How the European Parliament's participation in international relations affects the deep tissue of the EU's power structures

Abstract

The European Parliament's (EP) public refusal to consent to several international agreements gives EU citizens a voice in international relations, which, with all its flaws, draws on a source of democratic legitimation that is independent and separate from the EU member states. These acts of contestation vest the EU's actions under international law with a popular backing that is not ultimately rooted in the member states. The EP's new role and visibility also creates a degree of competition between the EP and national parliaments, since the latter while they can exercise political power within the EU legal order, cannot represent EU citizens to the outside. It further gives support to the Court of Justice of the European Union's (CJEU) implicit claim that the EU possesses original (sovereign) rights. This article sheds light on how the EP's new role may strengthen the link to its citizens and influence the relationship between the EU and its member states.

The European Parliament as a developing legislature: coming of age in trilogues?

“…representing EU citizens and harnessing decisive decision-making coalitions (Eckes 2015). We find that the EP has been able to carve out a growing space of institutional autonomy even in the least likely domain of parliamentary development: the inhospitable soil of trilogues, where the EP is involved in behind-the-scene decision-making and where national we-feeling is more frequently mobilized against a bigger European collective.…”

Allies in Transparency? Parliamentary, Judicial and Administrative Interplays in the EU’s International Negotiations

“…Rather, the difference was that in the second round of negotiations, the EP was fully informed at all stages of the negotiations. This has raised questions of whether the EP's position is too focused on inter-institutional power dynamics (Eckes, 2014). A similar change of position after having received more information is also notable with regard to the Passenger Name Record Agreement with the US (Ripoll Servent & McKenzie, 2011).…”

“…Scholars have extensively discussed the role of the EP in the context of EU international agreements (Ripoll Servent, 2014;Van den Putte, De Ville, & Orbie, 2015), including issues of the "democratisation" of external affairs (Meissner, 2016), and how its role in external relations impacts the EU's constitutional fabric (Cardwell, 2011;Eckes, 2014;Krauss, 2000). These studies in principle point to the executive and semi-executive institutions, the Commission and Council respectively, as actors with a preference for space for confidentiality rather than openness of negotiations.…”

Parliamentary assertion and deep integration: the European parliament in the CETA and TTIP negotiations

“…It has addressed these issues in a variety of ways: enacting domestic legislation with extra-territorial effects; ratifying (or not) international agreements; implementing international agreements through domestic legislation and budgets; organizing public consultations and/or quasi-judicial investigations; launching international advocacy campaigns (typically in relation to human rights, parliamentary affairs or democratic practices); developing transnational legislative networks or meetings (e.g. parliamentary conferences); and establishing international parliamentary institutions (Bieber 2002;Slaughter 2004;Weisglas and De Boer 2007;Šabič 2008;Monar 2010;Ripoll Servent 2015;Richardson 2012;Costa et al 2013;Van den Putte et al 2014;Eckes 2015;Jančić 2015a). This article explores this puzzling phenomenon through the institutionalist lens of parliamentary assertion.…”