The nature of the beast
Supranational organization,
intergovernmental administration
union,
multilevel governance framework…
Ontological debates and
epistemological consequences
Traditional Approaches to the European Integration Process
(or: the dialectic of Supranationalism and Intergovernmentalism)
Supranationalism
Intergovernmentalism
National states transfer certain rights or parts of
their sovereignty to a supra-national authority
constituted as an independent international actor by
international treaty
National states cooperate on the (inter-)
governmental
level
without
formally
questioning parts of their sovereignty or
limiting the execution of their sovereign rights
Different Perspectives on the Integration Process
Functionalism
Neofunctionalism
Federalism
Intergovernmentalism
Moves
towards
closer
integration
gradually/incrementally advanced by a multitude of
political and economic actors on the basis of
individual/organisational learning processes leading
to (integration-friendly) positive changes of political
and socioeconomic preferences
Integration as a result of political negotiation
processes consciously entered into by national
actors on the basis of previously defined
political and socioeconomic preferences
Process of collective decision-making in a
network of actors
Process of multilateral decision-making
in an administration union of states
(„Zweckverband“)
Common Aim
Development of shared solutions to shared policy problems
(Helen Wallace)
A possible compromise –
Neoliberal Institutionalism
• Premiss: Increasing levels of interdependence
generate (increased) demand for international
cooperation
• Institutions are purposively generated solutions to
(different kinds of) collective action problems 
established by states to achieve their purpose
(„institutions matter“)
• „Facing dilemmas of coordination and collaboration
under conditions of interdependence governments
demand international institutions to enable them to
achieve their interests through limited collective
action“ (Keohane)
Neoliberal Institutionalism II
• Characteristics:
• States are effective gate-keepers between the
domestic and international spheres.
• The successful collaborative management of
common problems strengthens the role of the state.
• Institutions matter because of the benefits they
provide and because they have an impact on the
interest calculations of actors.
 provision of information
 reduction of transaction costs
 development of convergent expectations
 facilitation of issue-linkage strategies
 development of mechanisms to discourage cheating
International Politics
IGO
Internationale
Politik
Foreign Policy A
Akteur B
Akteur A
Foreign Policy B
Society A
Society B
LOOKING AT THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM FROM A
RECENT INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS PERSPECTIVE
For some time already, the analysis of International Relations is
characterised by a change in perspective
- away from the state as a unitary actor acting as a gatekeeper between
the domestic and international policy areas
- up, down, and sideways to supra-state, sub-state, and non-state
actors.
From the society of states, our focus of attention has consequently
shifted to transnational and transgovernmental societies which take the
form of boundary-crossing networks amongst individuals and nongovernmental organisations (NGOs).
Transnational Society (of Actors)
Government
Government
Government
Transnational Society
A
Society
National Actor
B
Society
C
Society
Transnational Politics
Government
A
Society
Government
B
Society
Government
C
Society
Cobweb model of international Relations
• No doubt, this change of perspective
resulted from the very real changes of
the international system which on the
one hand caused, and on the other
were driven by Globalization
Globalization: Explanation & Phenomena
explanatory
framework
Erklärungsversuch
superstructure
phenomenon
Überbauphänomen
progress of productive
forces
change of modes
production
transition from Fordist to
post-Fordist accumulation
explanatory
framework
Erklärungsversuch
modernization
Modernisierung
process of economic,
industrial,
technological, social ,
cultural and po-litical
change
during
the
transition from traditional to modern societies
explanatory
framework
Erklärungsversuch
explanatory
framework
Erklärungsversuch
system
structure
Systemstruktur
foundational
phenomenon
Basisphänomen
competition between superpowers for global hegemony within the context of
systemic rivalry/ antagonism
of the East-West-conflict
technological progress/
technological innovation
differentiation of international
division of labour
global orientierte
Absatz und Bezugsmarktstrategien industrieller Unternehmungen („global sourcing“)
+
increasing inter-industrial
trade
global development,
production and -,
Absatzverbund
+
world trade expands over world
production
GLOBALIZATION
growth and intensification of transborder
interactions
complex system of mutual dependencies between
states and societies
emergence of a global society
environment
migration
world market
global financial system
transition from
international
to transnational
society
material communication, transport
virtual communication, information
flows, culture
time-space-compression/
virtualization
von Zeit und Raum
growing awareness of the ‘world as a
whole’ (world society ??)
problems
disjuncture between
principle of interdependence
and territorial principle
de-bordering/ de-nationalization of industry
processes of fragmentation
and marginalization
de-bordering/ de-nationalization of the state world
nation state’s regulatory
capacity is restricted by
actors autonomously
deciding and operating
economic world
global media
world / networks
international
civil society
TNCs,
Global Players
actors??
NGOs
McDonaldization
vs.
Fragmentation
Global
Governance
Standortdebatte
system of divided,
overlapping responsibilities,
areas of competence and
sovereignties resulting from
the partial debundling of
formerly territorial defined
and centralized power
authorities
Globalization and the State
GLOBALIZATION
decline of state’s power/ autonomy / regulatory capabilities
and potentials
general change of social and political structures, particularly
territorial organized forms of political power
territorial defined authority of the nation state is challenged by
non-territorial competitors („unbundling of sovereignty“)
supranational
Institutions
???
„evaporation“
economic
institutions
STATE
global economic
market forces /actors
transnational
civil society
3rd sector
radical interpretation
authoritative value allocation no
longer exercised through the state
but through transnational operating
non-state actors (Strange)
role of state is marginalized (Luard);
important decisions are taken by
international and transnational
authorities
redefinition of the ‘political’ without
reference to territorial substratum
moderate interpretation
globalization increases
interdependecies
increasing loss of
control over non-state
actors’ transnational
activities
interdependencies
increase actors’
vulnerability

loss of regulatory capacity/ direct control

reduction of state’s capability to perform its
traditional tasks (security, welfare provision)

restriction of the right to self-determination
granted to democratic political societies
+
lack of democratic legitimation/ control of
Global Governance-actors
Looking at the European Union from a Recent
International Relations Perspective
For some time already, the analysis of International Relations is characterised by a change in
perspective
 away from the state as a unitary actor acting as a gatekeeper between the domestic and
international policy areas
 up, down, and sideways to supra-state, sub-state, and non-state actors.
From the society of states, our focus of attention has consequently shifted to transnational and
transgovernmental societies which take the form of boundary-crossing networks amongst individuals and non-governmental organisations (NGOs).
rule of the
technocrats ?
In effect, much of
EU decisionmaking occurs
informally within
such policy
networks.
This poses problems:
democracy and accountability
deficit in European politics
loading of decisionmaking processes in
order to favour some
options over others
• The aforementioned debates resulted in
the rise of two analytic approaches new
in integration studies – multilevel
governance analysis on the one hand,
decision-making analysis on the other
(the latter approach, however, though
perhaps new to integration studies,
was already well known in the study of
foreign policy…)
What is the European Union (I a) ?
More than




a traditional international organization
a functional administration union
an international regime*
a federation of states
Less than
 a federal state
 a unitary state
An integrated (or interlocking) system of states („Staatenverbund“)
(German Constitutional Court on the constitutional legality of the
Maastricht Agreement)
* international regime: a set of rules, norms, principles, and procedures that focus
expectations regarding international behaviour [an “informal” international organisation that
is based more on usage, case law, and individual resolutions than on a complex written treaty
ratified by all participants]
What is the European Union (I b) ?
The EU is a multi-level system of governance: a confederation located between inter-state and
intra-state patterns of rule. (Armstrong/Bulmer 1998)
Structural characteristics:
An increasingly intensified combination/linkage of
regional
national
transnational
multi-level games
supranational
International
levels of decision-making and policy execution including a large variety of actors, resources and functions
in a diversity of policy areas
Procedural characteristics:
Standard decision-making procedure is the negotiation process by which national political and societal
actors strive for consensually agreed compromise solutions and package deals
Phenomenological characteristics:
Governance refers to a process of exercising power, i.e. the art, manner, style, or method of governing [ NOT to
the Government as a formal institution ], the novelty of which lies in the inclusion of civil society actors on all
decision-making levels (local, regional, national, international)
What is the European Union (II) ?
More than a regime, less than a federation ... – but why
We name four characteristics:
1.
The Commission as guardian of the Treaties and motor of the integration process which can – unlike
secretariats in a regime structure – exercise a right of control over EU Member States and can take them to
court if they do not fulfill their treaty obligations
2.
The existence of a supranational legal order which – as is customary in international law – not only addresses
itself to the Member States, but equally to individual EU citizens who can claim rights directly from the norms
of this supranational order. Equally, in all Treaties inter-pretation matters as well as in respect to secondary
EU legislation, the European Court of Justice overrides the court system of the Member States; on the other
hand, the execution of ECJ decisions is left to the national legal systems
3.
The EU has its own budget and its own sources of income, does not depend, in other words, solely on the
contributions of the Member States
4.
Within the EU decision making framework, decisions can be made by (qualified) majority, whereas in classic
international law decisions regulating the relations of states have to be made unanimously
Finally, the EU is not only a legal body set up by international treaty – it is also a body which can formulate
internationally valid norms and rules itself (constituted by primary Community law, it produces secondary
Community law as its main occupation) – its main political function is regulatory, not so much distributive or
redistributive.
What is the European Union (III) ?
More than a regime, but less than a state...- but why
We name four characteristics:
1. the lack of territorial sovereignty, which still resides in the member states
2. the lack of a monopoly of armed power, which is still exercised by the member
states
3. the lack of a European demos: despite the Union citizenship introduced by the
Treaty of Amsterdam (Art. 17 – 22 ECT), national citizenship still comes first
(Art.17); Union citizenship is only supplementary
4. the lack of major redistributive economic power (with only 1. 27% of the
European GDP spent by Brussels, redistribution in favour of public functions
does not make much of an impression on national economies)
What is the European Union (IV) ?
The core of the emerging European polity’s novelty lies in the
growing dissociation between territorial constituencies and functional competences
In the classic model of the state, the exercise of public authority in different functional domains is congruent with
a specific territory - or: when one arrives at the state’s borders, the legitimate exercise of coercion in all its
functional domains ends. In other words: the foundation of stateness is based on the indispensable coincidence
of territorial and functional authority.
In the development of the EU, the functional and territorial domains of authority have become less rather than
more congruent over time. What seems to be asserting itself is a plurality of polities at different levels of
aggregation – supra-national, national, subnational – that overlap in a multitude of policy areas or functional
domains. The EU authorities have few exclusive competences and hardly exercise hierarchical control over
member states (with the notable exception of competition policy); rather, in the execution of their legal
instruments they depend on the member states to an inordinate extent.
It is these multiple levels of political aggregation – or more precisely: the actors located on them/representing
them – which continuously negotiate with each other in order to perform common tasks and resolve common
problems across an expanding range of issues. Without a monopoly of coercion, without a center for the
definitive resolution of conflicts, without an agent for the authoritative allocation of public goods, there are only a
number of policy-making processes (admittedly solidifying over time into more permanent structures). The
participants in these processes are not just a fixed number of states, but an enormous variety of sub-national
units and networks, transnational firms, supra-national associations and the like.
multi-level governance approaches
to European Union politics
efforts to catch the real existing
complexity
of European integration and its policy processes
decision-making approaches
to European Union politics
efforts to catch the process-ness or procedural characteristics of
European integration and its policy processes
multi-level structure
resulting actual policies
actors’ input:
aims, interests, resources
policy-making
processes
What is governance?
• The term "governance" is a very versatile one. It is
used in connection with several contemporary social
sciences, especially economics and political
science.
• It originates from the need of economics (as regards
corporate governance) and political science (as
regards State governance) for an all-embracing
concept capable of conveying diverse meanings not
covered by the traditional term "government".
• Referring to the exercise of power overall, the term
"governance", in both corporate and State contexts,
embraces action by executive bodies, assemblies
(e.g. national parliaments) and judicial bodies (e.g.
national courts and tribunals).
• The term "governance" corresponds to the so-called
post-modern form of economic and political
organisations.
What is Governance II
• According to the political scientist Roderick Rhodes,
the concept of governance is currently used in
contemporary social sciences with at least six
different meanings: the minimal State, corporate
governance, new public management, good
governance, social-cybernetic systems and selforganised networks 1.
• 1) R. Rhodes, “The new governance: governing without
government” (1996), in Political Studies, Vol. 44, page 652.
Multi-Level Governance
Flexibly organised common problem solving among different communities from
the local via the regional and state to the international level (and vice versa)
In International Relations:
Concept covers the mechanisms,
agreements, and patterns necessary to insure, in an anarchical
international system
* transnational cooperation
* balances (of power/influence)
* stability
without formalised and institutionalised organisations and
treaty systems
governance without government
In Domestic Politics:
Concept gains importance in
contexts in which political
institutions and their decisionmakers lose part of their autonomy
to act; political direction and
problem solving has to rely
on cooperation of political AND
societal actors in networks and
negotiation systems (Round Tables
etc.)
MULTILEVEL GOVERNANCE:
Supranational and
intergovernmental
actors
International level
MAIN ACTORS AND LEVELS OF ANALYSIS
GOVERNMENT A
TARGET STATE
GOVERNMENT B
GOVERNMENT C
State level
Administration
Legislative branch
Judiciary system
Central state
Regional level
Administration
Legislative branch
Judiciary system
Regional/substate unit
Individual level
International
regimes
Individual cognition;
Belief system;
Personal and national identity
Transnational
groups
Domestic groups &
issue-specific groups
(commercial, religious,
and environmental)
European Governance
• The European Commission established its own
concept of governance in the White Paper on
European Governance, in which the term
"European governance" refers to the rules,
processes and behaviour that affect the way in
which powers are exercised at European level,
particularly as regards openness, participation,
accountability, effectiveness and coherence.
These five "principles of good governance"
reinforce those of subsidiarity and
proportionality.
• The White Paper is about the way in which the
Union uses the powers given to it by its citizens.
• The debate on European governance, launched by the
Commission in its White Paper of July 2001, concerns all the
rules, procedures and practices affecting how powers are
exercised within the European Union. The aim is to adopt new
forms of governance that bring the Union closer to European
citizens, make it more effective, reinforce democracy in Europe
and consolidate the legitimacy of the institutions. The Union
must reform itself in order to fill the democratic deficit of its
institutions. This governance should lie in the framing and
implementation of better and more consistent policies
associating civil society organisations and the European
institutions. It also entails improving the quality of European
legislation, making it clearer and more effective. Moreover, the
European Union must contribute to the debate on world
governance and play an important role in improving the
operation of international institutions.
• Democratic deficit
• Proportionality
• Simplification of legislation
• Subsidiarity
• Transparency (access to documents)
• Transparency of Council proceedings
Proportionality Principle
• Like the principle of subsidiarity, the principle of proportionality
regulates the exercise of powers by the European Union,
seeking to set within specified bounds the action taken by the
institutions of the Union. Under this rule, the institutions'
involvement must be limited to what is necessary to achieve
the objectives of the Treaties. In other words, the extent of the
action must be in keeping with the aim pursued.
• This means that when various forms of intervention are
available to the Union, it must, where the effect is the same, opt
for the approach which leaves the greatest freedom to the
Member States and individuals.
• The principle of proportionality is clearly laid down in primary
law under Article 5, third paragraph, of the Treaty establishing
the European Community (TEC). A Protocol on the application
of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, annexed to
the TEC by the Treaty of Amsterdam, sets out the criteria for
applying both these principles.
Subsidiarity Principle
• The principle of subsidiarity is defined in Article 5 of
the Treaty establishing the European Community. It
is intended to ensure that decisions are taken as
closely as possible to the citizen and that constant
checks are made as to whether action at Community
level is justified in the light of the possibilities
available at national, regional or local level.
Specifically, it is the principle whereby the Union
does not take action (except in the areas which fall
within its exclusive competence) unless it is more
effective than action taken at national, regional or
local level. It is closely bound up with the principles
of proportionality and necessity, which require that
any action by the Union should not go beyond what
is necessary to achieve the objectives of the Treaty.
Literaturtipp
• EUROGOV No. N-05-02 / November 17, 2005
Oliver Treib, Holger Bähr and Gerda Falkner:
Modes of Governance: A Note Towards
Conceptual Clarification
EUROGOV No. C-05-01 / March 14, 2005
Beate Kohler-Koch: European governance
and system integration
Literaturtip
• http://www.connex-network.org/eurogov
• e-mail: eurogov@ihs.ac.at
• http://www.eiop.or.at/eiop/index.php/eiop
Goodbye for tonight ...
and enjoy your dinner