Not so intergovernmental after all? On democracy and integration in European Foreign and Security Policy

Sjursen, Helene

doi:10.1080/13501763.2011.615194

Cited by 74 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our study also adds to existing scholarship on deliberation in EU policy and decision-making (Eriksen, 2009(Eriksen, , 2014Eriksen & Fossum, 2012;Joerges, 2001;Sjursen, 2011;Stie, 2013).…”

Section: Conclusion and Precautionsmentioning

confidence: 65%

Cynical or Deliberative? An Analysis of the European Commission’s Public Communication on Its Use of Expertise in Policy-Making

Holst

Moodie

2015

PaG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The European Commission has faced increasing criticism that its use of expertise in policy-making is undemocratic and politicized. In response to critics, the Commission has produced a number of publicly available documents where its expert policies and practices are outlined and discussed. Cynics view public communications of this nature with skepticism, as organizations tend to adopt "smooth talk" and cosmetic rhetoric designed to placate critics and create a façade of compliance aimed at decreasing external pressure. An alternative deliberative approach, would expect the Commission to engage in a relatively open, reflective and reason-based interchange. The article's main aim is to assess the relative merits of these two approaches in capturing the Commission's framing of its public communication. Cynical expectations, prevalent among Commission critics, are confirmed by the Commission's silence on unpleasant topics including the undemocratic nature of existing expertise arrangements and the strategic uses of knowledge in EU policy-making. However, firm regulatory initiatives and the Commission's critical engagement with democratization demands and possible goal conflicts within their critics' agenda give significant leverage to a deliberative approach.

show abstract

“…Our study also adds to existing scholarship on deliberation in EU policy and decision-making (Eriksen, 2009(Eriksen, , 2014Eriksen & Fossum, 2012;Joerges, 2001;Sjursen, 2011;Stie, 2013).…”

Section: Conclusion and Precautionsmentioning

confidence: 65%

Cynical or Deliberative? An Analysis of the European Commission’s Public Communication on Its Use of Expertise in Policy-Making

Holst

Moodie

2015

PaG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A systematic empirical investigation of CFSP/CSDP outputs (Bicchi 2011(Bicchi : 1128Sjursen 2011Sjursen : 1086, based on 138 questionnaires and 37 interviews, has revealed that conflicting states interests very frequently lead to decisions which resemble LCD logics and/or the positions of the most powerful states. Consequentialist practices are still largely present in EU foreign policy and often dominate over more social ones.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Chelotti

2016

European Security

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

EU foreign policy has gone beyond intergovernmentalism. It is largely formulated by (Brusselsbased) 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 a 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.

show abstract

“…6 For an alternative perspective on EU foreign and security policy, see Sjursen (2012), who argues that the EU is capable of rising above mere intergovernmentalism. See also the contributions in Telò & Ponjaert 2013.…”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Globalization and Capitalist Geopolitics

Woodley¹

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This series is designed to break new ground in the literature on globalization and its academic and popular understanding. Rather than perpetuating or simply reacting to the economic understanding of globalization, this series seeks to capture the term and broaden its meaning to encompass a wide range of issues and disciplines and convey a sense of alternative possibilities for the future. Whither Globalization?The vortex of knowledge and globalization James H. Mittelman Globalization and Global HistoryEdited by Barry K.

show abstract

Not so intergovernmental after all? On democracy and integration in European Foreign and Security Policy

Cited by 74 publications

References 29 publications

Cynical or Deliberative? An Analysis of the European Commission’s Public Communication on Its Use of Expertise in Policy-Making

Cynical or Deliberative? An Analysis of the European Commission’s Public Communication on Its Use of Expertise in Policy-Making

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

Globalization and Capitalist Geopolitics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About