Ramona Coman

Quo Vadis Judicial Reforms? The Quest for Judicial Independence in Central and Eastern Europe

This article examines judicial reforms in the new member states of the EU in a comparative perspective. It explores the interactions between domestic and European actors in the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria and explains why the EU has had a differential impact on the way the principle of judicial independence has been implemented nationally. The differential impact of the EU is explained by considering both the nature of EU conditionality and the relationship between the judiciary and the political actors at the domestic level. The comparison reveals that the power of the EU is greater when tensions at the domestic level between judicial and political actors increase.

The Normative Power of the EU and Contentious Europeanization: The Case of Judicial Politics

ABSTRACT This article explores the relationship between Europeanization and EU integration in the field of judicial politics. It claims that the process of Europeanization engenders contention which creates demands for increased supranational governance. To illustrate this duality, the article draws on the waves of reforms aiming to consolidate the independence of the judiciary in the new Member States of the EU. What is at stake from a political and normative point of view is the post-conditionality debate, the discussion around the Copenhagen dilemma and — conversely — the need to define at the EU level a set of effective mechanisms and instruments of compliance. Empirically, the article discloses the dead angles of Europeanization and reveals that policy implementation in the Copenhagen framework creates functional and political pressures for further integration. In the field of judicial politics, the power of the EU oscillates between spill-over and spill-back.

Still in search of Europeanization: from limited to structural change?

Over the past 15 years, research about Europeanization has developed as a main field for understanding the multiple facets of political change on the European continent. While the notion of Europeanization has generated vivid conceptual debates (Radaelli, 2000a; Olsen, 2002; Ladrech, 2002; Poguntke et al., 2007), its most widespread and basic understanding relates to the impact of the various dimensions of European integration on policies, politics and polities at the national (or subnational) level. Through successive waves of literature, Europeanization has generated a large body of empirical research, thus contributing to a better understanding of the effects of European integration in several respects.

Judicial Independence in Romania

As in many recent democracies of Central and Eastern Europe, in Romania the process of judicial reform and modernization is still ongoing. Judicial reform began de jure after the collapse of the communist regime, when a new Constitution (1991) and a new Law on the Organization of the Judiciary (Law no. 92/1992) were adopted. The new democratic Constitution condemned the basic principles of the communist regime “in an attempt to break away from the strong procuracy and weak judiciary that characterized the system under Ceausescu”.

A Comparative Perspective on the State of Democracy in Central and Eastern Europe

THE SCHOLARSHIP ON CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPEAN POLITICS and societies is well established in the literature. Over the past two decades, scholars have addressed a variety of topics including the role of civil society in transition and democratic consolidation (Linz & Stepan 1996a, 1996b; Přibáň & Young 1999; Pridham 2001; Pollack &Wielgohs 2004); the process of institution-building and the functioning of institutions (Karp 1994; Zielonka 2001; Malova & Haughton 2002); the development of political parties and their contribution to democracy (Kitschelt 1992; De Waele 1999; Lewis 2001, 2008; Hough 2005; DeeganKrause & Haughton 2010; Burnell & Gerrits 2010); the role of external actors in the process of consolidation of democracy, and in particular the role of the EU and the enlargement process (Papadimitriou 2002; Dimitrova 2004; Schimmelfennig & Sedelmeier 2005; Vachudova 2005; Epstein & Sedelmeier 2009; Morlino & Sadurski 2010; O’Brennan 2011); populist parties (Mudde 2007; De Waele & Pacześniak 2010; Pankowski 2011) and the ambiguous role of nationalism (Latawski 1994; Auer 2004); the problem of the rights of ethnic, linguistic, religious and national minorities (Taras 1998; Rechel 2009); the relationship between justice and politics (Anderson et al. 2005; Coman & De Waele 2007; Coman 2009; Piana 2010); the construction of a market economy and the relationship between democracy and economic policies (Jeffries 1996; Stark & Bruszt 1998; Hasselman 2006; Myant & Drahokoupil 2010); political cultures (Pollack 2003; Klingemann 2008); the problems related to corruption (Smilov & Toplak 2007; Schmidt-Pfister & Moroff 2012); and the development of regionalisation and the role of local governments (Hughes et al. 2004a, 2004b; Coulson & Campbell 2007). Confronting methodologies and key assumptions supported by valuable empirical data, scholars endeavoured to understand different types and intensities of political change— including politics, policies and polity—as well as their democratisation, consolidation, Europeanisation and, more recently, quality of democracy. However, criticism with regard to inertia and retrenchment in the region has reappeared—or never disappeared. In a variety of fields, political scientists and observers have portrayed a sombre outcome of the simultaneous processes of democratisation and European integration (Sadurski 2004; Coman 2009; Pridham 2008; Haughton 2011). In this respect, many scholars have argued that the prospect of EU membership motivates the behaviour of Central and Eastern European governments (Cirtautas & Schimmelfennig 2010, p. 424). Yet, the number of EUROPE-ASIA STUDIES Vol. 66, No. 6, August 2014, 853–858

How have EU ‘fire-fighters’ sought to douse the flames of the eurozone’s fast- and slow-burning crises? The 2013 structural funds reform:

This article examines the debates surrounding the Regulation 1303/2013 on structural funds, arguing that the rules adopted in the midst of the eurozone crisis to strengthen the governance of the euro area had spill-over effects on cohesion policy. It shows how, in the fast-burning phase of the crisis (2010–2013), some actors pushed forward the idea of suspending structural funds in case of non-compliance with the rules of the Stability and Growth Pact, making funding conditional on Member States’ compliance with the rules of the new economic governance, and how, after the entry into force of this Regulation, in the slow-burning phase of the crisis (from 2013 onwards), a greater number of actors has been calling for a more flexible interpretation of the rules. To explain the disruption between t1 and t2, the article examines the change in the power relations between and within institutions and the change in ideas.

Why and how do think tanks expand their networks in times of crisis?: The case of Bruegel and the Centre for European Policy Studies

ABSTRACT The eurozone crisis has spectacularly increased the European Union’s (EU’s) institutional demand for expert knowledge. While the crisis has challenged the legitimacy of the EU in many ways, it has in contrast amplified the visibility and the role of Brussels-based think tanks as laboratories of ideas that think ahead about eurozone governance and policies. Drawing on the analysis of more than 450 expert reports produced by two leading Brussels-based think tanks, over 300 CVs and biographical notes as well interviews, this article explores when, how and why Brussels-based think tanks expand their networks in times of crisis. While the article leaves aside the question of their ideational impact upon agenda-setting and the policy formulation process leading to the new European economic governance, it shows how think tanks adapt to crises and how they seek to have a voice in thinking about the future of the EU’s economic governance.

Strengthening the Rule of Law at the Supranational Level: The Rise and Consolidation of a European Network

The aim of this article is to show how (new) modes of governance emerge in EU politics. It seeks to find out how European institutions manage to define new policy tools and modes of governance when their legitimacy is not only contested but it also reveals a regulatory gap. By examining recent debates concerning the ability of the EU to safeguard the rule of law at the supranational level, this article shows that in a field in which politicization raises the pressure to act at the EU level but member states do not delegate more hierarchical powers, the European Commission applies a network approach that spans beyond the EU. This article shows that, in order to strengthen the EUs input, output, and throughput legitimacy, the Commission is creating a complex multi-institutional framework and has introduced a ‘division of labour’ between several international bodies and organizations. The article focuses not only on the emergence of this network, but also on its evolution and expansion.

The state of democracy in Central and Eastern Europe : a comparative perspective

Introduction: A Comparative Perspective on the State of Democracy in Central and Eastern Europe Ramona Coman & Luca Tomini 1. Reassessing Democratic Consolidation in Central and Eastern Europe and the Role of the EU Luca Tomini 2. Quo Vadis Judicial Reforms? The Quest for Judicial Independence in Central and Eastern Europe Ramona Coman 3. How Stable and Reasonable is Postcommunist Public Opinion? The Case of the Czech Republic Andrew Roberts 4. The State of Political Participation in Post-Communist Democracies: Low but Surprisingly Little Biased Citizen Engagement Filip Kostelka

Values and power conflicts in framing borders and borderlands: the 2013 reform of EU Schengen governance

ABSTRACT In recent years, the preservation of the Schengen as a borderland has generated heightened tensions between domestic and European actors. Drawing on a qualitative analysis, this article illustrates how EU institutional actors frame the EUs internal and external borders and how said frames have shaped the EUs Schengen governance. To do so, it scrutinizes the debates that took place from 2011 to 2016 on the reintroduction of internal border controls. The analysis allows us to observe the salience of four frames: the values frame, the conflict frame, the market frame, and the securitization frame. To explain the dynamics of these frames, the article draws on the theoretical arguments of the new intergovernmentalism. The analysis concludes that the framing of borders in European debates is conditioned by the institutional setting of the EU and reflects the spread of the new intergovernmentalism in this policy area.