Based on a broad range of relevant cases, Centros, Akrich or Polish plumber, the conclusion of the conference refers to the phenomena due to the convergence of market forces and legal principles embodied in the principles of free movement. Even if some of those phenomena may foster Euro sceptic attitudes, the final conclusion is: "European integration is an extremely positive central aspect of everyday life of every European citizen". In addition to the topics on fundamental rights and freedoms, it emerges the issue of the public contracts in the European law. The debate with legal and economic features, presented by Professor Pierre Nihoul is structured on the principles of competition, transparency and neutrality and it highlights the necessity to take into consideration the social, environmental, ethic and fair concerns on the public markets. In this context, however, it is worth to mention a conclusion. It refers, on one hand, to the fact that the opportunities provided by the legal texts remain limited and, on the other hand, the exercise of public powers does not sufficiently reflect the development of the legal debate. The contents of the other two conferences are complementary, being focused on the EU democratic legal order, respectively the European judiciary. The most important issues addressed by Professor Bertrand Mathiew in his conference refer to the legitimacy of the European legal order and to the interrogation on: "European Parliament, a representation of the European citizens?" We also find the response to those topics or questions in the second part of the presentation concerning the European Parliament which is considered an institution participating in the democratic functioning of the European Union; thus it becomes "an instrument of embryo for separation of powers", and its representative function is challenged by other forms of democratic expression. Professor Thomas Oppermann presents his arguments and the structures triggering the European judiciary. As a cross-national democracy observing the rule of law, the EU needs an independent judiciary system – the third power, the constitutive Treaties legitimate the fact that the EU is a "Union of law", interpreting and enforcing the European law. The European legislation is mandatory in all Member States.
The Economica Publishing House,Bucharest,Romania
Matei, Lucica.
2010-07
Book
PeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/14411/1/Normativity[1]_Lucica_Matei.pdf
Timsit, Gerard and Gnes, Matteo and Mathieu, Bertrand and Nihoul, Pierre and Opperman, Thomas and Raulus, Helen and Jacque, Jean Paul. (2010) Normativity, Fundamental Rights and Legal Order in the EU. The Economica Publishing House,Bucharest,Romania, p. 171.
http://aei.pitt.edu/14411/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:14426
2011-02-15T23:33:35Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
7375626A656374733D44:44303032:44303032303032
74797065733D706F6C6963797061706572
A need for strategy in a multipolar world: Recommendations to the EU after Lisbon. Egmont Security Policy Brief No. 5, January 2010
Renard, Thomas.
Biscop, Sven.
common foreign & security policy 1993--European Global Strategy
Lisbon Treaty
The Lisbon Treaty now having entered into force, it is time for the EU to get back to work and more specifically to focus on its foreign policy. In a world that is increasingly complex and multipolar, the EU must act strategically. To avoid becoming an irrelevant international actor, Brussels needs to (1) develop a grand strategy to define the true purpose of its foreign policy; (2) forge solid strategic partnerships with key global players; and (3) contribute to the building of a new effective multilateral system which takes into account the new global structure of power.
2010-01
Policy Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/14426/1/SPB%2D5_EU%2DStrategy%2Dfor%2Da%2DMultipolar%2DWorld.pdf
Renard, Thomas. and Biscop, Sven. (2010) A need for strategy in a multipolar world: Recommendations to the EU after Lisbon. Egmont Security Policy Brief No. 5, January 2010. [Policy Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/14426/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:14443
2011-02-15T23:33:42Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303035:69646F7067:69646F7067646D706D
7375626A656374733D44:44303035:69646F7067:69646F706767656E6572616C
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
74797065733D706F6C6963797061706572
Lisbon five months on: Surveying the new EU political scene. EPIN Commentaries No. 5, 29 April 2010
Kaczynski, Piotr Maciej.
general
Lisbon Treaty
decision making/policy-making
The Treaty of Lisbon entered into force five months ago, introducing six major institutional innovations that were supposed to make the Union more efficient, more transparent and increase its legitimacy. Twelve authors from the European Policy Institutes Network consider how the ‘new’ Europe is shaping up and whether it is likely to have any more appeal for European citizens.
2010-04
Policy Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/14443/1/No_5_PMK_et_al_Lisbon_5_months_on_e%2Dversion_final.pdf
Kaczynski, Piotr Maciej. (2010) Lisbon five months on: Surveying the new EU political scene. EPIN Commentaries No. 5, 29 April 2010. [Policy Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/14443/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:14444
2011-02-15T23:33:42Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
7375626A656374733D44:44303032:44303032303032
74797065733D776F726B696E677061706572
Common Security and Defence Policy and the Lisbon Treaty Fudge: No common strategic culture, no major progress. EPIN Working Paper No. 28, 10 June 2010
Margaras, Vasilis.
common foreign & security policy 1993--European Global Strategy
Lisbon Treaty
With the establishment of the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) in 1999, the EU aimed to tackle challenges in the field of security by deploying various police and military missions in troubled crisis areas. The consolidation of the CSDP raised hopes for the EU’s role in external affairs. However, the majority of CSDP missions are still on a small scale. Strategic disagreements among EU partners persist on issues of UN legality, NATOneutrality and the geographic deployment of missions. This lack of consensus is due to a lack of common ideas, values and practices regarding the use of police and military force in Europe. In short: there is no common strategic culture. This paper analyses some of the major provisions of the Lisbon Treaty that impact upon the CSDP. It argues that although some of these provisions sound positive on paper, they will not necessarily enhance the development of a common strategic culture. And without the consolidation of such a culture, the CSDP cannot deliver ambitious results. A strong commitment to invest in capabilities and the political will to assume more responsibility in the field of security are necessary prerequisites for further progress in the CSDP.
2010-06
Working Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/14444/1/EPIN_WP28_Margaras_e%2Dversion_revised.pdf
Margaras, Vasilis. (2010) Common Security and Defence Policy and the Lisbon Treaty Fudge: No common strategic culture, no major progress. EPIN Working Paper No. 28, 10 June 2010. [Working Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/14444/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:14446
2011-02-15T23:33:44Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D46:46303239
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:6575726F7065616E69736174696F6E6575726F7065616E697A6174696F6E6E6174696F6E616C6964656E74697479
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:706F6C69746963616C6166666169727331323334:70616666706F6C69746963616C70617274696573
74797065733D776F726B696E677061706572
Understanding Klaus: The Story of Czech Eurorealism. EPIN Working Paper No. 26, 25 November 2009
Braun, Mats.
europeanisation/europeanization & European identity
Czech Republic
Lisbon Treaty
political parties
The obstacles that surrounded the Czech ratification process of the Lisbon Treaty should not be understood as proof of the strength of Czech euroscepticism –in fact the opposite is true, argues Mats Braun of the Institute of International Relations in Prague. The Czech political elite are becoming more pro-European, partly as a result of the increased interaction with their European counterparts and EU officials, not least during the preparations for and the organisation of the Czech Council Presidency. The problems of ratifying the LT in the country should be seen as an attempt by an ever-shrinking part of the elite who resist socialisation, to make a final imprint on the future of Europe.
2009-11
Working Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/14446/1/understanding%2Dklaus%2Dstory%2Dczech%2Deurorealism.pdf
Braun, Mats. (2009) Understanding Klaus: The Story of Czech Eurorealism. EPIN Working Paper No. 26, 25 November 2009. [Working Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/14446/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:14448
2019-12-10T21:24:16Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
7375626A656374733D44:44303032:44303032303032
74797065733D706F6C6963797061706572
Implementing the Lisbon Treaty: The External Policy Dimension. Bruges Political Research Paper No.14, May 2010
Missiroli, Antonio.
common foreign & security policy 1993--European Global Strategy
Lisbon Treaty
This policy brief examines the implementation to date of the Lisbon Treaty's provisions for EU external policy, in particular the High Representative/Commission Vice President and the External Action Service. Numerous challenges inherent to the structure of the system are becoming apparent already, involving as they are complex trade-offs both between EU institutions and among the Member States. The EU's ability to act as a coherent external actor will be tested only after the new 'system' takes a clearer shape. This may take time and require adjustments along the way - while the rapid evolution of the international system and dramatic power shifts at the global level require both immediate action and strategic vision.
2010-05
Policy Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/14448/1/wp14_Missiroli.pdf
Missiroli, Antonio. (2010) Implementing the Lisbon Treaty: The External Policy Dimension. Bruges Political Research Paper No.14, May 2010. [Policy Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/14448/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:14463
2019-12-13T18:02:53Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:443030316C61776C6567616C61666661697273
7375626A656374733D46:46303037
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:443030316C61776C6567616C61666661697273:443030316C61776C6567616C61666661697273636F6D706E6174696D70
74797065733D64697363757373696F6E7061706572
Is the European Federation a "Mission Impossible"?: A Critical Analysis of the German Constitutional Court's Judgement on the Lisbon Treaty. ZEI Discussion Paper No. 201, 2010
Leonardy, Uwe.
law & legal affairs-general (includes international law)
Germany
Lisbon Treaty
compliance/national implementation
[From the Introduction]. The Court’s Reasoning and Conclusions to be Analyzed. The Court based these two barriers mainly on its understanding of • its own notion of an "association of sovereign national states" ("Staatenverbund") • the characteristics of the EU as a supranational body • the notions of "constitutional identity" and in that context of "sovereignty" • the requirements for democratic representation in a federally or quasifederally organized body • the "principle of conferral", the new categorization of EU competences and its implications • the rejection of an EU "competence on competence" and the need for clear delimitations of EU-competences. After investigating these matters and summing up the results of that analysis the judicial prospects for a European Federation will have to be considered.
2010
Discussion Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/14463/1/dp_c201_Leonardy.pdf
Leonardy, Uwe. (2010) Is the European Federation a "Mission Impossible"?: A Critical Analysis of the German Constitutional Court's Judgement on the Lisbon Treaty. ZEI Discussion Paper No. 201, 2010. [Discussion Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/14463/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:14468
2011-02-15T23:33:52Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303335:737067656E6572616C
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
74797065733D776F726B696E677061706572
I diritti sociali fondamentali dopo il Trattato di Lisbona (tanto tuono che piovve). = Fundamental social rights after the Treaty of Lisbon. WP C.S.D.L.E. "Massimo D'Antona" " .INT - 81/2010
Caruso, Bruno.
general
Lisbon Treaty
No abstract.
2010
Working Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/14468/1/caruso_n81%2D2010int.pdf
Caruso, Bruno. (2010) I diritti sociali fondamentali dopo il Trattato di Lisbona (tanto tuono che piovve). = Fundamental social rights after the Treaty of Lisbon. WP C.S.D.L.E. "Massimo D'Antona" " .INT - 81/2010. [Working Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/14468/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:14474
2011-02-15T23:33:54Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303339:443030313033394575726F7065616E636974697A656E73686970
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:706F6C69746963616C6166666169727331323334:7061666664656D6F637261637964656D6F63726174696364656669636974
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:706F6C69746963616C6166666169727331323334:706166666C65676974696D616379
7375626A656374733D44:44303035:44303035303135
74797065733D776F726B696E677061706572
Am Ende des europaischen Verfassungsprozesses: Mehr Demokratie, Partizipation und Legitimation durch den Reformvertrag?=At the end of the European constitutional process: More democracy, participation and legitimacy through the Lisbon Treaty? TAIF Nr. 5/2010
Wilde, Gabriele.
democracy/democratic deficit
European citizenship
European Parliament
legitimacy
Lisbon Treaty
The paper starts by reconstructing the European constitutional project, which began with the famous speech of the former German Minister of external affairs Joschka Fischer and which is about to come to an end with the Lisbon Treaty. Against this background the paper poses the question why constitution-building in the European Union collapsed and it reflects upon the consequences of the Lisbon Treaty for the democratic quality of the European multi-level system. The hypothesis put forward claims that the reform treaty is the logical consequence of a constitution-building process based on a concept of institutions following a nation-state model from the very beginning. The paper sketches out the key assumptions of current constitutional theory and illustrates in how far this understanding of a constitution is inherent in the European constitution-building process using the examples of the constitutional convention, EU citizenship, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and the European Parliament.
2010
Working Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/14474/1/Wilde_TAIF5_2010.pdf
Wilde, Gabriele. (2010) Am Ende des europaischen Verfassungsprozesses: Mehr Demokratie, Partizipation und Legitimation durch den Reformvertrag?=At the end of the European constitutional process: More democracy, participation and legitimacy through the Lisbon Treaty? TAIF Nr. 5/2010. [Working Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/14474/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:14516
2011-02-15T23:34:14Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303035:69646F7067:69646F706767656E6572616C
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
7375626A656374733D44:44303032:44303032303032
74797065733D706F6C6963797061706572
Capital Brussels: What kind of political actor will the Lisbon EU be? CEPS Commentaries, 26 February 2010
Kaczynski, Piotr Maciej
Schout, Adriaan.
common foreign & security policy 1993--European Global Strategy
general
Lisbon Treaty
Despite all the changes introduced in the EU over the last year – including the appointment of President Van Rompuy, the formation of the EU’s external action service with Baroness Ashton as 'Minister' of foreign affairs, the increased powers (both formal and informal) of the Parliament and the multiplication of EU agencies – and contrary to expectations, 2009 will not be remembered as the year in which 'Brussels' fell apart. Instead, according to this analysis of the current and prospective situation, it seems to have emerged more or less as a normal European capital with different institutions playing their expected roles in ways similar to that observed in 'normal' capitals.
2010-02
Policy Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/14516/1/PMK_and_AS_on_Capital_Brussels.pdf
Kaczynski, Piotr Maciej and Schout, Adriaan. (2010) Capital Brussels: What kind of political actor will the Lisbon EU be? CEPS Commentaries, 26 February 2010. [Policy Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/14516/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:14535
2011-02-15T23:34:22Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D46:46303239
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
74797065733D706F6C6963797061706572
Next time must be different. CEPS Commentaries, 4 November 2009
Gros, Daniel.
Czech Republic
Lisbon Treaty
In signing the Lisbon Treaty on November 3rd, Czech President Václav Klaus brought to an anti-climatic close years of protracted and often acrimonious negotiations to overhaul the European Union’s institutional infrastructure. The EU's reform treaty is now fully ratified and is expected to enter into force on 1 December 2009. However frustrating and bruising the ratification experience may have been, it is hoped that the whole saga will have the unintended (but finally, positive) consequence of strengthening the determination of those wishing to ensure that the next round of treaty change can enter into force even if one or more member countries is not willing or able to agree to it.
2009-11
Policy Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/14535/1/next%2Dtime%2Dmust%2Dbe%2Ddifferent.pdf
Gros, Daniel. (2009) Next time must be different. CEPS Commentaries, 4 November 2009. [Policy Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/14535/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:14542
2011-02-15T23:34:25Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
7375626A656374733D44:44303032:44303032303032
74797065733D706F6C6963797061706572
Looking afresh at the external representation of the EU in the international arena, post-Lisbon. CEPS Policy Brief No. 212, 20 July 2010
Emerson, Michael
Kaczynski, Piotr Maciej.
common foreign & security policy 1993--European Global Strategy
Lisbon Treaty
What would the EU need to do to its external representation to be effectively equipped as a global international actor in the emerging multi-polar world? In general, an extensive 'upgrade' of the EU’s external representation is required, since the EU often languishes in the observer ranks even where its competences may be substantial. This is a highly complex field, however – politically, legally and institutionally – and any attempt to formulate operational recommendations will have to be finely tuned to many different specific situations. This Policy Brief by CEPS Research Fellows Michael Emerson and Piotr Kaczyński serves both as an overview of the complexities of EU and member state external representation and as an invitation to further debate on the issue. It forms part of a project being undertaken by a working group consisting of CEPS, EPC, the Egmont Centre and the Leuven University Centre for Global Governance Studies.
2010-07
Policy Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/14542/1/PB212_ME_%26_PMK_on_EU_External_Representation.pdf
Emerson, Michael and Kaczynski, Piotr Maciej. (2010) Looking afresh at the external representation of the EU in the international arena, post-Lisbon. CEPS Policy Brief No. 212, 20 July 2010. [Policy Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/14542/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:14548
2011-02-15T23:34:28Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303035:69646F7067:69646F7067646D706D
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303230
7375626A656374733D44:44303035:69646F7067:69646F706767656E6572616C
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
7375626A656374733D44:44303032:44303032303032
74797065733D706F6C6963797061706572
Single voice, single chair? How to re-organise the EU in international negotiations under the Lisbon rules. CEPS Policy Brief No. 207, 24 March 2010
Kaczynski, Piotr Maciej.
common foreign & security policy 1993--European Global Strategy
general
Lisbon Treaty
environmental policy (including international arena)
decision making/policy-making
This paper by CEPS Research Fellow Piotr Kaczyński explores the possibilities offered to the EU as an actor in international negotiations as a result of the provisions and the 'spirit' of the Treaty of Lisbon and against the background of the complex internal political situation in the EU. Following a review of the previous decision-making system, which many stakeholders would like to see preserved, he examines the relevant provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon. He then looks at how the system can be reformed in order to improve the EU’s leverage and effectiveness in international negotiations. The EU’s experience in the climate change negotiations in Copenhagen is used for purposes of illustration.
2010-03
Policy Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/14548/1/PB207_Piotr_on_EU_International_Negotations_e%2Dversion.pdf
Kaczynski, Piotr Maciej. (2010) Single voice, single chair? How to re-organise the EU in international negotiations under the Lisbon rules. CEPS Policy Brief No. 207, 24 March 2010. [Policy Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/14548/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:14554
2011-02-15T23:34:31Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303035:44303035303136
7375626A656374733D44:44303035:69646F7067:69646F706767656E6572616C
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
7375626A656374733D44:44303032:44303032303032
74797065733D706F6C6963797061706572
Two new leaders in search of a job description. CEPS Policy Brief No. 200, 25 November 2009
Kaczynski, Piotr Maciej
o Broin, Peadar.
common foreign & security policy 1993--European Global Strategy
general
European Council-Presidency
Lisbon Treaty
After weeks of intense speculation, the question of who will fill the new EU positions of European Council President and High Representative for EU foreign policy has now been answered: Herman Van Rompuy will take office as European Council President on 1 January 2010; and Catherine Ashton will be appointed the EU’s foreign affairs chief on 1 December 2009. The question of precisely what powers these two individuals will exercise under the new Treaty of Lisbon, however, remains largely unanswered, as it is not yet clear how they will perform as individuals and in tandem. In this Policy Brief drafted in the days immediately following the selection of these two leaders, CEPS researchers Piotr Maciej Kaczyński & Peadar ó Broin, attempt to give at least a general indication of the two leaders’ powers, based on the provisions in the Treaties.
2009-11
Policy Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/14554/1/two%2Dnew%2Dleaders%2Dsearch%2Djob%2Ddescription.pdf
Kaczynski, Piotr Maciej and o Broin, Peadar. (2009) Two new leaders in search of a job description. CEPS Policy Brief No. 200, 25 November 2009. [Policy Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/14554/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:14565
2011-02-15T23:34:32Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:443030316C61776C6567616C61666661697273
7375626A656374733D46:46303239
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
74797065733D706F6C6963797061706572
The Treaty of Lisbon and the Czech Constitutional Court: Act II. CEPS Policy Brief No. 197, 27 October 2009
Slosarcik, Ivo.
Czech Republic
law & legal affairs-general (includes international law)
Lisbon Treaty
Most of the media attention given to the ratification process of the Lisbon Treaty in the Czech Republic has been devoted to the antics of the President, Václav Klaus. The process is being delayed, however, not only by the President’s reservations and requests for a Czech (quasi)opt-out from the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, but also by the pending review of the Treaty by the Czech Constitutional Court (CCC), which is looking into the Lisbon Treaty for the second time; having delivered its first decision in autumn 2008. In this CEPS Policy Brief, Ivo Slosarcik a Czech constitutional law specialist and Jean Monnet Chair in European Law at Charles University in Prague, reviews the legal state of affairs within the CCC and outlines possible scenarios for future developments.
2009-10
Policy Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/14565/1/treaty%2Dlisbon%2Dand%2Dczech%2Dconstitutional%2Dcourt%2Dact%2Dii.pdf
Slosarcik, Ivo. (2009) The Treaty of Lisbon and the Czech Constitutional Court: Act II. CEPS Policy Brief No. 197, 27 October 2009. [Policy Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/14565/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:14577
2011-02-15T23:34:38Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:65636F6E6F6D696366696E616E6369616C61666661697273:65666153696E676C654D61726B6574:65666153696E676C654D61726B65746361706974616C676F6F64737365727669636573
74797065733D776F726B696E677061706572
Do the European Union's bilateral investment treaties matter? The way forward after Lisbon. CEPS Working Document No. 333, July 2010
Guerin, Selen.
capital, goods, services, workers
Lisbon Treaty
This working paper addresses a number of policy-relevant issues regarding the EU’s bilateral investment treaties (BITS), namely, whether the EU’s BITs have a significantly positive impact on outflows; and which member states and which BIT partners have had a significant experience after the implementation of the BIT. The author finds that both OECD BITs and EU BITs have a statistically significant and positive impact on FDI outflows. This result is robust to the inclusion of variables such as privatisation proceeds that control for the level of economic reform, the level of trade linkages, the level of democratic freedom and a measure of risk of expropriation among other standard controls. A number of policy implications of these findings are also considered.
2010-07
Working Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/14577/1/WD333_Sarisoy_Guerin_on_Bilateral_Investment_Treaties_rev.pdf
Guerin, Selen. (2010) Do the European Union's bilateral investment treaties matter? The way forward after Lisbon. CEPS Working Document No. 333, July 2010. [Working Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/14577/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:14871
2014-04-08T13:40:03Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:706F6C69746963616C6166666169727331323334:7061666664656D6F637261637964656D6F63726174696364656669636974
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
74797065733D706F6C6963797061706572
spotlight europe #2010/07, August 2010: A revolution in disguise: the European Citizens' Initiative
Hierlemann, Dominik
Wohlfarth, Anna.
democracy/democratic deficit
Lisbon Treaty
The European Citizens’ Initiative is a feature of the Treaty of Lisbon that many people have as yet to discover. However, even though it has often been criticized as being a kind of bogus participation that is no more than a placebo, it may well change the European Union, for it contains the seeds of a European public sphere and European parties. In this respect the initiative has already been a success.
2010-08
Policy Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/14871/1/xcms_bst_dms_32090_32091_2.pdf
Hierlemann, Dominik and Wohlfarth, Anna. (2010) spotlight europe #2010/07, August 2010: A revolution in disguise: the European Citizens' Initiative. [Policy Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/14871/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:14874
2011-02-15T23:36:48Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:706F6C69746963616C6166666169727331323334:7061666664656D6F637261637964656D6F63726174696364656669636974
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
74797065733D706F6C6963797061706572
spotlight europe #2010/07, August 2010: Europaische Burgerinitiative: Neuerung mit Sprengkraft = The European Citizens' Initiative: a revolution in disguise
Hierlemann, Dominik
Wohlfarth, Anna.
democracy/democratic deficit
Lisbon Treaty
No abstract.
2010-08
Policy Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/14874/1/xcms_bst_dms_32088_32089_2.pdf
Hierlemann, Dominik and Wohlfarth, Anna. (2010) spotlight europe #2010/07, August 2010: Europaische Burgerinitiative: Neuerung mit Sprengkraft = The European Citizens' Initiative: a revolution in disguise. [Policy Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/14874/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:15107
2011-02-15T23:38:27Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303339:4430303130333968756D616E726967687473
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303339:443030313033394575726F7065616E636974697A656E73686970
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
74797065733D706F6C6963797061706572
The European Union after the Treaty of Lisbon. Fundamental rights and EU citizenship. CEPS Liberty and Security in Europe, July 2010
Guild, Elspeth.
European citizenship
human rights
Lisbon Treaty
This paper outlines the key changes brought about by the Lisbon Treaty for citizens of the Union. Among the most important is access to EU fundamental rights through the legal effect that has been given through the Lisbon Treaty to the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. The three main consequences of this access to rights are: Citizens of the EU now have a Charter of Rights that is legally binding and which their state authorities must deliver in accordance with their duty of good faith to the EU; Third country nationals ever more resemble citizens of the Union through their inclusion as beneficiaries of Charter rights under the same conditions as citizens of the Union; The Charter provides a new and potentially very important source of rights for people in Europe, which cannot be modified by any one member state’s authorities on the basis of the inconvenience that those rights might constitute to them. There has been a desegregation of authority and rights which will assist member state authorities to have greater confidence in one another and people to have greater confidence in all EU authorities.
2010-07
Policy Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/15107/1/Guild_Jean_Monnet_speech_e%2Dversion.pdf
Guild, Elspeth. (2010) The European Union after the Treaty of Lisbon. Fundamental rights and EU citizenship. CEPS Liberty and Security in Europe, July 2010. [Policy Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/15107/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:15128
2011-02-15T23:38:33Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:65636F6E6F6D696366696E616E6369616C61666661697273:6663723230303839
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
74797065733D706F6C6963797061706572
A post-mortem on the European Council. CEPS Commentaries, 2 November 2010.
Gros, Daniel
Broin, Peadar o.
Kaczynski, Piotr Maciej.
financial crisis 2008-on/reforms/economic governance
Lisbon Treaty
At the European Council meeting of 28-29 October 2010, the heads of state reached a highly unexpected unanimous agreement to a ‘limited’ Treaty reform, which in turn would allow Germany to agree to a permanent crisis resolution mechanism, as a permanent successor to the temporary European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF). In this Commentary, CEPS Director Daniel Gros and his colleagues Peadar ó Broin and Piotr Maciej Kaczyński examine this agreement and offer their interpretation of the Council’s intentions and identify possible obstacles to these intentions being realised
2010-11
Policy Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/15128/1/DG%2C_PoB_%26_PMK_on_European_Council.pdf
Gros, Daniel and Broin, Peadar o. and Kaczynski, Piotr Maciej. (2010) A post-mortem on the European Council. CEPS Commentaries, 2 November 2010. [Policy Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/15128/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:15131
2011-02-15T23:38:34Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
74797065733D706F6C6963797061706572
How to change the EU treaties. An overview of revision procedures under the Treaty of Lisbon. CEPS Policy Brief No. 215/October 2010
Broin, Peadar o.
Lisbon Treaty
Despite its protracted ratification process and pledges from national administrations and EU authorities that the Lisbon Treaty had closed the issue of treaty reform for the foreseeable future, a number of modifications to the EU treaties are currently in the pipeline. This Policy Brief provides an overview of the various procedures that are available for changing the Treaty of Lisbon.
2010-10
Policy Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/15131/1/PB_215_o'Broin_on_Lisbon.pdf
Broin, Peadar o. (2010) How to change the EU treaties. An overview of revision procedures under the Treaty of Lisbon. CEPS Policy Brief No. 215/October 2010. [Policy Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/15131/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:15132
2011-02-15T23:38:34Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:65636F6E6F6D696366696E616E6369616C61666661697273:6663723230303839
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
74797065733D706F6C6963797061706572
From Lisbon to Deauville: practicalities of the Lisbon treaty revision(s). CEPS Policy Brief No. 216/October 2010
Kaczynski, Piotr M.
Broin, Peadar o.
financial crisis 2008-on/reforms/economic governance
Lisbon Treaty
This paper explores the political difficulties of treaty reform in the context of five pending revisions under the rules of the Treaty of Lisbon. It first looks at the Deauville Declaration and its translation into political and legal reality. The second part is dedicated to the four other treaty revisions on the European agenda. Finally, it focuses on some of the potential problems in the ratification phase. The Deauville Declaration of Chancellor Merkel and President Sarkozy represents the most visible of the five treaty changes on the table since the Lisbon Treaty came into effect. This treaty change cannot increase Union’s powers. Even if it was feasible to write a treaty change in such a way that would include both a provision on the suspension of the voting rights (using the Art. 7 TEU) and provisions establishing “a permanent and robust framework to ensure orderly crisis management in the future”, the idea of suspending voting rights should be dropped. It is antagonising many national governments and could trigger – largely unwanted – referenda and court cases. It is important, however, to insert into the treaties an EFSF-type solution to equip the EU with a mechanism to address future crises
2010-10
Policy Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/15132/1/PB_216_Piotr_%26_Peadar_on_Lisbon_Revisions.pdf
Kaczynski, Piotr M. and Broin, Peadar o. (2010) From Lisbon to Deauville: practicalities of the Lisbon treaty revision(s). CEPS Policy Brief No. 216/October 2010. [Policy Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/15132/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:15139
2019-12-10T21:30:04Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:443030314575726F706532303230
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:65636F6E6F6D696366696E616E6369616C61666661697273:6663723230303839
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
74797065733D706F6C6963797061706572
From institutional consolidation to policy delivery. Speech delivered on the occasion of the 40th annual meeting of the University Association of Contemporary European Studies, hosted by the College of Europe. Bruges Political Research Papers No. 16, September 2010
Sefcovic, Maros.
Europe 2020
financial crisis 2008-on/reforms/economic governance
Lisbon Treaty
Europe is indeed at a crossroads. Not that there have not been quite a number of crossroads in the recent history of European integration – sometimes decision-makers probably felt as if they were in Midtown Manhattan – but this is indeed a crucial point in time for the future of the Union. The EU has gone through a period of an extraordinary economic and financial crisis that has resulted in policy decisions which would have been difficult to imagine only six or twelve months ago.
2010-09
Policy Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/15139/1/wp16_Sefcovic.pdf
Sefcovic, Maros. (2010) From institutional consolidation to policy delivery. Speech delivered on the occasion of the 40th annual meeting of the University Association of Contemporary European Studies, hosted by the College of Europe. Bruges Political Research Papers No. 16, September 2010. [Policy Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/15139/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:15768
2011-02-15T23:42:53Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303035:44303035303136
7375626A656374733D44:44303035:69646F7067:69646F706767656E6572616C
7375626A656374733D46:46303039
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
74797065733D706F6C6963797061706572
How to assess a rotating Presidency of the Council under new Lisbon rules. The case of Hungary. CEPS Policy Brief No. 232/February 2011
Kaczynski, Piotr Kaczynski.
general
European Council-Presidency
Lisbon Treaty
Hungary
The new Lisbon Treaty has completely changed the role of the rotating presidency. Before Lisbon, the political responsibility of each of presidency included almost all areas of the European project with the main decisions being brokered by national diplomats. Under the new system this ‘political’ dimension has been seriously curtailed, if not done away with. The main task of rotating presidencies in the new institutional system is to manage ongoing legislation within the Council and with the European Parliament. To be successful a presidency needs two domestic elements: the first is dedication on the part of the political elites of the country and the second is a public administration committed to playing the role of honest broker in the Council.
2011-02
Policy Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/15768/1/Policy_Brief_No_232_Piotr_on_Hungarian_Presidency.pdf
Kaczynski, Piotr Kaczynski. (2011) How to assess a rotating Presidency of the Council under new Lisbon rules. The case of Hungary. CEPS Policy Brief No. 232/February 2011. [Policy Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/15768/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:15771
2011-02-15T23:42:54Z
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:706F6C69746963616C6166666169727331323334:70616666676F7665726E616E6365
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
74797065733D6F74686572
Paper tigers or sleeping beauties? National parliaments in the post-Lisbon European political system. CEPS Special Report/February 2011
Kaczynski, Piotr Macief.
governance: EU & national level
Lisbon Treaty
There remains a degree of uncertainty about the role of national parliaments in the European system of governance under the rules of the Treaty of Lisbon. The legion of 10,000 national parliamentarians should guard the principle of subsidiarity in EU legislation, which now constitutes about one quarter of all laws adopted in member states. Confusion arises over how many of the new post-Lisbon prerogatives belong to individual national chambers, and how many require a collective response. Until the ‘collective’ voice is organised effectively, national parliaments will remain ‘paper tigers’ in the EU decision-making process. The national chambers’ powers could have far-reaching consequences, however, as one of their roles is to contribute to the ‘good governance’ of the European Union. Even though the readiness of national chambers to engage actively in EU affairs is limited, it is on the increase, albeit disproportionately.
2011-02
Other
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/15771/1/Kaczynski_on_National_Parliaments_post_Lisbon_e%2Dversion_rev.pdf
Kaczynski, Piotr Macief. (2011) Paper tigers or sleeping beauties? National parliaments in the post-Lisbon European political system. CEPS Special Report/February 2011. UNSPECIFIED.
http://aei.pitt.edu/15771/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:30042
2011-03-21T13:00:44Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303139
74797065733D776F726B696E677061706572
EU energy policy under the Treaty of Lisbon rules-between a new policy and business as usual. EPIN Working Paper No. 31/February 2011
Braun, Jan Frederik.
energy policy (Including international arena)
Lisbon Treaty
This paper provides a preliminary assessment of the EU’s energy policy under the Treaty of Lisbon rules. It reviews the major and minor effects of the rules on energy
(both formally and informally) and how these are perceived by the EU institutions post-Lisbon. This includes consideration of the new elements of the reformed
institutional architecture in this policy area. In the context of the Treaty of Lisbon,
the main questions this paper seeks to answer are to what extent energy policy constitutes a new policy area and whether the EU is a more coherent actor in this
and other instances where competence is shared with the member state
2011-02
Working Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/30042/1/EPIN_WP31_Braun_on_EU_Energy_Policy_under_Lisbon.pdf
http://shop.ceps.eu/book/eu-energy-policy-under-treaty-lisbon-rules-between-new-policy-and-business-usual
Braun, Jan Frederik. (2011) EU energy policy under the Treaty of Lisbon rules-between a new policy and business as usual. EPIN Working Paper No. 31/February 2011. [Working Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/30042/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:31653
2011-05-02T00:32:37Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:65636F6E6F6D696366696E616E6369616C61666661697273:6566617472616465706F6C696379
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
7375626A656374733D44:44303035:44303035303135
74797065733D776F726B696E677061706572
Taking stock: EU Common Commercial Policy in the Lisbon Era. CEPS Working Document No. 346, April 2011
Kleimann, David.
European Parliament
Lisbon Treaty
trade policy
The first 16 months of the EU’s common commercial policy (CCP) in the post-Lisbon period provide indicative insights into how the European Parliament, the European Commission and the Council of Ministers interpret their respective roles under the new legal framework introduced by the Lisbon Treaty. This paper analyses the amendments, the institutional capacities to respond to the reform challenges and the evolving institutional balance applying to Lisbon-era common commercial policy. Against this backdrop, the paper gives an overview of the changing dynamics of EU trade and investment policy in a context of enhanced politicization resulting from the European Parliament’s involvement in the decision-making process. Particular importance is given to the question whether enhanced EP involvement in decision-making has the potential to lead to a scenario resembling the policy process in the United States, where congressional responsibility for trade and investment policy has resulted in the capture of the policy agenda by special interest groups and snail-paced policy progress (if any) in recent years. Accordingly, the paper scrutinizes the political preferences that the European Parliament is introducing into current European trade policy debates as well as the framework legislation and trade agreements. Finally, it is argued that parliamentary involvement in making common commercial policy has the potential to narrow the gap between European public political preferences and perceptions, on the one hand, and actual EU trade policies on the other, and to place EU trade and investment policies on a foundation of renewed public political support. In the author’s view, however, it is imperative that such an achievement is based on well-informed, responsible, sustainable and clearly communicated policy proposals from the MEPs, who respond to and seek to balance the multiplicity of interests of CCP stakeholders in European civil society and respect the Union’s international obligations.
2011-04
Working Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/31653/1/WD_345_Kleimann_on_EU_CCP[1].pdf
http://shop.ceps.eu/book/taking-stock-eu-common-commercial-policy-lisbon-era
Kleimann, David. (2011) Taking stock: EU Common Commercial Policy in the Lisbon Era. CEPS Working Document No. 346, April 2011. [Working Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/31653/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:32319
2011-09-13T16:54:02Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303035:44303035303136
7375626A656374733D46:46303039
7375626A656374733D46:46303032
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
7375626A656374733D44:44303032:44303032303032
74797065733D776F726B696E677061706572
Background vocals: what role for the rotating Presidency in the EU's external relations post-Lisbon? College of Europe EU Diplomacy Paper 05/2011
Szabo, Erika Marta
common foreign & security policy 1993--European Global Strategy
European Council-Presidency
Belgium
Hungary
Lisbon Treaty
The crucial changes brought about by the Lisbon Treaty to the institutions of the European Union have affected and re-structured the role of the rotating Presidency. This paper examines the extent to which the rotating Presidency still plays a role in the EU's external relations. First of all, the multiple roles of the rotating Presidency (agenda-shaper, consensus-builder, external representative) are identified based on former Treaty provisions and practice. Secondly, the paper focuses on the practice of the Belgian (second half of 2010) and the Hungarian (first half of 2011) Presidencies, highlighting specific cases during their terms which show that the transitional period of the Lisbon system is characterised by uncertain institutional questions that may result in controversial issues. The ‘transitional’ rotating Presidencies still have the possibility to shape new roles. The paper concludes that the role and influence of the rotating Presidency remain; however, a shift towards the EU’s internal level through the important role of a consensus-builder can be observed.
2011-05
Working Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/32319/1/EDP_5_2011_ErikaSzabo.pdf
http://www.coleurop.be/template.asp?pagename=EUDP
Szabo, Erika Marta (2011) Background vocals: what role for the rotating Presidency in the EU's external relations post-Lisbon? College of Europe EU Diplomacy Paper 05/2011. [Working Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/32319/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:32322
2011-09-13T14:33:36Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303035:69646F7067:69646F706768646F63
7375626A656374733D45:45303131
7375626A656374733D45:45303035
7375626A656374733D44:44303032:443030326673703139353031393932657063
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
7375626A656374733D44:44303032:44303032303032
74797065733D706F6C6963797061706572
Death of an institution: the end for Western European Union, a future for European defence? Egmont Paper No. 46, May 2011
Bailes, Alyson JK
Messervy-Whiting, Graham
common foreign & security policy 1993--European Global Strategy
foreign/security policy 1950s-1992 (includes EPC)
NATO
WEU
Lisbon Treaty
historical development of EC (pre-1986)
Executive summary. On 31 March 2010 the ten Member States of Western European Union (WEU) announced that the last organs, staffs and activities of that institution would be laid to rest by 30 June 2011. Having resiled from the Modified Brussels Treaty (MBT) of 1954 which created WEU as a successor to the Western Union of 1948, these nations are now working to dispose of the staff, premises and archives at WEU’s Brussels offices and its Parliamentary Assembly in Paris. Little public interest has been shown in these moves, perhaps because WEU’s operational and political work had already been taken over by the European Union (EU), in the frame of its new European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP), at the end of 1999.
Why get rid of WEU’s last vestiges precisely now? This study addresses the question, and seeks to assess WEU’s achievements and legacies by reviewing its 57-year career from cradle to grave. Modest though WEU’s own role may have been, it has been intimately linked with one of the great policy challenges of the post-war world: the search for a distinct and effective form of ‘European defence’.
The original Brussels Treaty of 1948, creating a permanent guaranteed defence relationship between the UK, France and the Benelux countries, was a vital step towards the realization of the North Atlantic Alliance. When the attempt to create an even more deeply integrated European Defence Community including Germany broke down in 1954, WEU was created as a self-confessed pis aller. Its treaty, the MBT, still contained absolute mutual guarantees but from the start WEU left the operative work of defence to NATO. It fulfilled useful tasks in cementing the post-war order, but then sank into slumber until the mid-1980s. When first reawakened, it became a talking-shop for a core group of West Europeans, helping them cope with the trans-Atlantic strains of the time and developing some sense of Europe’s shared and distinct security interests.
During the 1990s, WEU had to reinvent itself in face of demands for post-Cold War enlargement and new-style crisis management operations. It was further steered by the evolving needs of the EU and NATO, for whom it came to serve as intermediary. Its low profile and flexibility let it bring the enlargement candidates and European non-Allies, as well as non-EU members of NATO, closely into its work from an early date. It invented a definition (‘Petersberg formula’) for crisis management tasks that could realistically be carried out by Europeans alone; and it built intricate partnerships with both NATO and the EU that in theory allowed NATO’s military assets to be borrowed for missions under an EU political lead. However, the only operations actually launched under a WEU flag were loosely coordinated naval ones, and police and other civilian actions. WEU never enjoyed the political status or trust in capitals to be seriously considered for more demanding military tasks, even when European coalitions were in the lead.
Frustration with this situation, and with the weak show made by European capabilities under a NATO flag, drove Britain and France in 1998 to propose giving the EU its own military arm. The formula adopted for this in Helsinki at end-1999 limited EU actions to the ‘Petersberg’ crisis management and humanitarian spectrum, thus avoiding a direct clash with NATO and allowing the EU’s non-Allied members to participate fully. The non-EU European Allies, however, lost status compared with WEU and this led to Turkish blocking tactics for the first years of ESDP, delaying the first ESDP operations (in Former Yugoslavia) to 2003. Nevertheless the bulk of WEU’s functions were transferred to EU equivalents, leaving a residual secretariat to guard the MBT. The WEU Institute for Security Studies and Satellite Centre became EU agencies and a few years later, the two WEU-linked armament cooperation bodies WEAG and WEAO were superseded by the EU’s European Defence Agency.
Economy-minded nations were pondering a final close-down of WEU as early as 2004, but the decisive move came in February 2010 following entry into force of the EU’s Lisbon Treaty. This text contains (Article 42.7) a pledge by all 27 EU members to assist each other against military attack, but – contrasting with the MBT’s clarity – the language is heavily qualified by references to NATO’s primacy and respect for the non-Allies’ status. Prompted by the UK with arguments for cost-saving, the WEU powers nevertheless agreed in March 2010 that this development made the MBT redundant. Behind their decision seems to lie an acceptance that the European defence idea can be pushed no further in the EU framework, at least for the foreseeable future. NATO still plays the beau rôle in ‘hard’ peace missions as well as territorial defence, and commands more attention even from the French military than a European Union handicapped by German (and other) misgivings. The Franco-British defence treaty of November 2010 signals a certain impatience with all institutional constraints, as well as the severity of post-2008 budget pressures.
An initial post mortem on WEU’s achievements could give credit for its role in early post-war consolidation; for its political services both to a European security identity and to trans-Atlantic harmony from the 80s onwards; and its help in cementing common approaches especially to crisis management missions across the wider Europe. Its ‘Petersberg’ formula has stood the test of time and remains at the heart of EU Treaty provisions on practical defence cooperation. The WEU Institute and Satcen have discovered wider horizons under EU ownership, while WEAO in particular showed a way forward in the still problematic field of defence industrial collaboration. In the military and operational sphere WEU’s acquis was drawn upon extensively and usefully, where appropriate, during ESDP’s formative period, though for obvious reasons this was not highlighted at the time. This acquis included planning in the operational, logistic, command and control, communications and force generation fields; the construction of intelligence and situational awareness capabilities; the design of crisis management, exercise and training procedures; and the experience of mounting the first (modest) Petersberg-style operation – MAPE in Albania.
The EU has proved unable to absorb, let alone improve upon, three things from WEU’s legacy: the true collective defence guarantees of the MBT, the openness to Turkey and other non-EU Allies, and the maintenance of a specialized parliamentary assembly for defence and security (which will be replaced, at best, by a much weaker inter-parliamentary network). In all other respects European defence and security cooperation has clearly fared much better under the EU’s wing than it ever could in WEU, producing more than 20 actual crisis operations for a start. If the EU now finds itself unable to move further, there are at least two possible hopeful readings of the post-WEU situation. One is that the EU and its members will be spurred to greater and more integrated defence efforts by some future set of challenges, distinct from 20th-century territorial warfare. The other reading is that the EU’s nature, values, longer-term survival and true security potential are better served without a ‘hard’ military personality. The kind of European defence that WEU and its Treaty stood for has proved elusive after nearly 60 years of effort: could it also be, in the final analysis, unnecessary and undesirable?
2011-05
Policy Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/32322/1/ep46.pdf
http://www.egmontinstitute.be/paperegm/ep46.pdf
Bailes, Alyson JK and Messervy-Whiting, Graham (2011) Death of an institution: the end for Western European Union, a future for European defence? Egmont Paper No. 46, May 2011. [Policy Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/32322/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:32324
2011-09-13T14:43:29Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D45:45303130
7375626A656374733D44:44303032:636F6E726573
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
7375626A656374733D44:44303032:44303032303032
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:6D656469616D65646961
74797065733D706F6C6963797061706572
Worse, not better? Reinvigorating early warning for conflict prevention in the post Lisbon European Union. Egmont Paper No. 48, June 2011
Brante, John
De Franco, Chiara
Meyer, Christoph O.
Otto, Florian
common foreign & security policy 1993--European Global Strategy
UN
Lisbon Treaty
conflict resolution/crisis management
media
Executive summary. The number and lethality of conflicts has been declining significantly since the end of the Cold War, but five new armed conflicts still break out each year. While costly peace-making, stabilisation and reconstruction efforts have helped to end conflicts, no comparative efforts have gone into preventing them from
occurring in the first place. The international community appears stuck in the never-ending travails of managing crises, finding it difficult to act early to prevent new conflicts from escalating. Encouraging signs that this is changing include the United Nations (UN) promotion of the preventive arm of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and the United States’ efforts to improve its capacity to prevent conflicts and mass atrocities emerging from the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review. Similarly, since the launch of the Gothenburg programme in 2001, the European Union (EU) has embraced the case for
conflict prevention in policy documents as well as in the Lisbon Treaty itself, making it a hallmark of its approach to international security and conflict in contrast to conventional foreign policy. Yet, it has fallen significantly short in translating these aspirations into institutional practice and success on the
ground. It suffers from the ‘missing middle’ syndrome between long-term structural prevention through instruments such as conditionality for EU accession and development policy, and short-term responses to erupting crisis through military and civilian missions.
The Lisbon Treaty amendments – in particular the creation of the ‘double-hatted’ High Representative (HR) and the European External Action Service (EEAS) – are widely seen as major opportunities to make the EU more capable, active and coherent. We welcome these opportunities, especially the potential
for joint threat assessment and coherence in policy, the improved presence on the ground through EU delegations and the influx of experienced diplomats from Member States. At the same time, our paper draws on research into the warning-response problem to express two main concerns: first, key weaknesses of the old system are not sufficiently addressed such as, insufficient orientation
to longer-term forecasting and effective warning, privileging of crisis management against prevention and divergent dispositions among intelligence consumers. More worrying still, the new system could lead to lower receptivity and slower responses due to growing information noise, excessively hierarchical
relations as well as an even tighter bottleneck in information processing and decision-making at the top of the broader pyramidal structure. We argue that warning-response will always be a challenge and it is unrealistic to get it right all of the time. However, we advance a number of recommendations addressed
primarily to the EU, which could help to mitigate some of the problems obstructing warning for early action:
• to reinvigorate its commitments to conflict prevention and ring-fence institutional resources against competing demands from crisis management;
• to develop a strategic warning doctrine to deal with the uncertainties, overlaps and gaps the current system produces;
• to promote a so-called ‘customer-driven approach’ among warning producers and embrace a number of analytical techniques to improve analysis and warning impact;
• to make sure that the EEAS does not create a culture adverse to warning by replicating the overly hierarchical and formalistic culture pervading the European Commission;
• to devolve analytical resources as well as responsibilities for civilian preventive action to EU delegations and EU Special Representatives to avoid the bottleneck problem;
• to lend more financial and intelligence support to regional and local early warning systems/NGOs, particularly those which integrate warning and response under one roof.
Our paper also addresses the growing importance of the news media and nongovernmental organisations for alleviating the warning-response gap. NGO staff as well as journalists can offer excellent expertise of particular countries and can communicate warnings in some circumstances more effectively than
analysts within a bureaucracy. Moreover, early action sometimes requires public advocacy in order to challenge some of the disincentives to act on the part of governments and the EU. NGOs also play an important role in holding decisionmakers to account for failing to act despite early, clear and well-substantiated warnings. In order to enhance the role of NGOs and the news media we recommend
that:
• the EU should more systematically collect and assess information coming from NGOs and aim to formalise and regularise opportunities for sharing information such as thematic working groups;
• NGOs need to invest more time in understanding how their public communication is perceived by decision-makers and should become more alert to the reputational risks arising from ‘over-warning’, moralising and unrealistic recommendations;
• more efforts need to be made to sensitise ‘news decision-makers’ to biases, both geographical and topical, in their coverage and remind them that besides their obligation towards shareholders/owners, they have to fulfil a ‘responsibility to report’ about impending crises;
• the EU should explore how to support journalists in producing proactive and in-depth foreign affairs coverage, for example by funding organisations that could provide grants for reporting about regions under-represented in the media or issues the news media tend to overlook.
2011-06
Policy Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/32324/1/ep48.pdf
http://www.egmontinstitute.be/paperegm/ep48.pdf
Brante, John and De Franco, Chiara and Meyer, Christoph O. and Otto, Florian (2011) Worse, not better? Reinvigorating early warning for conflict prevention in the post Lisbon European Union. Egmont Paper No. 48, June 2011. [Policy Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/32324/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:32328
2011-09-16T18:34:09Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:627564676574706F6C696379
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
74797065733D776F726B696E677061706572
Change and stability in the EU budget. EU Centre Working Paper No. 3, August 2011
Seifert, Jan
Lisbon Treaty
budgets & financing
This paper analyses how change and stability have affected EU budget policy during the current 2007-13 period. It argues that the budget is, on the whole, marked by stability, but changes were seen within and across specific policies leading to three revisions of the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) during the first Barroso Commission. These changes and the new institutional provisions of the Lisbon Treaty may hold interesting projections for the next multi-annual budget period starting in 2014.
2011-08
Working Paper
NonPeerReviewed
other
http://aei.pitt.edu/32328/1/EUCWorkingPaperNo3.pdf
http://www.eucentre.sg/articles/306/downloads/EUCWorkingPaperNo3.pdf
Seifert, Jan (2011) Change and stability in the EU budget. EU Centre Working Paper No. 3, August 2011. [Working Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/32328/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:32361
2011-09-27T14:25:05Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303335:737067656E6572616C
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
74797065733D776F726B696E677061706572
Dopo la politica i diritti: l'Europa "sociale" nel Trattato di Lisbona. = After politics and rights: “Social Europe” in the Lisbon Treaty. WP C.S.D.L.E. "Massimo D'Antona" .INT - 82/2010
Alaimo, Anna.
Caruso, Bruno
Lisbon Treaty
general
No abstract.
2010
Working Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/32361/1/alaimo%2Dcaruso_n82%2D2010int.pdf
http://www.lex.unict.it/eurolabor/ricerca/wp/int/alaimo-caruso_n82-2010int.pdf
Alaimo, Anna. and Caruso, Bruno (2010) Dopo la politica i diritti: l'Europa "sociale" nel Trattato di Lisbona. = After politics and rights: “Social Europe” in the Lisbon Treaty. WP C.S.D.L.E. "Massimo D'Antona" .INT - 82/2010. [Working Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/32361/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:32454
2012-12-11T16:10:52Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:44303033303033
7375626A656374733D44:44303032:44303032303232
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:65636F6E6F6D696366696E616E6369616C61666661697273:656661454D55454D536575726F
7375626A656374733D44:44303032:44303032303230
7375626A656374733D44:44303035:69646F7067:69646F706767656E6572616C
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
7375626A656374733D46:46303130
7375626A656374733D44:44303032:44303032303037
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:706F6C69746963616C6166666169727331323334:706166664575726F7065616E656C656374696F6E73
74797065733D626F6F6B
Lisbon 'Fado': the European Union under reform.
Bickerton, Chris
Boening, Astrid
de Pitta e Cunha, Paulo
Dehousse, Renaud
Domínguez, Roberto
de Vidales, Covadonga Ferrer Martín
Kanner, Aimee
Kreidman, Adam
Van Langenhove, Luk
Laursen, Finn
Lorca, Francisco J.
Lorca-Susino, María
Marchesi, Daniele
Silva Morais, Luís
Roy, Joaquín
Schmidt, Vivien A.
Ziller, Jacques
EU-Mediterranean/Union for the Mediterranean
regionalism, international
EU-Latin America
European Convention
Ireland
Lisbon Treaty
EMU/EMS/euro
general
European elections/voting behavior
To address the uncertainties surrounding the
Treaty of Lisbon, this book examines several issues
from various angles. Regardless of the results
of the second referendum in Ireland and the
pending ratifications in Poland, the Czech
Republic and Germany, the European Union (EU)
will not be the same after the Lisbon Treaty.
If it comes into effect, Europeans will enter into
a new stage in the deepening of the integration
process; if it is rejected, the first decade
of the 21st Century will represent a period of
institutional stagnation in Europe’s integration.
Nonetheless, the chapters in this book share the
consensus that, despite its limitations,
the Lisbon Treaty will make the EU decision
making process more efficient, enhance regional
democracy and strengthenits international voice.
Roy, Joaquin.
Dominguez, Roberto.
2009
Book
PeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/32454/1/Lisbon_Fado%2Dtextfinal%2Dall.pdf
http://www6.miami.edu/eucenter/
Bickerton, Chris and Boening, Astrid and de Pitta e Cunha, Paulo and Dehousse, Renaud and Domínguez, Roberto and de Vidales, Covadonga Ferrer Martín and Kanner, Aimee and Kreidman, Adam and Van Langenhove, Luk and Laursen, Finn and Lorca, Francisco J. and Lorca-Susino, María and Marchesi, Daniele and Silva Morais, Luís and Roy, Joaquín and Schmidt, Vivien A. and Ziller, Jacques (2009) Lisbon 'Fado': the European Union under reform. UNSPECIFIED.
http://aei.pitt.edu/32454/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:32550
2011-10-03T19:19:55Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303035:44303035303132
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
74797065733D776F726B696E677061706572
The European Court of Justice: empowered after Lisbon. EPIN Working Paper No. 31, 26 September 2011
Brisard, Sébastien
European Court of Justice/Court of First Instance
Lisbon Treaty
This paper considers the most important changes brought by the Treaty of Lisbon to the functioning of the Court of Justice of the European Union. These changes concern the internal organisation of the institution, the appointment of its members and the extension of its jurisdiction in the areas of freedom, security and justice, foreign and security policy, as well as its new power to protect fundamental rights.
Concerning Court judges, the paper explores the theoretical option of increasing their term of office to nine years to ensure a greater degree of continuity in exchange for non-renewability - a change that will enhance the independence of judges. This paper is written in French, prefaced by a synopsis in English.
2011-09
Working Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/32550/1/EPIN_WP32_Brisard%2D1.pdf
http://shop.ceps.eu/book/european-court-justice-empowered-after-lisbon
Brisard, Sébastien (2011) The European Court of Justice: empowered after Lisbon. EPIN Working Paper No. 31, 26 September 2011. [Working Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/32550/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:32641
2011-12-24T02:54:07Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:443030316C61776C6567616C61666661697273
7375626A656374733D46:46303037
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303339:74706A6861706A63636D67656E6572616C
7375626A656374733D44:44303032:44303032696E7465726E6174696F6E616C65636F6E6F6D79
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:44303033303032
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303130
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:706F6C69746963616C6166666169727331323334:7061666664656D6F637261637964656D6F63726174696364656669636974
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303335:737067656E6572616C
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:65636F6E6F6D696366696E616E6369616C61666661697273:6663723230303839
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
7375626A656374733D44:44303032:44303032303032
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303139
7375626A656374733D46:46303131
74797065733D626F6F6B
The European Union in the 21st century: Perspectives from the Lisbon Treaty. CEPS Paperbacks. December 2009
Micossi, Stefano
Tosato, Gian Luigi
Cassese, Sabino
Bastasin, Carlo
Ferrera, Maurizio
Sacchi, Fiorella
Bruzzone, Ginevra
Prosperetti, Luigi
Termini, Valeria
Merlini, Cesare
Cangelosi, Rocco A.
Salleo, Ferdinando
Pansa, Alessandro
Padoan, Pier Carlo
Chitti, Mario P.
della Cananea, Giancinto
Manzella, Andrea
competition policy
energy policy (Including international arena)
law & legal affairs-general (includes international law)
common foreign & security policy 1993--European Global Strategy
international economy
enlargement
Germany
Italy
Lisbon Treaty
financial crisis 2008-on/reforms/economic governance
democracy/democratic deficit
general
general
The new Treaty of Lisbon brings important changes to the European construction, including a significant expansion of common policies decided by the Community method, a stable President for the European Council, a strengthened framework for external policies, more transparent and effective decision-making and strict safeguards of subsidiarity. This collection of essays edited by Stefano Micossi and Gian Luigi Tosato, analyse the changing equilibria in common policies, institutional settings and mechanisms of legitimisation of the European Union and sketch out possible scenarios for the 21st century.
Micossi, Stefano
Tosato, Gian Luigi
2009-12
Book
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/32641/1/64._Europe_in_the_21st_Century.pdf
http://www.ceps.eu/book/europe-21st-century-perspectives-lisbon-treaty
Micossi, Stefano and Tosato, Gian Luigi and Cassese, Sabino and Bastasin, Carlo and Ferrera, Maurizio and Sacchi, Fiorella and Bruzzone, Ginevra and Prosperetti, Luigi and Termini, Valeria and Merlini, Cesare and Cangelosi, Rocco A. and Salleo, Ferdinando and Pansa, Alessandro and Padoan, Pier Carlo and Chitti, Mario P. and della Cananea, Giancinto and Manzella, Andrea (2009) The European Union in the 21st century: Perspectives from the Lisbon Treaty. CEPS Paperbacks. December 2009. Series > Centre for European Policy Studies (Brussels) > CEPS Paperbacks <http://aei.pitt.edu/view/series/SMCEPSPaperbacks.html> . UNSPECIFIED. ISBN 9789290799290
http://aei.pitt.edu/32641/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:32646
2011-12-24T02:16:44Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303339:74706A6861706A63636D67656E6572616C
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:706F6C69746963616C6166666169727331323334:7061666664656D6F637261637964656D6F63726174696364656669636974
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303339:74706A6861706A63636D746572726F7269736D
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
74797065733D626F6F6B
The Area of Freedom, Security and Justice ten years on: Successes and future challenges under the Stockholm Programme. CEPS Paperbacks. June 2010
Guild, Elspeth
Carrera, Sergio
Eggenschwiler, Alejandro
Lisbon Treaty
democracy/democratic deficit
general
terrorism
This book celebrates the tenth anniversary of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) by bringing together the views of key practitioners and policy-makers who have played an outstanding role in thinking about and shaping EU policies on freedom, security and justice.
Ten years ago, the member states transferred competences to the EU for law and policy-making in the fields of immigration, asylum and border controls, and began the transfer process for criminal justice and policing. This decade of European cooperation on AFSJ policies has experienced very dynamic convergence, the enactment of a large body of European law and the setting-up of numerous EU agencies working in these domains. Such dynamism in policy-making has not been without challenges and vulnerabilities, however. As this collective volume shows, the main dilemmas that lie ahead relate to an effective (while more plural) institutional framework under the Treaty of Lisbon, stronger judicial scrutiny through a greater role for national courts and the Court of Justice in Luxembourg, better mechanisms for evaluating and monitoring the implementation of EU AFSJ law and a more solid fundamental rights strategy. The contributions in this volume address the progress achieved so far in these policy areas, identify the challenges for future European cooperation in the AFSJ and put forward possible paths for making more progress in the next generation of the EU’s AFSJ.
Guild, Elspeth
Carrera, Sergio
Eggenschwiler, Alejandro
2010-06
Book
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/32646/1/69._The_Area_of_Freedom%2C_Security_and_Justice_ten_years_on.pdf
http://www.ceps.eu/book/area-freedom-security-and-justice-ten-years-successes-and-future-challenges-under-stockholm-pro
Guild, Elspeth and Carrera, Sergio and Eggenschwiler, Alejandro (2010) The Area of Freedom, Security and Justice ten years on: Successes and future challenges under the Stockholm Programme. CEPS Paperbacks. June 2010. Series > Centre for European Policy Studies (Brussels) > CEPS Paperbacks <http://aei.pitt.edu/view/series/SMCEPSPaperbacks.html> . UNSPECIFIED. ISBN 9789461380340
http://aei.pitt.edu/32646/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:32648
2011-11-25T17:45:52Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:706F6C69746963616C6166666169727331323334:70616666676F7665726E616E6365
7375626A656374733D44:44303035:44303035303130
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
7375626A656374733D44:44303035:44303035303131
7375626A656374733D44:44303032:44303032303032
7375626A656374733D44:44303035:44303035303135
74797065733D626F6F6B
The Treaty of Lisbon: A Second Look at the Institutional Innovations. CEPS Paperbacks. September 2010
Broin, Peadar ó
Kaczyński, Piotr Maciej
common foreign & security policy 1993--European Global Strategy
European Commission
European Council
European Parliament
Lisbon Treaty
governance: EU & national level
Together with researchers from two other Brussels-based research institutes - Egmont (Belgium’s Royal Institute of International Affairs) and the European Policy Centre (EPC), CEPS - examines the institutional innovations that are gradually being introduced as a result of the Treaty of Lisbon.
2010-09
Book
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/32648/1/71._The_Treaty_of_Lisbon.pdf
http://www.ceps.eu/book/treaty-lisbon-second-look-institutional-innovations
Broin, Peadar ó and Kaczyński, Piotr Maciej (2010) The Treaty of Lisbon: A Second Look at the Institutional Innovations. CEPS Paperbacks. September 2010. Series > Centre for European Policy Studies (Brussels) > CEPS Paperbacks <http://aei.pitt.edu/view/series/SMCEPSPaperbacks.html> . UNSPECIFIED. ISBN 9782930432212
http://aei.pitt.edu/32648/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:32651
2011-11-25T17:34:14Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:443030316C61776C6567616C61666661697273
7375626A656374733D45:494C4F
7375626A656374733D45:45303130
7375626A656374733D45:45303034
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
7375626A656374733D44:44303032:44303032303032
74797065733D626F6F6B
Upgrading the EU's Role as Global Actor: Institutions, Law and the Restructuring of European Diplomacy. CEPS Paperbacks. January 2011
Balfour, Rosa
Corthaut, Tim
Wouters, Jan
Emerson, Michael
Kaczyński, Piotr Maciej
Renard, Thomas
law & legal affairs-general (includes international law)
common foreign & security policy 1993--European Global Strategy
IMF
UN
ILO
Lisbon Treaty
The international order is experiencing fundamental changes driven by globalisation and the multipolarity emerging from the new balance of power. In response, a new book by a team of experts assembled by CEPS argues that the EU should build up a world-class diplomatic corps, capable of becoming a major actor in global affairs, drawing on enabling provisions in the Treaty of Lisbon.
The report investigates two prerequisites for achieving this goal: first, enhancement of the status of the EU in numerous multilateral organisations, international agreements and fora (the UN, IMF, etc.) and second, a restructuring of European diplomacy, involving a reallocation of functions and resources between the new European diplomatic corps (the European External Action Service) and the diplomatic representations of the 27 EU member states worldwide.
Recommendations are formulated on where and how to upgrade the EU’s status in the international arena. Scenarios are presented for the build-up of the EU’s diplomatic corps, alongside a slimming down of national diplomacies. The authors warn that failure to act along these lines will result in an increasingly irrelevant, obsolete and wasteful European diplomacy.
2011-01
Book
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/32651/1/74._Upgrading_the_EU's_Role_as_a_global_actor.pdf
http://www.ceps.eu/book/upgrading-eus-role-global-actor-institutions-law-and-restructuring-european-diplomacy
Balfour, Rosa and Corthaut, Tim and Wouters, Jan and Emerson, Michael and Kaczyński, Piotr Maciej and Renard, Thomas (2011) Upgrading the EU's Role as Global Actor: Institutions, Law and the Restructuring of European Diplomacy. CEPS Paperbacks. January 2011. Series > Centre for European Policy Studies (Brussels) > CEPS Paperbacks <http://aei.pitt.edu/view/series/SMCEPSPaperbacks.html> . UNSPECIFIED. ISBN 9789461380524
http://aei.pitt.edu/32651/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:32655
2011-11-25T13:14:13Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303035:69646F7067:69646F7067646D706D
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:65636F6E6F6D696366696E616E6369616C61666661697273:656661454D55454D536575726F
7375626A656374733D44:44303035:69646F7067:69646F706767656E6572616C
7375626A656374733D44:44303035:44303035303132
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:706F6C69746963616C6166666169727331323334:70616666707569657075
7375626A656374733D44:44303035:44303035303131
7375626A656374733D44:44303032:44303032303032
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:6C6F626279696E67696E746572657374726570726573656E746174696F6E
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:627564676574706F6C696379
7375626A656374733D44:44303035:44303035303130
7375626A656374733D44:44303035:69646F7067:69646F706768646F63
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:706F6C69746963616C6166666169727331323334:7061666664656D6F637261637964656D6F63726174696364656669636974
7375626A656374733D44:44303032:443030326673703139353031393932657063
7375626A656374733D44:44303035:44303035303033
7375626A656374733D44:44303035:44303035303135
74797065733D626F6F6B
The Ever-Changing Union: An Introduction to the History, Institutions and Decision-making Processes of the European Union. 2nd Revised Edition. CEPS Paperbacks. April 2011
Egenhofer, Christian
Kurpas, Sebastian
Kaczyński, Piotr Maciej
Van Schaik, Louise
common foreign & security policy 1993--European Global Strategy
foreign/security policy 1950s-1992 (includes EPC)
Council of Ministers
European Commission
European Council
European Court of Justice/Court of First Instance
European Parliament
Lisbon Treaty
budgets & financing
EMU/EMS/euro
decision making/policy-making
general
historical development of EC (pre-1986)
lobbying/interest representation
democracy/democratic deficit
political union & integration/European Political Union
This fully revised, second edition of the Ever-Changing Union provides a concise overview of the EU’s history, institutional structures and decision-making processes. It looks at the fundamental principles of European integration and describes the progress of this integration from its beginning. It also covers the EU’s main institutions and how they interact in the decision-making process as a whole. This new edition focuses on the changes introduced by the Lisbon Treaty and explains how the EU’s external action is conducted by the post-Lisbon EU. Other additions to this second edition are new sections on the EU budget, the euro and its governance, lobbying and interest representation.
This book is written for those with an initial or occasional interest in European policies and politics. More particularly, the authors believe it will be useful for civil servants, diplomats, business and NGO representatives, as well as students and scholars who encounter the EU in their work.
2011-04
Book
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/32655/1/78._Ever%2DChanging_Union.pdf
http://www.ceps.eu/book/ever-changing-union-introduction-history-institutions-and-decision-making-processes-european-un
Egenhofer, Christian and Kurpas, Sebastian and Kaczyński, Piotr Maciej and Van Schaik, Louise (2011) The Ever-Changing Union: An Introduction to the History, Institutions and Decision-making Processes of the European Union. 2nd Revised Edition. CEPS Paperbacks. April 2011. Series > Centre for European Policy Studies (Brussels) > CEPS Paperbacks <http://aei.pitt.edu/view/series/SMCEPSPaperbacks.html> . UNSPECIFIED. ISBN 9789290799801
http://aei.pitt.edu/32655/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:33001
2011-12-19T21:25:07Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:44303033303032
7375626A656374733D46:46303038
7375626A656374733D44:44303032:44303032303130
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303335:737067656E6572616C
7375626A656374733D46:46303336
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
7375626A656374733D46:46416C62616E6961
7375626A656374733D46:46303139
7375626A656374733D46:46303131
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:443030316C61776C6567616C61666661697273
7375626A656374733D46:46303238
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:4430303170707061
7375626A656374733D46:46303339
74797065733D70726F63656564696E6773
National and European Values of Public Administration in the Balkans
Matei, Ani
Radulescu, Crina
law & legal affairs-general (includes international law)
public policy/public administration
EU-South-Eastern Europe (Balkans)
enlargement
Greece
Italy
Romania
Bulgaria
Croatia
Macedonia
Albania
Lisbon Treaty
general
The current volume represents the outcome of the international conference “National and European Values of Public Administration in the Balkans”, organised in Bucharest on 15 – 16 July 2011.
The conference has been organised by Jean Monnet research network dedicated to “South-Eastern European developments on the administrative convergence and enlargement of the
European Administrative Space in Balkan states”, representing the third edition of the events
organised under the above aegis.
The research network, comprising the National School of Political Studies and Public
Administration (NSPSPA), Bucharest, Romania, University of the Aegean, Mytilene, Greece,
New Bulgarian University, Sofia, Bulgaria, University of Rijeka, Croatia and the European
Public Law Organization (EPLO) with headquarters in Athens, Greece has developed and
continues to develop studies and researches specific for the development of public
administration in the Balkan states.
The keynote speakers of the conference included Mw. Dr. Helena Raulus, EU Law Docent,
Faculteit der Rechtsgeleerdheid , Erasmus Universiteit, Netherlands, Prof. Dr. Spyridon
Flogaitis, Director, President of the BoD, European Public Law Organization, Greece and
Prof. Dr. Lucica Matei, Dean, Faculty of Public Administration, National School of Political
Studies and Public Administration, Romania.
The contents of the papers presented have been focused on the following topics:
EU normative support for sustaining the process of administrative convergence
European Administrative Space principles – pillars for the mechanisms of evaluation
of public administration reforms
Balkan priorities for European Administrative Space enlargement
Other two sub adjacent topics have been added, aiming especially the doctoral students,
emphasising the following themes:
The process of administrative convergence at EU level
Efficiency, effectiveness and responsibility in the European Administrative Space
European Administrative Space. Priorities of the future.
For the international conference, 88 abstracts were received, of which due to the first selection
achieved by the Conference Scientific Committee, 56 papers were accepted.
After presentation, the papers have been improved and subjected to double review, so that
there were accepted for publication 36 papers, having 46 authors from nine countries:
Romania, Greece, Bulgaria, Netherlands, Albania, France, Croatia, Italy and USA and two
European organisations: EPLO and EIPA.
The general conclusion expected for the final of our conference could refer to the existence of
a Balkan Administrative Space as part of the European Administrative Space.
Even if the area of the Balkan Administrative Space is confined, we have to highlight the
unity in diversity as a fundamental feature.
The unity derives from the ideals of European integration of the Balkan states and the
diversity derives from the national histories, cultural diversity and their national identity.
The connections of the Balkan Administrative Space become day by day more powerful
related to the European Administrative Space.
They are determined by the development of the processes of convergence and administrative
dynamics as well as by the internal developments induced by the administrative reforms in the
mentioned states.
In this context, we could assert that by means of the research proposed and achieved, our
project has open new agendas of research, that partially have been expressed in our research
reports, publications etc.
At the same time, as remarked from the contents of this conference, the national and European
values of the Balkan Administrative Space are substantiated on the regulatory framework of
the European Union, the processes of convergence and administrative dynamics, as well as on
the principles of the European Administrative Space.
In fact, as it is well known, the latter becomes a non-formalised acquis of the European Public
Administration, representing a standard for assessing the progress in the reforms of the
national public administrations.
Our conference has taken place under the auspices of this generous perspective.
I would like to express my kind thanks to everyone for your contribution to conceiving,
organising and delivering this scientific event.
Economica Publishing House,Bucharest, Romania
Matei, Ani
Radulescu, Crina
2011-11
Conference Proceedings
PeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/33001/1/ASsee_No_4.pdf.pdf
http://www.balcannet.eu/ASsee/ASsee_No_4.pdf.pdf
Matei, Ani and Radulescu, Crina (2011) National and European Values of Public Administration in the Balkans. [Conference Proceedings]
http://aei.pitt.edu/33001/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:33040
2012-08-19T21:36:41Z
7374617475733D756E707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
74797065733D636F6E666572656E63655F6974656D
Mapping the Overlapping Spheres: European Constitutionalism after the Treaty of Lisbon
Cooper, Ian
Lisbon Treaty
Despite their substantial similarity, there are two principal overarching differences
between the abandoned Constitutional Treaty and its intended successor, the Treaty of
Lisbon. The latter document has been methodically stripped of many elements that gave
the former a “constitutional” flavour; and the latter text has been interspersed with
numerous additional safeguards to prevent the encroachment of EU law upon member
state law. In this way the Treaty of Lisbon signals, on balance, a rejection of the notion
of EU law either as inherently superior to member state law or inherently expansive in its
scope. Rather, it is more conducive with a pluralist conception of European
constitutionalism in which EU and member state law constitute parallel and overlapping
spheres. They are parallel in that they coexist without either one being superior to the
other; and they are overlapping in that they have partly merged, but also remain separate
in important ways. In fact if we “map” the overlapping spheres we find three distinct
legal “zones” kept apart by well-maintained boundaries, in which the overall
constitutional order is relatively stable and coherent. Whether or not the Treaty of Lisbon
becomes law, this pluralist conception will endure for the foreseeable future.
2009
Conference or Workshop Item
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/33040/1/cooper._ian.pdf
http://www.euce.org/eusa2009/papers.php
Cooper, Ian (2009) Mapping the Overlapping Spheres: European Constitutionalism after the Treaty of Lisbon. In: UNSPECIFIED. (Unpublished)
http://aei.pitt.edu/33040/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:33146
2012-08-19T20:46:41Z
7374617475733D756E707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
74797065733D636F6E666572656E63655F6974656D
The Treaty of Lisbon – a step towards enhancing leadership in the EU?
Toemmel, Ingeborg
Lisbon Treaty
The Treaty of Lisbon as well as its predecessor – The Draft Constitutional Treaty – has been widely discussed under the objectives of the Laeken Declaration, aimed at improving the effectiveness, transparency and democratic accountability of the EU. Although these declared objectives play a role in the revision of the Treaties, a hidden agenda also underlies the reform. In light of an enlarged, but deeply divided Union challenged by ever more pressing problems, the lack of institutional provisions for effective leadership seems to be of major concern to the member states. However, enhancing leadership in the EU is not an easy endeavor, as the system is highly fragmented, characterized by manifold contradictions in its institutional structure, and faced with strong vested interests of the member states. This paper highlights the institutional innovations of the Lisbon Treaty aimed at enhancing political leadership in the EU. It shows that leadership is not enhanced across all institutions of the EU alike, but the reform clearly privileges the Councils. There capacity for jointly exercising leadership is enhanced through delegation of powers to third actors and the redefinition of the voting rules. Integration-minded member states choose for this reform in order to overcome problems of collective action and to contain the power of veto-players. Euro-skeptic member states are the potential losers of the envisaged reform.
2009
Conference or Workshop Item
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/33146/1/toemmel._ingebord.pdf
http://www.euce.org/eusa2009/papers.php
Toemmel, Ingeborg (2009) The Treaty of Lisbon – a step towards enhancing leadership in the EU? In: UNSPECIFIED. (Unpublished)
http://aei.pitt.edu/33146/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:33487
2012-02-22T18:38:52Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:443030314575726F706532303230
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:44303031303439
7375626A656374733D46:46303233
7375626A656374733D46:46303035
7375626A656374733D44:44303032:44303032303230
74797065733D706F6C6963797061706572
The Lisbon Treaty's "Europe 2020" Economic Growth Strategy and the Bologna Process. Jean Monnet/Robert Schuman Paper Series Vol. 8, No. 12, June 2011
Barrett, Beverly
education policy/vocational training
Europe 2020
regionalism, international
Finland
Spain
Lisbon Treaty
Excerpt from the Introduction: This paper follows with an overview of regional integration theory, the Lisbon Treaty, the European 2020 strategy, and the Bologna Process. Finally there are two member state examples from within the European Union of Spain and Finland. Spain has undertaken significant education policy reforms in the past two decades, and Finland has had leading indicators in education and economic competitiveness and innovation.
2011-06
Policy Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/33487/1/Barrett_EU2020_Bologna_Process_110600.pdf
http://www.as.miami.edu/eucenter/papers/Barrett_EU2020%20Bologna%20Process%20110600.pdf
Barrett, Beverly (2011) The Lisbon Treaty's "Europe 2020" Economic Growth Strategy and the Bologna Process. Jean Monnet/Robert Schuman Paper Series Vol. 8, No. 12, June 2011. [Policy Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/33487/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:33497
2012-02-20T23:30:44Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303035:69646F7067:69646F7067646D706D
7375626A656374733D44:44303035:69646F7067:69646F706767656E6572616C
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:4430303170707061
74797065733D61727469636C65
Delegated and Implementing Acts: The New Worlds of Comitology - Implications for European and National Public Administrations. EIPAscope 01/2011
Hardacre, Alan
Kaeding, Michael
public policy/public administration
Lisbon Treaty
decision making/policy-making
general
The Treaty of Lisbon (TFEU) significantly changes the theory and practice of the delegation of executive powers to the European Commission, powers which resulted in 14,522 legally binding implementing measures during the sixth legislature under the Barroso I Commission (2004-2009) (in comparison to only 454 legislative acts). The Treaty of Lisbon fundamentally alters the way this system works, and in turn the way everyone works with it, especially European and national public administrations. From obscure and informal beginnings in the field of purely technical agricultural markets in the 1960s, the Lisbon Treaty has in fact made the so-called ‘comitology’ system (and the name) partially redundant. Following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, there are now two new legal bases; Delegated Acts (Article 290) and Implementing Acts (Article 291). This means that the ‘comitology’ world has been split into two.
The new system makes a clear separation between tasks delegated to the Commission that only require pure implementation, Implementing Acts, and those that allow the
Commission to amend, supplement or delete non-essential elements of the legislative act, Delegated Acts. The main changes in the Lisbon system are related to this new category of Delegated Acts, where committees cease to exist and the legislators have equal rights to object to individual Delegated Acts or even to revoke the delegation to the Commission altogether. Under this new situation the Parliament thus stands on an equal footing with the Council. The implications of these changes are considerable, in both practical and political terms, and therefore require serious attention from the EU institutions, Member States, and outside stakeholders.
This short article attempts to address the key changes and questions. Based on the institutions’ Common Understanding on Delegated Acts and the new ‘Comitology’ Regulation 182/2011/EU, which entered into force on 1 March 2011, we present the two new avenues and highlight all the important changes. We conclude with our considerations of the practical implications of the new Lisbon system for European and national public administrations.
European Institute of Public Administration
2011-01
Article
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/33497/1/20110912105558_EipascopeSpecialIssue_Art5.pdf
http://publications.eipa.eu/en/eipascope/downloadarticle/&tid=1779
Hardacre, Alan and Kaeding, Michael (2011) Delegated and Implementing Acts: The New Worlds of Comitology - Implications for European and National Public Administrations. EIPAscope 01/2011. EIPAScope, 2011 (1). pp. 29-32. ISSN 1025-6253
http://aei.pitt.edu/33497/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:33652
2012-03-22T17:51:00Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303032:696E7465726E6174696F6E616C7472616465
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
74797065733D706F6C6963797061706572
Implications of the Lisbon Treaty on EU External Trade Policy. EU Centre Background Brief No. 2, March 2010
Pollet-Fort, Anne
Lisbon Treaty
international trade
This background paper examines the changes introduced by the Lisbon Treaty (which entered into force in December 2009) to the European Union Common Commercial Policy (CCP) and the likely implications for the EU’s trading partners. It begins with an overview of the major changes brought about by the Lisbon Treaty on the EU’s external action and then elaborates more on the specific changes in the area of CCP. The paper further puts forward some possible implications that these changes may have for EU’s external trade relations with third countries.
Hwee, Yeo Lay
2010-03
Policy Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/33652/1/LisbonImpactonTrade%2Drev6Mar.pdf
http://www.eucentre.sg/articles/141/downloads/LisbonImpactonTrade-rev6Mar.pdf
Pollet-Fort, Anne (2010) Implications of the Lisbon Treaty on EU External Trade Policy. EU Centre Background Brief No. 2, March 2010. [Policy Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/33652/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:39285
2014-12-22T15:00:50Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303035:69646F7067:69646F7067646D706D
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:65636F6E6F6D696366696E616E6369616C61666661697273:6663723230303839
7375626A656374733D44:44303035:44303035303132
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
74797065733D6F74686572
Reflections on the institutional balance, the Community Method and the interplay between jurisdictions after Lisbon. Research Papers in Law, 04/2012
Smulders, Ben
Eisele, Katarina
European Court of Justice/Court of First Instance
Lisbon Treaty
financial crisis 2008-on/reforms/economic governance
decision making/policy-making
[Introduction.] Over the last two years, not only inside but also outside the framework of the EU treaties, far reaching measures have been taken at the highest political level in order to address the financial and economic crisis in Europe and in particular the sovereign debt crisis in the Euro area. This has triggered debates forecasting the
“renationalisation of European politics.” Herman Van Rompuy, the President of the European Council, countered the prediction that Europe is doomed because of such
a renationalisation: “If national politics have a prominent place in our Union, why would this not strengthen it?” He took the view that not a renationalisation of European politics was at stake, but an Europeanization of national politics emphasising that post war Europe was never developed in contradiction with nation states.1 Indeed, the European project is based on a mobilisation of bundled, national forces which are of vital importance to a democratically structured and robust Union that is capable of acting in a globalised world. To that end, the Treaty of Lisbon created a legal basis. The new legal framework redefines the balance between the Union institutions and confirms the central role of the Community method in the EU
legislative and judiciary process. This contribution critically discusses the development of the EU's institutional balance after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, with a particular emphasis on the use of the Community Method and the current interplay between national constitutional courts and the Court of Justice. This interplay has to date been characterised by suspicion and mistrust, rather than by a genuine dialogue between the pertinent judicial actors.
2012-07
Other
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/39285/1/researchpaper_4_2012_smulderseisele_final.pdf
http://www.coleurope.eu/sites/default/files/research-paper/researchpaper_4_2012_smulderseisele_final.pdf
Smulders, Ben and Eisele, Katarina (2012) Reflections on the institutional balance, the Community Method and the interplay between jurisdictions after Lisbon. Research Papers in Law, 04/2012. UNSPECIFIED.
http://aei.pitt.edu/39285/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:42919
2019-12-10T21:27:57Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:706F6C69746963616C6166666169727331323334:70616666676F7665726E616E6365:70616666676F7665726E616E63657375626E6174696F6E616C726567696F6E616C2F7465727269746F7269616C
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:706F6C69746963616C6166666169727331323334:706166666C65676974696D616379
74797065733D706F6C6963797061706572
National Parliaments and their Role in European Integration:
The EU’s Democratic Deficit in Times of Economic Hardship
and Political Insecurity. Bruges Political Research Paper 28/2013
Zalewska, Marta
Gstrein, Oskar
Lisbon Treaty
subnational/regional/territorial
legitimacy
The article describes and assesses the role of national parliaments in EU legislation considering the reforms introduced by the Lisbon Treaty. This is closely connected with the understanding and (political) application of the principle of subsidiarity. After an analysis of the possibilities and limitations of the relevant legal regulations in the post-Lisbon age, alternative ways for participation of national legislators on the European
level are being scrutinized and proposed. The issue of democratic legitimization is also interconnected with the current political reforms being discussed in order to overcome the Euro Crisis. Finally, the authors argue that it does not make sense to include national parliaments in the existing legislative triangle of the EU, but instead to promote the creation of a new kind of supervisory body.
2013-02
Policy Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/42919/1/wp28_zalewskagstrein.pdf
Zalewska, Marta and Gstrein, Oskar (2013) National Parliaments and their Role in European Integration: The EU’s Democratic Deficit in Times of Economic Hardship and Political Insecurity. Bruges Political Research Paper 28/2013. [Policy Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/42919/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:43445
2013-09-04T18:19:01Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
7375626A656374733D46:46303233
74797065733D776F726B696E677061706572
The Lisbon Treaty and Spain: Background, Context and Impact. Jean Monnet/Robert Schuman Paper Series Special Issue 1, August 2012
Roy, Joaquín.
Spain
Lisbon Treaty
The year 2010 will be remembered in the European Union (EU) circles of governmental Spain as
a crucial milestone regarding the role of the country in one of the most important alliances of
world history. During the first semester, from January to June 2010, Spain had previously been
scheduled to hold the rotating presidency as done since the times of the inception of the
predecessor of the EU, the European Economic Community (EEC). Furthermore, on June 12,
Spain would be ready to celebrate the 25th anniversary of its adhesion (along with Portugal) to
the European integration experiment, by signing the treaty, effectively acceding to the European
Community (EC) on January 1, 1986. While all of this was set to occur, the new Reform Treaty
(“of Lisbon”) was set to be implemented as a substitute for the failed constitutional text floated
during the first years of the new century. Moreover, these spectacular events unraveled in the
middle of one of the worst economic crises of the world, with considerable impact on the
evolution of the EU and, most especially, Spain. This paper will review the background, context
and impact of particular novel aspects of the new treaty governing the EU and several milestones
regarding the experience of Spain in the European process.
2012-08
Working Paper
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/43445/1/Roy_LisbonTreatySpain.pdf
http://www.as.miami.edu/eucenter/papers/Roy_LisbonTreatySpain.pdf
Roy, Joaquín. (2012) The Lisbon Treaty and Spain: Background, Context and Impact. Jean Monnet/Robert Schuman Paper Series Special Issue 1, August 2012. [Working Paper]
http://aei.pitt.edu/43445/
oai:aei.pitt.edu:43477
2013-10-02T18:08:04Z
7374617475733D707562
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:706F6C69746963616C6166666169727331323334:70616666676F7665726E616E6365
7375626A656374733D44:44303033:4C6973626F6E547265617479
7375626A656374733D44:44303031:706F6C69746963616C6166666169727331323334:70616666676F7665726E616E6365:70616666676F7665726E616E63657375626E6174696F6E616C726567696F6E616C2F7465727269746F7269616C
74797065733D61727469636C65
What Does the Lisbon Treaty Change Regarding Subsidiarity within the EU Institutional Framework?
Arribas, Gracia Vara
Bourdin, Delphine
Lisbon Treaty
governance: EU & national level
subnational/regional/territorial
he principle of subsidiarity refers in general to the choice of the most
suitable and efficient level for taking policy action. The European Union
associates subsidiarity with the way of taking decisions ‘as closely
as possible to the citizen’, as it is referred to in the EU treaties. Thus,
ensuring the respect of subsidiarity within the EU legislative framework
ensures that any EU action is justified when proposing draft legislative
acts. The Lisbon Treaty establishes new mechanisms reinforcing
subsidiarity control, both ex ante and ex post the EU legislative process,
and by doing so, enhances mainly the role of the national parliaments
(and to a lesser extent the regional parliaments) and the Committee of
the Regions. But in the end, this is a way of ensuring legitimacy of the
EU action as it is quite often questioned, especially in times of crisis.
Years of practice will tell whether the words will join reality.
2012
Article
NonPeerReviewed
application/pdf
http://aei.pitt.edu/43477/1/20121213145031_GVA_Eipascope2012_2.pdf
http://www.eipa.eu/files/repository/eipascope/20121213145031_GVA_Eipascope2012_2.pdf
Arribas, Gracia Vara and Bourdin, Delphine (2012) What Does the Lisbon Treaty Change Regarding Subsidiarity within the EU Institutional Framework? EIPAScope, 2012 (2). pp. 13-17. ISSN 1025-6253
http://aei.pitt.edu/43477/metadataPrefix%3Doai_dc%26offset%3D43478%26set%3D7375626A656374733D44%253A44303033%253A4C6973626F6E547265617479