Nicola Chelotti

The Shadow of the European Council. Understanding Legislation on Economic Governance

Abstract This article analyses the role of the European Council in two key legislative packages on economic and budgetary coordination, the Six-pack and the Two-pack, which were negotiated under the ordinary legislative procedure. It assesses how and to what extent the key actor in the literature on the new intergovernmentalism – the European Council – is able to curb the powers of the supranational institutions – the Commission and the European Parliament – in a policy area where the community method has been applied since the Treaty of Lisbon. It tracks the development of the legislative negotiations – from the stages preceding the Commission’s proposal to their conclusions, relying on official documents, press reports and 30 original interviews with key decision-makers. The strong role of the European Council both as an agenda-setter and in the legislative negotiations stands out, and suggests that the implications of new intergovernmentalism may well extend beyond intergovernmental decision-making processes.

Analysing the Links between National Capitals and Brussels in EU Foreign Policy

The article contributes to the study of EU foreign policy decision-making processes by analysing the links between national officials working in the committees of the Council of the EU and their capitals. Through an original dataset of 138 questionnaires (and 20 interviews) with national representatives, it explores the micro-foundations of the formulation of EU foreign policy. It first shows how, even in this most intergovernmental field, diplomats in Brussels play a very important role in the policy process: only 30 per cent claim to always have a mandate and half state that they do not feel constrained by their capital. Next, it reveals that if (larger) member states attempt to retain control of CFSP/CSDP negotiations, the effective discretion/autonomy these officials enjoy depends on the experience accumulated in the decision-making process, and knowledge of the (formal and informal) links between Brussels and the home department.

Transgovernmental networks and rationalist outputs? The partial social construction of EU foreign policy

ABSTRACT The European Union (EU) foreign policy has gone beyond intergovernmentalism. It is largely formulated by (Brussels-based) national officials, in a process characterised by a high number of cooperative practices, diffuse sentiments of group loyalty and possibly argumentative procedures. Yet, in many cases, the most likely output of this process reflects the lowest common denominator of states’ positions or the preferences of the biggest states. The article intends to investigate this puzzle. In the first part, it corroborates its existence by using answers from an original database of 138 questionnaires and 37 interviews with EU negotiators. Next, it argues that cooperative practices remain often subordinated to nationally oriented ways of doing things. Consequentialist practices perform an anchoring function, in that they define the parameters around which (social) practices operate. The last section looks more closely at the sites of and meanings attached to EU foreign policy-making. By discussing national diplomats’ conspicuous leeway in Brussels, it also argues that negotiating practices are performed through a mix of partial agency and persistence of national dispositions. On the whole, changing practices is difficult, even in dense and largely autonomous settings such as EU foreign policy. The social construction of EU foreign policy occurs only to a partial extent.

A ‘Diplomatic Republic of Europe’? Explaining role conceptions in EU foreign policy

Using an original database of 138 questionnaires, the article explores how national officials perceive their role when participating in European Union (EU) foreign policy committees. It first shows that they systematically assume not only intergovernmental but also supranational role conceptions: a good number of diplomats understand EU foreign policy as a collective political project with the objective to craft a common European policy. The article then investigates some scope conditions. If the overall picture is complex and heterogeneous, it reveals that socializing activities occur in this policy field. More specifically, the number of years spent in Brussels is a relatively strong predictor of a supranational attitude. At the same time, diplomats’ conceptions are formed also outside EU contexts: the structure and the pro-European opinions of the national polity affect the formation of a diplomat’s orientation. Remarkably, member states’ military power is a weak and non-significant variable in all the models tested.

Italy seen through British eyes: a European middle power?

This article analyses the British perceptions of contemporary Italy and Italian politics. Through the use of a number of sources (parliamentary debates, governmental documents, newspaper articles and interviews) it argues that Italy is not perceived, within Great Britain, as a great power within the European system nor it is viewed as a peripheral actor. Rather, it suggests that Italy seems to have finally found in the post-Cold War scenario its proper role–a European middle power, with important responsibilities within a regional sub-system. A frequent request–and expectation–coming from British politics and society is that Italy should take on more international responsibilities, even in the sphere of defence–as the different readings of Italys role and leadership in Afghanistan and Lebanon reveal. However, Italys ability to play this role is believed to be hampered by several factors: its uncertain political situation, its unwillingness to engage in military operations, its reluctance to respect inte...

Legitimacy and EU Foreign Policy

Traditionally considered an exemplar of an intergovernmental policy field, the legitimacy of EU foreign and defence policy (CFSP/CSDP) has not been questioned for a long time. However, the literature has more recently shown how the decision-making process in foreign and defence policy has clearly moved beyond a strict interpretation of intergovernmentalism. Decisions are increasingly made by national diplomats in Brussels, in Council committees, with minor involvement of elected national politicians and with a certain leeway from the influence of the national capitals. This chapter explores the legitimacy credentials of the CFSP/CSDP, by using a comprehensive framework that connects the concepts, objects, variables and standards of legitimacy, and by applying it to the structures, procedures and processes—or throughput—of EU foreign and defence policy.

The European Parliament and economic governance: explaining a case of limited influence

ABSTRACT This article studies the influence of the European Parliament (EP) in the reform of the EU’s economic governance. Descriptively, it aims to provide a systematic map of the negotiations of the Six- and the Two-Pack legislation, focusing on the key controversies between the co-legislators, and comparing the position of the EP with the Commission’s legislative proposals, the Council position and the final legislative output. The surprisingly limited influence of the EP – given its formal powers and the assessment made by most scholars – is then assessed through rational choice and sociological institutionalist perspectives. While the more favourable BATNA (best alternative to a negotiated agreement) of the Council could explain the outcome of the Two-Pack, and a norm of responsibility triggered by the crisis could account for the limited impact of the EP on the Six-Pack, the authors advance a different explanation. They suggest that in policy areas close to ‘core state powers’, such as budgetary surveillance, the member states still have a primary role to play. Despite the extension of codecision, the EP is expected to act within the boundaries that member states define. The authors’ policy-based explanation adds a new perspective on the study of the EP’s influence on EU law-making.

The formulation of EU foreign policy: socialization, negotiations and disaggregation of the state

EU foreign and defence policy is largely formulated in the working parties and committees of the Council of the EU and the vast majority of decisions in this field are made by the national diplomats working in the around 35 groups of the CFSP/CSDP. Although the importance of these committees and their participants has been increasingly recognised, we still know relatively little about them. Using an original database of 138 questionnaires and 37 interviews, this book addresses this lack of knowledge, studying what these committees do and how they negotiate and resolve issues. It explores three key areas: •the formulation of the national position; •the identity of CFSP/CSDP policy-makers; •negotiation practices and outputs. In doing so, it provides an innovative observation point from which EU foreign policy can be analysed. This book will be of key interest to scholars and students of EU foreign and defence policy, external relations of the EU, European integration and politics, diplomacy and more broadly international relations.

On Movies, Matrices and Scope: Some Remarks on PTJ’s Keynote

This note takes issue with two aspects of PTJ’s keynote speech. The first one concerns the internal validity of his analysis. It argues that the matrix (which produces the four forms of knowledge) uses ambiguous and conceptually contestable boundaries and that implicitly (and paradoxically) seems to rely on an essentially positivist understanding of epistemic knowledge. The second claim raises the issue of the external scope of PTJ’s argument. If human beings have produced for millenniums (international) political knowledge through any sort of work, and if PTJ convincingly gives these works a solid intellectual legitimacy, the repercussions of this endeavour on how IR is (ought to be) taught and researched are vague and/or seem to be limited (or conservative). On a whole, PTJ’s note has conveniently set up the stage for further (hopefully enriching) debates within and across different disciplines interested to study the cross-boundary encounters with difference.