Social Movement Campaigns on EU Policy

Parks, Louisa

doi:10.1057/9781137411068

Cited by 39 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition to the continuously decreasing turnout for the European Parliament election, possibilities for direct participation remain very at best, dysfunctional. While public mobilization and protest can occasionally have an actual impact on decisions made at EU level (Parks 2015;Crespy 2016), they remain too occasional to sustain the presence of citizens' interests in a genuine European public sphere or political space.…”

Section: New Multidimensional Conflicts Of Sovereignty: Parliamentarymentioning

confidence: 99%

Unpacking old and new conflicts of sovereignty in the European polity

Brack¹,

Coman²,

Crespy³

2019

Journal of European Integration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the post-Maastricht era, member states of the European Union (EU) have proved increasingly reluctant to transfer further competences to the supranational level and are willing to safeguard their sovereignty. Though the responses to the contemporary multiple crisesrelated to economic and monetary policy, borders and migrations, or democracy and the rule of lawhave brought about conflicts over values and sovereignty losses surrounding the legal, economic and political legitimacy of the EU. Against this backdrop, we argue that beyond the traditional contentious (re)distribution of competences between nation-states (national sovereignty) and the EU (and its embryonic forms of supranational sovereignty), new conflicts of sovereignty involve two other key types of sovereignty belonging to the democratic tradition, namely parliamentary sovereignty and popular sovereignty. This introductory article proposes a common analytical framework in order to investigate conflicts in their multi-dimensionality.

show abstract

Section: New Multidimensional Conflicts Of Sovereignty: Parliamentarymentioning

confidence: 99%

Unpacking old and new conflicts of sovereignty in the European polity

Brack¹,

Coman²,

Crespy³

2019

Journal of European Integration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The approach has been adapted to explain how movements and civil society groups act and may impact various international decisions, including those of the EU (e.g. della Porta and Caiani 2009;Marks and McAdam 2009;Princen and Kerremans 2008;Parks 2015). The EP is the key institution of interest here given that our central argument explores the formation of opposition under procedures where the EP is central.…”

Section: Parliamentarism As a Key Opportunity For Contentious Politicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Importantly, as elected representatives MEPs may also see listening to citizens (or groups representing citizens) as their duty (ibid). Compared to the Commission, which is open to outside input but requires groups to present expert information, and the Council which remains mostly closed to outside groups at the EU level (though influencing national players in the Council is possible at local or national levels), the EP is the most open target for organised civil society at the European level (Parks 2015).…”

Section: Parliamentarism As a Key Opportunity For Contentious Politicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The methodological impetus guiding this paper is one of theory building (Lijphart 1971) -rather than testing -based on a 'heuristic case' (George and Bennett 2004, 74). The unexpected rejection of ACTA has generated a number of case studies (among others Geist 2010; Yu 2011; McManis and Pelletier 2012; Matthews and Zikovska 2013;Dür and Mateo 2014;Losey 2014), including by the authors themselves (Crespy 2013;Parks 2015). The purpose of this paper is not therefore to provide a detailed study of the many aspects of the campaign against ACTA.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Commission 2005). The literature on interest representation in the EU mostly refers to the degree and more conventional modalities of involvement of certain civil society actors, rather than their ability to impact decision-making through more contentious actions outside the Brussels arena (Parks 2015). To think about impact we therefore draw on research on social movements, which in the past two decades has paid increasing attention to the EU as a genuine new polity (Kriesi and Rucht 1999;della Porta and Caiani 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The connection between parliamentary and extra-parliamentary opposition in the EU. From ACTA to the financial crisis

Crespy

Parks

2017

Journal of European Integration

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With no formal division between majority and opposition in the parliamentary arena, the European Union (EU) calls for an approach to political opposition which considers the role of civil society. This article explores the case of opposition to the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) within and without the European Parliament (EP) through a political opportunity approach, using the case to reflect on conditions for effective opposition in the EU. The ACTA campaign saw opposed actors within the EP and digital rights groups work together to build coalitions against the agreement. Protests then opened the way for these groups to broker a change of position among other actors, allowing a majority rejection. The ACTA case suggests the need for advocacy by organised groups both within and without the Parliament to construct majorities. Comparisons to similarly successful campaigns bolster this view, as do examples of less effective opposition.

show abstract

Anti‐ ACTA Mobilizations

Rone¹

2022

The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Social and Political Movements

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The mobilization against the Anti‐Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) was a transnational movement that led to the first ever rejection of a trade deal by the European Parliament after the expansion of its powers with the Lisbon treaty. Already in June 2011, the Mexican Senate rejected ACTA and later that same year mass mobilization erupted in the US against the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect IP Act (PIPA). The US movements, largely supported by Silicon Valley tech giants, led to a dramatic rise in the public salience of intellectual property legislation, which had been previously considered an obscure technical issue. Thus, by early 2012, European activists were strongly attuned to the problems with ACTA and drew attention to the nondemocratic and secretive way the agreement was negotiated, the undue influence of business lobbies, as well as to the threats it posed to privacy, free speech, and access to medicines, among others. Kader Arif, the European Parliament Rapporteur on ACTA, famously resigned claiming that the negotiations had been a “masquerade.” The anti‐ACTA campaign, taking off first in the notoriously “patient” Central and Eastern Europe, provided an emblematic example of a truly trans‐European mobilization. Crucially, it was a campaign in defense of internet freedom – the internet was perceived by campaigners not only as a tool for democracy but also as a democratic cause in itself.

show abstract

Social Movement Campaigns on EU Policy

Cited by 39 publications

References 0 publications

Unpacking old and new conflicts of sovereignty in the European polity

Unpacking old and new conflicts of sovereignty in the European polity

The connection between parliamentary and extra-parliamentary opposition in the EU. From ACTA to the financial crisis

Anti‐ ACTA Mobilizations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About