Thomas Christiansen

At a critical juncture? Change and continuity in the institutional development of the council secretariat

This article provides a historical institutionalist perspective on the General Secretariat of the Council of Ministers–an institution that has expanded significantly over the course of the integration process and whose role in the institutional politics of the EU has been recognised as significant in the recent literature on the subject. Charting the history of the institution, we demonstrate the way in which the original institutional design contributed to a particular trajectory which can be understood as a ‘path-dependent’ development. However, we also identify recent developments which can be seen as a break with the historical legacy of the Secretariat–an observation which raises the question as to whether the institution is at a critical juncture in its development. The article closes with an examination of the present and future challenges the Council Secretariat is facing at this time.

Informal Politics in the EU

Traditionally, much of the focus of the study of politics has been on formal arrangements and formal institutions. In recent years, however, this dominant focus has given way to an increasing concern with informal aspects of politics. This can be said for both the study of comparative politics and international relations more generally and for research on governance within the European Union in particular. Against this background, the aim of this research note is, first, to review the findings of research on informal governance and, second, to explore whether analytical concepts can be applied to the EU, with the aim of bringing greater conceptual clarity to the field and identifying future research agendas in this area. In a final section, the article also addresses the normative dimension of informal governance in the EU, discussing both the benefits and the risks of such arrangements from the perspective of transparency, efficiency and democratic accountability.

After the Spitzenkandidaten : fundamental change in the EU's political system?

Abstract The appointment of the President of the European Commission in 2014 occurred in the context of a novel environment: in constitutional terms, the Lisbon Treaty had introduced a small but significant change, namely the requirement for the candidate proposed by the European Council to be elected by the European Parliament. Politically, the 2014 European elections took place against the background of the eurozone crisis which had polarised opinions about the direction of European integration across the member states. This article develops a framework to assess the impact of this changed environment along two crucial dimensions of EU politics – interinstitutional relations and party politics. Based on this analysis, the article argues that while there has been gradual change in certain respects, the impact of the Spitzenkandidaten system did not lead to a transformation of the EU’s political system. Indeed, rather than creating new opportunities for party political competition, the cooperation between centre-right and centre-left in the election of the Commission President and subsequent decision-making further strengthened the long-standing ‘grand coalition’ in the European Parliament.

Delegated Powers and Inter-institutional Relations in the EU before and after the Lisbon Treaty

The European Union’s system of delegated powers, ‘comitology’, underwent significant changes after the Lisbon Treaty entered into force. This paper assesses the impact of these changes on the European Parliament, European Commission and Council. It distinguishes between the changes that occurred at the level of treaty reform (which generally favoured the EP in assuming a greater role in the process of policy-implementation) and subsequent legislative reforms and developments in soft law (through which the Council and the European Commission have reasserted their powers). While the system of delegated powers has significantly changed through the Lisbon reforms, it falls short of the expectations and intentions that led to these changes. The key objectives behind the reform – a simplification of a highly complex system of centralised policy implementation and greater democratic accountability through an upgrading of the EP’s role – have only partially been achieved. To some extent recent developments indicate a step back.

Security Relations between China and the European Union: From Convergence to Cooperation?

© Cambridge University Press 2016. Over the past decade, the EU and China have expanded their relations beyond a focus on economic and trade issues to the sphere of security. Taking a broad definition of security, a multidisciplinary approach, and a comparative perspective (including scholars from both Europe and China), this book provides an in-depth analysis of the extent to which the EU and China not only express similar threat concerns, or make declarations about joint responses, but also adopt concrete measures in the pursuance of security cooperation. In particular, the book seeks to explore a range of key themes in the field of EU-China security cooperation such as nuclear proliferation, international terrorist threats and cyber attacks. Besides providing an overview of the areas where security cooperation exists and where it does not, it also highlights the aspects of convergence and divergence and the reasons for their occurrence.

Parliamentary Administrations in the Scrutiny of EU Decision-Making

In liberal democracies, parliaments are generally perceived as the epitome of majoritarian politics. In the academic literature, as in the public debate, the focus is inevitably on the party political dimension of their work: the adoption of legislation or annual budgets, the election and scrutiny of the executive and their important role in the political system as a forum for debate on key issues. The study of parliaments is usually about either the work of individual members of parliament (MPs) or that of groups of parliamentarians, be it the factions of political parties or the broader concepts of a governing majority and the opposition, but parliaments are more than the collective sum of their elected members. In order to function as institutions and exercise their functions, they also rely on administrative structures and appointed officials. In fact, in all parliaments the non-elected staff probably significantly outnumber the elected members.

The Importance of Local and Regional Reform

After seven years of transition towards market economies and democratic structures, there are indications that market reform has outpaced efforts towards democratization in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). This is particularly the case in the realms of the establishment of democratic values, the creation of civil society and the reform of local and regional government. Some scholars might regard the uneven nature of transition towards market economies as inevitable, even desirable, in the quest for economic development. But rapid transition to the principles of the market not only causes adverse social conditions, with the rise of the nouveau riche and a new underclass at the opposing ends of the social ladder, it also raises serious questions about the institutional sustainability of such a development. Political stability and the very achievement of democratization are not automatic results of the process of marketization: they need to be the object of a specific effort of reforming the structure of the state. Such institutional reforms are a complex and long-term process. It is this important aspect of the territorial re-organization of the state — the question of self-government at the local and regional level, in the wake of economic transition, which this books addresses.

Transnational Bureaucratic Networks in the EU: The Role of Parliamentary Officials in Inter-Parliamentary Coordination and Control

The pressure for national parliaments to cooperate systematically with one another and the need to develop a high level of technical and legal expertise (see Chapter 1) have led to the growth of a network of permanent representatives of national parliaments (NPRs) to the European Union. These are (unelected) officials that are dispatched by their respective national parliaments to Brussels for a certain period of time. Despite the fact that this network has rapidly expanded — it now encompasses representatives from almost all 28 national parliaments,1 with some bi-cameral parliaments sending two representatives — it has received little academic attention. The number of NPRs has not diminished, not even during the economic and financial crisis; in fact, the number has consistently expanded since 1991. Even the parliament of a non-EU member state, Norway, now has a representative in Brussels.

Understanding and Assessing the Maastricht Treaty

Abstract This article introduces the collection of articles of the special issue and provides a discussion of the common themes linking these contributions. The article stresses the continuing significance of the Maastricht Treaty and illustrates the various ways in which the key reforms of the early 1990s still matter today. This includes not only the bearing that the decisions at the time of the Maastricht Treaty have had on the current crisis of the Eurozone, but also the developments in the areas of foreign policy and justice and home affairs. Indeed, the very move towards ‘pillarisation’ as well as key institutional changes such as the creation of the co-decision procedure and the elevation of the European Council all continue to play an important role today. The article concludes with some reflections about the legacy of the Maastricht Treaty, highlighting both the achievements of the treaty but also the shortcomings in terms of enhancing democratic legitimacy and engagement with civil society — indicating the key challenges that the Union still faces today.

The Maastricht Treaty: Second Thoughts after 20 Years

The Journal of European Integration has, since 2006, its home in Maastricht, with Executive Editors based at Maastricht University and at the European Institute of Public Administration. Maastricht is a city with many European credentials, but - for the better or worse - none is better known globally than the EU treaty that carries its name, and which was signed here in February 1992. Given the journals close association with the city, and hence with the prominence of the Maastricht Treaty, we took the twentieth anniversary of its signing as an occasion to devote a special issue of the journal to the reflection on the continuing significance of that historic event - a decision further reinforced by the stimulating debates we had about that topic in the context of an international conference organised in the city on the date of the anniversary.