Subject Area #1: International Relations/International Studies

Evolution of the European Concept

1. The Fundamental Values of European Integration: Evolution of the Peace Theory to the
Values declared by the Lisbon Treaty
Democratic peace theory maintains that democracies do not go to war with each other. The
principal explanation for peace among liberal democracies is that their deep-seated respect for
individual rights, coupled with their emphasis on tolerance and peaceful conflict resolution,
overwhelms any rationale they might have to initiate a war. Other accounts maintain that specific
institutional and normative characteristics of democracy. Proponents of "democratic peace
theory" argue that both liberal and republican forms of democracy are hesitant to engage in armed
conflict with other identified democracies.

The basic principles of the concept had been argued as early as the 18th century in the works of
philosopher Immanuel Kant and political theorist Thomas Paine. In his essay, Perpetual Peace, a
German philosopher Immanuel Kant stated that perpetual peace would be achieved by general
consensus or by conflicts that left the world no other choice. French historian and social scientist
Alexis de Tocqueville also argued, in Democracy in America (1835–1840), that democratic
nations were less likely to wage war.

Peace theory encompasses a range of perspectives and ideas that seek to understand the causes of
conflict and ways to achieve and sustain peace. It emphasizes the importance of addressing root
causes of conflict, promoting cooperation, and creating institutions and mechanisms for conflict
prevention, management, and resolution.

The Lisbon Treaty, signed in 2007 and entered into force in 2009, represents a significant
development in the EU's commitment to peace, security, and cooperation.

The Lisbon Treaty builds upon this foundation by articulating the values and principles that guide
the European Union's actions in the pursuit of peace. These values are rooted in the EU's
commitment to human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. They reflect a broader
understanding of peace as not just the absence of war but also the presence of social justice,
equality, and sustainable development.

The treaty also establishes mechanisms and structures to promote peace and security. It
strengthens the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy, establishing the role of a High
Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the European External Action
Service. These institutions aim to enhance the EU's capacity to prevent conflicts, support
mediation efforts, and contribute to international peacekeeping missions. Additionally, the Lisbon
Treaty enhances the EU's ability to respond to humanitarian crises and provide assistance to
countries in need.

The EU’s values are laid out in article 2 of the Lisbon Treaty and the EU Charter of Fundamental
Rights.

Article 2:
“The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy,
equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons
belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society in which
pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men
prevail.”

1
The treaty reaffirms the EU's commitment to these values and establishes mechanisms to promote
peace, prevent conflicts, and provide assistance in times of crisis.

The Union's aim is to promote peace, its values and the well-being of its peoples (Art. 3 of The
Lisbon Treaty).

A form of direct democracy has been introduced by the Lisbon Treaty. If one million citizens of a
significant number of member states are of the opinion that a legal act should be submitted by the
European Commission they have the right to enforce a citizens’ initiative (Art. 10 TEU).

The European Citizens' Initiative (ECI) is EU mechanism aimed at increasing direct

democracy by enabling "EU citizens to participate directly in the development of EU
policies", introduced with the Treaty of Lisbon in 2007. The initiative enables one
million citizens of the European Union, who are nationals of at least seven member states, to call
directly on the European Commission to propose a legal act (notably a Directive or Regulation)
in an area where the member states have conferred powers onto the EU level.

The European Parliament has been upgraded to the role of a genuine co-legislator which in nearly
all cases acts on an equal footing with the Council. As we can see already, the EP is using its
increased competences with respect to the budget to strengthen its position in other fields of EU
policy making as well. The fact that the EP will elect the President of the Commission may help
to increase voters’ interest in European elections as parties are invited to present candidates for
the Commission President. That may lead to some form of “politicization” and personalization.
The EU will have a face, or several faces. So far, the Treaty of Lisbon has followed a
supranational concept of EU democratization.

Within the EU institutions (briefly):

1) European Economic Community (1957) aimed to prevent future conflicts among its
member states by promoting economic cooperation.
2) The Maastricht Treaty in 1992 established the European Union and introduced the
Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), signaling a stronger commitment to
addressing security and conflict issues.
3) The creation of the European External Action Service (EEAS) under the Lisbon Treaty
in 2009 consolidated the EU's diplomatic capabilities and enhanced its ability to prevent
conflicts and engage in mediation efforts.

Evolution of the Peace Theory:

- Functionalism (spill over effect of integration: integration in one sector will trigger further
integrations in other sectors)
- Federalism, confederacy: establishment of common European institutions and fair
distribution of powers (executive, legislative and judiciary) between them (Parliament, Council,
Commission, ECB, ECJ)

2. European identity: sources, manifestation and political aspects

According to Alexander Wendt, identity is described as “a property of actors that generates
motivational and behavioral dispositions”. Identity thus influences the external policies of
states.

Why does Europe need a common identity?

- European identity intends to erase differences between people from different European
countries
• That will mean a peaceful Europe, with no more conflicts...
2
 • An important aspect of a common identity is the feeling of a common origin
or past.
• But very elusive
 Geographically elastic
 Linguistically varied: 24 languages
 Religiously diverse
 Historically not clear (more clashes than harmony)
 No coherent view on the European ‘quality’ of the neighbours

Article 4 (2) TEU: „The Union shall respect the equality of Member States before the
Treaties as well as their national identities, inherent in their fundamental structures, political
and constitutional, inclusive of regional and local self-government.

European identity is defined by two key layers: Europe as a cultural community of shared
values (cultural identity); Europe as a political community of shared democratic practices
(political identity).

European Identity
European history has provided some common values and experiences, but is not something
that really binds Europeans.
- Several developments, like globalization and the enlargement and increasing power of
the EU, have an impact on European identity.
- European identity is strongly related to national identity. National interests have also
played an important role.
- The European identity and national identity can exist besides each other but interests
sometimes conflict. In such cases it often shows that national identities are much
stronger.
European identity – Historical perspective
- A feeling of common identity is expected to strengthen through a sense of a common
history with positive connotations.
- European heritage can be described as a sum of share experiences and influences; this
explicitly does not implicate a single culture or civilization.
- Europe is not a given geographical entity; it is a man-made concept with borders that
are mostly not naturally defined.
- In the period from 950-1350 AD, people of Europe developed a sense of common
identity, due to a combination of external threats and internal developments.
- In the years and centuries that followed, the position of Europe constantly changed.
- European heritage is based on the Greek-derived thinking, the influence of Judaeo-
Christian religion, the Roman Empire and the Enlightenment period.

Manifestations of European Identity:

1. Sense of Belonging.
2. Multiple Identities: European identity coexists and interacts with national, regional,
and local identities. Many individuals identify themselves as both European and with
their specific national or regional identities, seeing European identity as
complementary rather than contradictory.
3. Symbolism and Narratives: the European flag, the anthem ("Ode to Joy" from
Beethoven's Ninth Symphony), and Europe Day (May 9th) serve as shared symbols
that represent European unity and identity.

Political Aspects of European Identity:

1. European Integration: European identity has been closely linked to the process of
3
 European integration, particularly through the European Union.
2. Transnational Solidarity: European identity entails a sense of solidarity and mutual
support among European citizens.
3. European Citizenship: The concept of European citizenship, introduced by the
Maastricht Treaty in 1992, recognizes the rights and responsibilities that EU citizens
hold in addition to their national citizenship.
4. Political Debates and Contestation: European identity can be a subject of political
debates and contestation. Different visions and perspectives exist regarding the scope,
depth, and future direction of European integration, which can influence how European
identity is understood and articulated.

3. The EU as a federal political structure: ideas and theories, visions of unity (monarchs vs.
republics, socialists vs. liberals, functionalists vs. federalists)
The federal state is a specific manifestation of the federal principle (European origin first
applied in state formation by the United States). It is a dynamic process of allocation of power
between different levels of government. (Koopmans)
- Other structures bearing the characteristics of the federal principle might be called
federalisms. (Weiler, Lenaerts - definition - core elements: (i) search for unity and (ii) respect
for diversity (autonomy) - institutionally: EU is more confederal)

IDEAS AND THEORIES

Tocquiville presents and explains the US federal system, forms the European view and
understanding of federalism in his work De la démocratie en Amérique (1830). The new
America, unlike those European monarchies which had seen a shift from feudal devolution to
authoritarian centralism in the preceding centuries, was not a unitary state: it was a collection
of pioneer colonies which had found a common interest in repelling the imperialism of their
European rulers and coalesced into a relatively loose political union. De Tocqueville saw this
bottom-up approach as vital to the new republic. Power was thus not handed down on a whim
from a monarch or an aristocracy, but flowed upwards and animated the state from the
citizenry.
US: bottom-up federalism, EU: top-down organisation
French influence and the ideology of nation states are influential but clashes with the US
influence resulting in revolution. Tocqueville prefers US federalism for Europe which
reasonably limits and restricts public power.
De Rougemont the Idea of Europe (1966) also supports that states should unite. It promotes
diversity and richness of multiple cultures.
Fischer (Historical Federalism) is a former German Foreign Minister who outlined a
federalist vision for the 'finality' of European integration. EP and Eur Gov’t “really do exercise
legislative and executive power within the federation”. It is necessary to solve political
problems in the history of our continent.
His institutional model is where a new constitution would redraw the lines separating States
and the Union and strengthen the powers of the Union by giving them federal features.
Success can happen only if there exists a "division of sovereignty" between federated
institutions and MS. It is based on less than a supranational state but more than supranational
and intergovernmental institutions and their interconnected operation. Exceptionally the use of
the federal principle in building political integration does not necessarily mean the creation of
a federal state. There is NO taxation and spending powers but rather confederal multilevel
governance system, in which power and action capacities are shared rather than divided.
Fischer (European Federalism)
Based on the role of the German tradition, he imagined the European Parliament in a two-
chamber format:
1) Elected chamber from national parliaments,
4
2) Second chamber based on US (directly elected senators from MS, truly federal) or German
(MPs elected by MS governments: intergovernmental) pattern
(This later change and he proposes a modified US model: directly elected 1st chamber +
senators delegated from national parliaments - Senato)
Hamilton (US Classical Federalism) Federalist Papers No. 1-5.
• importance of peace kept by the federal gov’t:
• “entire and perfect union will be the solid foundation of lasting peace” (UK-
Scotland union reference, 1706)
• not affected by the pride of the sovereign states that often lead to conflict
Vision of Federal Europe & its Thinkers
1) Political union which means the power shared between the EU, the MS and the regional,
local governments.
 Supporters: “core states” (Delors) favours this approach + “the Club Med” (periphery
countries) and others (usually Eurozone countries). True federation consists of common
law, language, citizenship, currency like in the US. Delors also believes that federal
view is good and “best possible guarantee for survival” because there is:
o Pluralism (Tolerance),
o Efficiency (Pragmatism),
o Autonomy (“Constitutional” Identity),
o Participation (Unity out of diversity)

 The Pan-European movement and its controversial acceptance (e.g. UK) - was
supported by Coudenhove-Kalergi and like-minded federal thinkers. According to
their views, if there is a sense of European identity, democratic nation states can only be
federalism (in the form of a multi-ethnic democratic federation).
There is NO political obstacles in front of a federal Europe, there are only psychological ones
(prejudice, stereotypes in terms of nation states, fanatic nationalism). If there is cultural unity,
then there is European nation, divided into linguistic and political groups.
 Problems: centralisation to BXL, ineffectiveness, loss (dissolution) of national
sovereignty
2) Political union based on cooperation between sovereign nation-states.
 Supporters : new MS (as they are in search for identity in intergovernmental dialogue
and communications), UK, Sweden, Denmark (the “odd ones out”)
 Problems: ineffectiveness of consensus (lowest common denominator), speed
(“integration moves only as fast as the slowest ship” - multi-speed Europe),
underrepresentation of EU interest on the national level
VISIONS OF UNITY
1) Monarchy vs Republic
Monarchy, political system based upon the undivided sovereignty or rule of a single person.
The term applies to states in which supreme authority is vested in the monarch, an individual
ruler who functions as the head of state and who achieves his position through heredity.
Succession usually passes from father to son or follows other arrangements within the family
or the monarchical dynasty.
Republic, form of government in which a state is ruled by representatives of the citizen body.
Modern republics are founded on the idea that sovereignty rests with the people, though who
is included and excluded from the category of the people has varied across history. Because
citizens do not govern the state themselves but through representatives, republics may be
distinguished from direct democracy, though modern representative democracies are by and
large republics. The term republic may also be applied to any form of government in which
the head of state is not a hereditary monarch.
Union of monarchs vs. union of republics (Enlightenment- WWI period)
Henri de Saint Simon: “union of monarchs” (FR-UK)
5
vs.
Giuseppe Mazzini, Victor Hugo, Mikhail Bakunin - US of E (“union of republics”)
With WW1 the union of republics remains the only viable option (US of E)

2) Socialism vs Liberalism
Socialism is a populist economic and political system in which the means of production
operate under public political ownership, sometimes called common ownership. Common
ownership under socialism may take shape through technocratic, oligarchic, totalitarian,
democratic or even voluntary rule. All legal production and distribution decisions are made by
the ruling class.
Liberalism, political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of
the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believe
that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others; but they also
recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty.
US of E - socialist and liberal visions of European unity (Period of WWI-WWII)
Coudenhove-Kalergi and the Pan-European movement (Central-Eastern Europe) later
supported by the French - failed
vs.
Anglo-Saxon perceptions (Southern, Western Europe) on US of E (e.g. the Spinelli Report)
3) Functionalism vs. Federalism
Functionalism is a theory of international relations that arose during the inter-War period
principally from the strong concern about the obsolescence of the State as a form of social
organization. Rather than the self-interest of nation states that realist see as a motivating
factor, functionalists focus on common interests and needs shared by states (but also by non-
state actors) in a process of global integration triggered by the erosion of state sovereignty and
the increasing weight of knowledge and hence of scientists and experts in the process of
policy-making (Rosamond, 2000)

Federalism is a system of government in which the same territory is controlled by two levels
of government. Generally, an overarching national government governs issues that affect the
entire country, and smaller subdivisions govern issues of local concern. Both the national
government and the smaller political subdivisions have the power to make laws and both have
a certain level of autonomy from each other.

Unionists (functionalists) vs. federalists (confederation vs. federation) (WWII-Present)

Churchill: US of E through confederation (1946, Zürich - 1947: Eur Fed Association, they
want omnipresent law, not a community), De Gaulle agrees: “Europe of Fatherlands” -
sovereignty is sacrosanct, must remain unharmed
vs.
Monnet, Schuman: “the federalists” (economic motivation - economic integration, spill-over
effect - integration will spread to all sectors) + French, Dutch, Belgian, Italian followers (e.g.
Spinelli)

The ideas of a "United States of Europe" and a "Europe of Nations" represent two contrasting
visions for the future of Europe's political integration.
1. United States of Europe: The concept of a United States of Europe advocates for a high
degree of political and economic integration among European countries. It envisions a
federal Europe with a central government possessing significant powers, similar to the
structure of the United States. Proponents argue that a United States of Europe would
bring numerous benefits, including stronger collective security, a unified foreign
policy, a single market, and a common currency. They believe that a more integrated
Europe would be better equipped to address global challenges and compete with other
6
 global powers.
2. Europe of Nations: The Europe of Nations perspective emphasizes the importance of
maintaining the sovereignty and autonomy of individual European nations. Advocates
argue that Europe is a diverse continent with unique cultural, historical, and political
identities that should be respected and preserved. They believe that decisions regarding
important matters, such as national security, fiscal policy, and social issues, should be
made primarily at the national level. The Europe of Nations approach supports
cooperation and collaboration among European countries, but within a framework that
respects and protects national sovereignty.

Winston Churchill:
Winston Churchill, the former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, is known for his crucial
role in World War II and his vision for a united and peaceful Europe. In a famous speech in
1946 at the University of Zurich, Churchill called for the creation of a "United States of
Europe" as a means to prevent future conflicts on the continent. He envisioned a Europe in
which nations would come together in a partnership or association, working collaboratively
while preserving their individual identities and traditions. Churchill supported the idea of a
united Europe but also emphasized the importance of maintaining the sovereignty and
independence of individual nations.

Charles de Gaulle:
Charles de Gaulle, the former President of France and a key figure during and after World War
II, had a more skeptical stance towards European integration. While de Gaulle recognized the
need for cooperation among European nations, he strongly advocated for maintaining national
sovereignty and preserving the independence of France. De Gaulle was critical of
supranational organizations and resisted efforts to cede too much decision-making authority to
the European institutions. He believed that each nation should have a significant say in its own
affairs and opposed what he saw as excessive federalism.

The idea of the European Union (EU) as a federal political structure has been the subject of
various ideas, theories, and visions throughout its history. Different groups and individuals
have proposed different models and approaches, often reflecting different political ideologies
and preferences. Here are some key ideas and theories, as well as visions of unity within the
context of the EU.
1. Monarchs vs. Republics:
 Monarchs: Some proponents of a federal EU have suggested that the EU could
adopt a constitutional monarchy model, similar to some European countries. In
this vision, a monarch could serve as a unifying figurehead, while the real
political power would be vested in the federal institutions and elected
representatives.
 Republics: Others argue for a federal EU based on republican principles, where
the head of state is elected by the people or their representatives. This model
aligns more closely with the principles of democracy and representative
governance.
2. Socialists vs. Liberals:
 Socialists: Some proponents of a federal EU from socialist or social democratic
backgrounds emphasize the importance of social justice, equality, and worker
protections. They envision a federal structure that ensures a strong welfare
state, workers' rights, and redistribution of wealth among member states.
 Liberals: On the other hand, proponents from liberal or market-oriented
perspectives may prioritize economic integration, free trade, and the protection
of individual rights and freedoms. They often advocate for a federal EU that
7
 promotes economic liberalism and competition, while safeguarding personal
liberties.
3. Functionalists vs. Federalists:
 Functionalists: Functionalists argue for European integration based on practical
considerations and addressing specific policy areas. They believe that by
pooling sovereignty in specific functional domains, such as trade, agriculture,
or security, member states can achieve common goals more effectively. This
incremental approach aims to build a federal structure from the ground up,
starting with functional integration and expanding into broader political union.
 Federalists: Federalists advocate for a more comprehensive and ambitious
vision of a federal EU. They argue for the creation of supranational institutions
with significant powers, such as a federal executive, legislature, and judiciary.
Federalists seek to establish a unified European state with a shared constitution,
common foreign policy, and deeper political integration among member states.

Democracy, Subsidiarity and Multilevel Governance in Europe

4. Democracy, Legitimacy: theoretical trends and their practical implications in Europe
Legitimacy is commonly defined in political science and sociology as the belief that a rule,
institution, or leader has the right to govern. It is a judgment by an individual about the
rightfulness of a hierarchy between rule or ruler and its subject and about the subordinate's
obligations toward the rule or ruler.

Political system is legitimate when:

1,Citizens will follow the rules as long as they consider them fair and as long as they believe
that others also will follow the rules.
2, Political order is legitimate because the citizens accept the results of public decisions and
the effectiveness of the system (government for the people).
We talk about legitimacy deficit in case of:
 falling popular support
 noncompliant behaviour
 challenges to the legality of European integration
 shortcomings from a normative perspective.

Democracy originated in ancient Greece; the word “democracy” is combination of two Greek
words: demos (people) + kratia (rule) = ruling by the people.

Civil society has a great importance in a well-functioning democracy

Challenges:
 how to bring citizens closer to EU design and institutions
 how to organize politics in an enlarged Union
 how to develop EU into a stabilising factor in a multipolar world

Political system is democratic if (Robert Dahl 1)

(a) all citizens are guaranteed the same political rights
(b) the political process is structured as a competitive system that foresees and permits
government change through general elections.

Although many other alternative ways of channeling popular preferences exist we most
commonly refer to systems of representative democracy.
- The EU meets the first criteria at the supranational level through equal voting rights in
1
(1915-2014) Political theorist, Yale University
8
 European parliament elections.
- The second criteria is more difficult to meet since there is not one electoral arena but
each of the national electorates vote for different lists and there is no connection
between results in European parliament elections and ‘government formation’ at the
European level.
- Moreover, neither the elections for national parliaments nor to the European parliament
offer the electorates any real choice over European political outcomes, that is, the
elections do not concentrate on those issues and voting behaviour is only most
indirectly related to future political outcomes.

Schmitter2 argues that the EU lacks many preconditions necessary to the creation of a
democratic system in the traditional meaning that it needs to look for alternative avenues.
There is a lack of democratic infrastructure in that the EU lacks a clearly defined superior
authority, a defined centre and territory, a common identity and common elections and party
system.

Legitimacy and EU Integration:

 Legitimacy of EU Institutions: The legitimacy of EU institutions is a key
concern in European politics. The EU faces challenges in ensuring democratic
accountability, as decision-making often involves complex processes and
interactions among various actors. Efforts to enhance the legitimacy of EU
institutions involve increasing the role of the European Parliament,
strengthening the transparency of decision-making, and improving citizen
engagement.
 Democratic Accountability in EU Decision-making: Theories of democratic
accountability focus on ensuring that EU decision-making processes are
transparent, inclusive, and subject to democratic scrutiny. Balancing the need
for effective decision-making with democratic legitimacy is an ongoing
challenge in Europe, and there is an ongoing debate about the role of national
governments, the European Commission, and the European Parliament in
shaping EU policies.

Democracy and legitimacy are fundamental concepts in political theory and have significant
practical implications in Europe. Let's explore some theoretical trends and their practical
implications in the European context:
1. Representative Democracy:
 Theoretical Trend: Representative democracy emphasizes the election of
representatives who make decisions on behalf of the people.
 Practical Implications in Europe: Most European countries have adopted
representative democracy as their political system. They hold regular elections,
establish political parties, and provide platforms for citizens to participate in the
political process. The European Parliament, composed of elected
representatives from member states, is a key institution that promotes
democratic decision-making at the European level.
2. Participatory Democracy:
 Theoretical Trend: Participatory democracy focuses on active citizen
participation in decision-making processes.
 Practical Implications in Europe: European countries have incorporated
participatory elements into their democratic systems. Mechanisms such as
referendums, public consultations, and citizen initiatives allow individuals to

2
Emeritus Professor of of the Department of Political and Social Sciences at the European University Institute
9
 have a direct say in specific policy matters. Participatory democracy has been
particularly evident in countries like Switzerland, where citizens have
significant involvement in decision-making through referendums.
3. Democratic Deficit:
 Theoretical Trend: The concept of democratic deficit refers to a perceived lack
of democratic accountability and legitimacy in supranational institutions.
 Practical Implications in Europe: The European Union has faced criticisms of
democratic deficit due to concerns that decision-making power is concentrated
in unelected bodies, such as the European Commission and the European
Central Bank. Critics argue that the distance between citizens and decision-
makers can undermine the democratic legitimacy of EU institutions. Efforts
have been made to enhance democratic accountability within the EU through
measures like strengthening the role of the European Parliament and promoting
transparency.
4. Populism:
 Theoretical Trend: Populism is a political ideology that emphasizes the will of
the people against perceived elites or establishment.
 Practical Implications in Europe: Populist movements have gained traction in
several European countries, challenging established political parties and
institutions. Populist leaders often appeal to a sense of direct democracy,
claiming to represent the authentic voice of the people. However, populism can
also raise concerns about the erosion of democratic norms, minority rights, and
institutional checks and balances.
5. Legitimacy Crisis:
 Theoretical Trend: The legitimacy crisis refers to a perceived decline in trust
and confidence in political institutions.
 Practical Implications in Europe: Some European countries have experienced a
decline in trust in their political institutions, including political parties,
parliaments, and governments. This crisis of legitimacy can manifest through
low voter turnout, rising skepticism towards the political establishment, and
support for anti-establishment or extremist movements. Restoring trust and
enhancing the legitimacy of political institutions is an ongoing challenge in
Europe.

5. Governance theory, multilevel governance

A. Governance theory
Government:
 formal institutions of the state
 their monopoly of legitimate coercive power
 characterized by its ability to make decisions
 capacity to enforce the decisions
 refers to the formal and institutional processes which operate at the level of the nation
state
 to maintain public order
 facilitate collective action
Governance as such refers to policymaking and implementation of activities backed by
the shared goals of citizens and different organizations (both private and public ones), who
may or may not have formal authority.

Variety of definitions of governance

World Bank:

10
“the manner in which power is exercised in the management of a country’s economic and
social resources for development”

Worldwide Governance Indicators of the WB:

“the traditions and institutions by which authority in a country is exercised”

Theoretical roots:
- Institutional economics
- International Relations
- Organizational studies
- Development studies
- Political Science
- Public administration
- Foucauldian inspired theorists
Five key attributes of governance
1. Governance refers to a set of institutions and actors that are drawn from but also beyond the
government
2. Governance identifies the blurring of boundaries and responsibilities for tackling social and
economic issues
3. Governance identifies the power dependence involved in the relationships between
institutions involved in collective action
4. Governance is about autonomous self-governing networks of actors
5. Governance recognizes the capacity to get things done which does not rest on the power of
government to command or use its authority. It sees government as able to use new tools and
techniques to steer and guide.

In order to conceptualize governance as a phenomenon Ferrel Heady provides three

governance theories: 1) organizational, 2) cultural, and 3) structural-functional theory.
The first one is based on Max Weber’s concept of rationality and bureaucracy, looking
at governance as a finely ordered system of subordination and superordination, still the third
one
argues that the success of a political system depends on political structures’ capacity
to
perform various actions (planning, rule-making, implementation, etc.). The cultural theory is
the most abstract one that emphasizes the values of semi-feudalistic system of government like
discouragement of individualism, social rather than legal sanctions, customary rather than
contractual relations, emphasis on authority by birth rather than merit, etc. Heady’s
organizational and structural-functional theory might be applicable on MLG, because
MLG is a system of subordination and superordination in which the structural parts
perform various functions in accordance with their capacity and other principles such as
subsidiarity, proportionality, efficiency, legitimacy, etc.

MLG:
Definition: Interaction across different levels of governance that are increasingly
interconnected and interdependent.
“Europe of regions” “Europe of Cities” “Europe of Nation-States”

MLG as dispersion of authority away from central government: upwards to

supranational level, downwards to subnational jurisdiction, and sideways to
public/private networks. MLG covers
1)traditional cooperation and division of jurisdictions among public actors at different
levels of governance (supranational / international, national, subnational, local),
11
2) informal or semiformal cooperation among representatives of civil sector, including
international, national and regional NGO-s, federations, associations, offices, local institutions
and interest groups,
3) partnership among international investors, national and regional business and local
enterprises,
4) horizontal, inter-sectorial collaboration between public and private sector, and civil
society. The last option means cooperation between different sectors at the same stage
and/or at different stages (e.g. national NGOs and regional government offices, local
institutions and local enterprises).

An effective MLG assumes decentralization and application of principle of subsidiarity both

de jure and de facto. Historically decentralization of governance dominated, strong
centralized governments emerged only in the XVII century in form of absolutist monarchies.
In modern liberal democratic states, from the XIX century concept of local self-governance
has developed on two tracks and resulted the so-called English and the French model of local
government. In the English model there are two separate independent systems: local
authorities have a number of responsibilities and the same work independently, without any
interference of central and transferring their operations to the local level so that they do not
possess the powers of supervision of local authorities. On the other side, in France the state
system has been strongly centralized for a long time, local government almost did not exist
(until 1982) and exercised quite narrow scope of work in its own jurisdiction.

Hogghe and Marks classified the different types of MLG by answering on questions: how
different jurisdictions interact with each other (hierarchy, asymmetrical or mutual
dependence, relative independence); are jurisdictions general-purpose or specialized, stable
or fluctuating; are jurisdictional territories exclusive or overlapping?

The European Charter of Local Self-Government (1988) is the first treaty which aims at
protecting the different layers of governance. A well functioning democracy shall ensure
governance as closest to the citizens as possible.

The Charter requires that the principle of local self-government be embedded in domestic law
or in the Constitution. It lays down the principles of democratic functioning of communities,
and is the first treaty to establish the principle of the transfer of competences to local

12
communities which must be accompanied by transfer of financial resources. The principle of
subsidiarity allows the decentralization of power towards the closest level to the citizen.
The Charter guarantees the conditions of office of local elected representatives and their
ability to exercise their functions freely.

Multilevel governance refers to a system of governance in which authority and decision-

making are distributed across multiple levels of government, involving actors at the
supranational, national, regional, and local levels. The concept of multilevel governance is
particularly relevant in the context of the European Union (EU), where power is shared among
EU institutions and the member states. Here's an overview of multilevel governance in the EU:
1. Supranational Level:
 EU Institutions: The EU has its own institutions, such as the European
Commission, the European Parliament, and the European Court of Justice.
These institutions have decision-making powers at the supranational level and
play a significant role in shaping EU policies and legislation.
 EU Policies: The EU formulates policies in various areas, including trade,
agriculture, environment, competition, and justice. These policies are
implemented across member states, affecting national legislation and
governance.
2. National Level:
 Member State Governments: Each member state maintains its own national
government and political system. They retain sovereignty over certain policy
areas, including defense, education, and taxation.
 Transposition of EU Laws: Member states are responsible for incorporating EU
legislation into their national legal frameworks through a process known as
transposition.
3. Regional and Local Level:
 Regional Governments: In some member states, regions possess varying
degrees of autonomy and governance powers. Regions often have responsibility
for implementing EU policies and managing EU funds allocated to them.
 Local Authorities: Local governments, such as municipalities and city councils,
play a crucial role in implementing policies and managing public services at the
local level. They may also participate in EU programs and initiatives.
Practical Implications:
1. Policy Implementation: Multilevel governance in the EU requires coordination and
cooperation between the EU institutions, national governments, and regional/local
authorities to effectively implement EU policies and directives. This collaboration
ensures consistency and harmonization across different levels of government.
2. Subsidiarity Principle: The principle of subsidiarity is a key aspect of multilevel
governance in the EU. It states that decisions should be taken at the most appropriate
level, closer to the citizens, unless a higher level is more effective. This principle aims
to strike a balance between EU-level decision-making and member state autonomy.
3. EU Funding and Programs: Multilevel governance is crucial for the management and
distribution of EU funds, including structural and cohesion funds. Regional and local
authorities often play a role in administering and implementing EU-funded projects at
the grassroots level. (European structural and investment funds, European regional
development fund, European social fund)
4. Democratic Accountability: Multilevel governance in the EU raises questions of
democratic accountability. Ensuring democratic legitimacy and transparency across all
levels of governance is important, as decisions made at the EU level can have
significant implications for citizens at the national, regional, and local levels.

13
6. Political structures and the exercise of national and local competences
In a political system the question lies on whether who should have authority. It depends upon
the nation-state.

Nation: people with common customs, origin, history or language.

State: political entity with legitimate claim to monopolize use of force through police, military
etc. Four main elements: sovereignty, population, territory, government.

Nation-state: political entity with the legitimate claim to monopolize use of force over people
with common customs, origin, history or language.

Political structure: in general sense refers to institutions or groups and their relations to each
other, their patterns of interaction within political systems and to political regulations, laws
and the norms present in political systems in such a way that they constitute the political
landscape of the political entity.

Forms of Government I – Broad (Political Science):

- Oligarchy, this is government ruled by a small group in their own interest;
- Dictatorship, this is where an individual holds absolute power over the people by force.
Such a person is usually termed dictator. The dictator controls the country through
controlling the political parties and the security forces;
- Totalitarianism, a system of government which is formed by one political group and
does not tolerate opposition;
- Democracy, government which allow citizens to govern themselves through direct or
indirect means.

Forms of Government II – Narrow (CCL):

- Based on who is Head of State: Monarchic and Republican;
- Based on who is the Head of Government: Presidential, Semi-presidential, and
Parliamentary.

Monarchy [4]:
 1.Absolute monarchy: Is a form of monarchy in which one ruler has supreme
authority and where that authority is not restricted by any written laws, legislature or
customs, These are often hereditary monarchies.
The number of monarchies substantially declined after the American and French
Revolution.
Liechtenstein! is an example for a constitutional monarchy turning into absolute as the
Prince of Liechtenstein was given expanded power after a referendum amending the
Constitution in 2003.
North Korea: Kim family
State of Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Oman

 2. Constitutional-Parliamentarism: The head of state’s authority derives from and is

legally bounded or restricted by a constitution or legislature.
Former monarchies but now constitutional: Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco

 3. Theocratic: Form of government in which a deity is the source from which all
authority derives. Priests rule in the name of God.
o Conclave/Enclave: Enclave is a microstate in a state. Example. Vatican
o Deity: omnipotence-having unlimited power from God. Example: ancient deity

14
 states: Sumerian, Egyptian states etc.
o Ecclesiastic democracy/ ecclesiocracy (papal states): Is a situation where the
religious leaders assume a leading role in the state, but do not claim that they
are instruments of divine revelation. Example: Prince-bishops in European
Middle Ages where the bishop was the temporal ruler. Such state may use the
administrative hierarchy of the religion for its own administration or it may
have two arms: administrators and clergy. Example: Roman Empire
 4. Sui Generis Limited Monarchy: Constitution limits the power of monarch

2. Parliamentary Republics
 1. Presidential system: Is a democratic and republican system of government where a
head of government leads an executive branch that is separate from the legislative. The
head of state is the president who is elected and is not responsible to the legislature.
President has limited veto right and nomination power. Example: US, Cyprus
In Us: pocket veto: an automatic veto of a bill that occurs if the president neither signs
nor vetoes a bill within ten days of receiving it.
 Semi-Presidential: Is a system of government in which a president exists alongside a
prime minister and a cabinet. In this case the head of state is more than purely a
ceremonial figurehead (in a parliamentary republic only rather symbolic function). The
cabinet is accountable to the legislature which may force the cabinet to resign through
a motion of no confidence (in the presidential the cabinet is not accountable). Head of
state is part of the executive power. The tasks are shared for example the president is
responsible for nuclear power, international relations while the prime minister for
home affairs etc. Example: Russia, France
 Parliamentary: Is a system of democratic governance of a state where the executive
branch derives its democratic legitimacy from its ability to command the confidence of
the legislative branch (parliament). Head of state has neutral power. Example:
Hungary: the president has two kinds of veto power: political, when he sends back a
bill for further negotiation and constitutional, when a bill is considered to be
unconstitutional-not in line with rule of law.

In addition some special cases:

Chancellor democracy: The chancellor is the head of government. Germany

King in Parliament: The king reigns but does not rule. Only symbolic power: in case
of promulgation of a law his approval is needed. The king symbolizes the unity of the
nation. Parliament of England

Co-princes: Two co-princes rule- joint and indivisible heads of state. Example:
Andorra, in case of conflict the Constitutional Court decides who is entitled to act.
Grand Duchy: Restricted privileges of the duke. Luxemburg

Principality of Monaco: constitutional monarchy but with special settings:

3 branches of power:
-legislative: prince with the national council
-executive: prince limited by the constitution
-judicial: prince with delegates to courts

B, Exercise of National and Local Competences

(1) National competences

15
 Competences of legislative:
 making, adopting, amending laws (power to legislate)
 adopt/amend the budget
 adopt/amend the Constitution
 acknowledge international treaties
 acknowledge war and peace
 acknowledge churches
The process of Constitution making:
- role of parliament or a special organ (parliamentary committee): intra-
parliamentary constitution making
- role of the committee consisting of law professors: extra-parliamentary
constitutional making
-the eternity clauses cannot be amended as they have higher level of protection e.g.:
Germany- protection of basic human rights, France: republican form of government

Way of amendment:
*by parliamentary 2/3 majority
*via referendum
*moratorium: during the period when the constitution can be changed
*delay mechanism: laps of time
Relationship between the legislative-executive:
-Parliament elects the Prime Minister- head of executive power
-president appoints the Prime Minister
-Prime Minister and his cabinet are accountable to the legislative branch- motion of
confidence:
- destructive: no confidence voted
- constructive: confidence
Answerbility:
 Plenary (all parties are to attend, in the parliament)
o Interpellation: PM has the obligation to answer the questions, the legislature
demands explanation
o Parliamentary debate
o Reports

 Extra-plenary
o Intra-parliamentary: debates in the parliament and related to the parliament,
committees: standing, ad hoc, investigative
o Extra-parliamentary: not related to the parliament, State Audit Office: auditing
the budget and spending of the executive power

Relationship between the legislative-President (head of state):

Impeachment: In case the head of state is accused for an unlawful activity (bribery, crime etc).
E.g.: President Nixon, Bill Clinton
Head of state: pocket veto, constitutional veto
President-minister: countersignature
Competences of executive:
 ratification of international treaties
 national protection in case of emergency
 territorial integrity of state
 protection of constitution
 head of armed forces
16
 (2) Local competences:
-to ensure local public services
-in order to be capable of doing so sufficient funding is needed
Compulsory functions:
*availability of healthy drinking water
*childcare in kindergartens
*primary school education
*basic healthcare and social service
*public lightning
*local public roads and public cemetery maintenance
*enforcement of national and ethnic minorities rights

In addition, it is local authority’s autonomy to take on optional functions. With regard of the
local conditions the community could decide how and to what extent could address citizens’
requests.
However local authorities cannot take over state administration.

Frontiers of European Integration, Enlargement and Neighborhood Policy

7. Political objectives and consequences of EU enlargement, the possible limits of enlargement,
policies substituting or complementing enlargement
Past enlargements: 4 rounds since the EC – France, Benelux, West Germany, Italy- was set up:
1958: Belgium, Netherlands Luxembourg, Italy. France. (West)Germany
 1973: UK, Ireland, Denmark
 1981: Greece
 1986: Spain, Portugal
 1995: Austria, Finland, Sweden
 2004: Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland,
Slovakia, Slovenia
 2007: Bulgaria, Romania
 2013: Croatia

Copenhagen criteria (June 1993 European Council)

The Copenhagen criteria are the rules that define whether a country is eligible to join the
European Union. The criteria require that a state has the institutions to preserve democratic
governance and human rights, has a functioning market economy, and accepts the obligations
and intent of the EU.

Why the EU is enlarging?

- Promotion of democracy, fundamental freedoms, the rule of law.
- Single market.

Realism: too many (non-potential) states, lower benefits, more conflicts, less decision making
capacity. Potentiality is important here.
Population, economic situation, future perspectives, political stability: these are what the
Council takes into account when deciding about a new member state.

Liberalism: EU enhances the functional goods of the MS. Single Market Theory: they reach
each others’ markets, reduce transactional costs, and they profit from the common budget and
reduced tariffs. New comers are needed if the domestic market is very competitive and to

17
increase the common budget-raising the EU’s total welfare. So the Council agrees newcomers
only of these conditions are met but especially the economic welfare of the country can
contribute to the EU.

Constructivism: EU promotes internationally accepted values, reinforces via policies. Its

values and policies integrate with the national identity (if the nation accepts them).
Enlargement is a crucial part of a community building. New members also contribute in
promotion of the EU values, they themselves integrate in the EU’s collective security. They
can together construct the identity.

Political Objectives and consequences of EU enlargement

The EU’s enlargement policy aims to unite European countries in a common political and
economic project. Guided by the Union’s values and subject to strict conditions, enlargement
has proved to be one of the most successful tools in promoting political, economic and societal
reforms, and in consolidating peace, stability and democracy across the continent.
Enlargement policy also enhances the EU’s presence on the global stage.

Objectives:
 Promote peace and stability
 Democracy
 Market economy
 EU values
 Become competitive on the global stage
 International cooperation is needed to tackle global problems (environmental
degradation, migration crisis)
Consequences:
 Increased number of MSs
 New markets for incumbent companies
 Increased opportunities for job seekers, job providers
 Increased competition- greater variety of products- better quality
Concerns:
 Agricultural reform and the budget:
-less support for existing members as subsidies are transferred to newly joined states
-As a consequence the Commission limited the size of EU budget and the proportion of
the total budget devoted to Structural Funds
-the burden of accession now is not only up to the applicant but to the EU too
-EU has to harmonize its policies to the ones of candidates’
 Migration
-especially in regards CEECs
-labour force in new candidate countries is willing to undertake jobs for lower wages in
the West
 International security:
-EU-Russia relations: Kaliningrad: Russian territory surrounded by EU (settled the
issue via visa corridor)
-Cyprus: North- Turkish Cypriots while South- Greek Cypriots
-Turkey: borders with Syria, Iran and Iraq
 Public opinion
-democratic deficit: not only an internal matter but is an issue in case of enlargement-
citizens are not actively taking part in negotiations but rather the elites, politicians etc.
-referendum: fear from “no” votes like it happened in case of Norway
Plus:
18
 -corruption

Candidate countries: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Moldova, Montenegro, North

Macedonia, Serbia, Turkey, Ukraine.
Potential candidate countries: Georgia and Kosovo

8. Objectives and tools of neighborhood policy, Eastern partnership, Mediterranean cooperation.

The European Neighborhood Policy (ENP) is a foreign relations instrument of the European
Union aims at developing a special relationship between the EU and each of its partner
countries, contributing to an area of security, prosperity and good neighborliness.

The European Neighborhood Policy (ENP) governs the EU’s relations with 16 of the EU’s
closest Eastern and Southern Neighbors. Launched in 2003, developed through 2004,
reviewed in 2011 and 2015.

The main arms of the European Neighborhood Policy (ENP):

a) Eastern Partnership (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine)
b) Southern and Eastern Mediterranean (Union for Mediterranean) – (Algeria, Tunisia,
Morocco, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, Albania, Monaco, Montenegro, etc.)

The core principles of the ENP are differentiation, conditionality, and shared ownership.
Differentiation means that the policy recognizes the diverse needs and aspirations of each
partner country, tailoring its approach accordingly. Conditionality refers to the principle of
attaching specific conditions, such as political and economic reforms, to the provision of
financial assistance and preferential trade access. Shared ownership emphasizes the
importance of involving partner countries in the formulation and implementation of the policy.

Tools of ENP:
Central to the ENP are the bilateral action plans that have been drawn up between the EU and
12 ENP partner countries. These establish political and economic reform agendas with short-
and medium-term priorities (strategy paper of EU commission: 3 to 5 years. Its priorities are:
1. Commitment to shared values
2. More effective political dialogue
3. Economic and social development policy
4. Trade and Internal Market
5. Justice and Home Affairs
6. Connecting the Neighborhood
7. People-to-People programs

The Union for the Mediterranean (UfM) is an intergovernmental Euro-Mediterranean

organisation which brings together all countries of the European Union and 16 countries of the
Southern and Eastern Mediterranean.

In 2005, Barcelona hosted the only the Euro-Mediterranean Summit of Heads of State and
Government to be held at that time. There were notable absences, such as the heads of
government of Egypt, Israel, Jordan, and Syria.

In 2008, on the initiative of the French Presidency of the EU, the Barcelona Process was called
the Union for Mediterranean (UfM) and became institutionalized with the creation of a
Permanent Secretariat, which was finally based in Barcelona in 2010.
Presidency at the EU side: EU External Action Service
Presidency at the Mediterranean: Jordan
19
 The UfM is chaired by a co-presidency, highlighting the co-ownership that characterizes the
group. The main governing body of the UfM is the Senior Officials’ Meeting, which oversees
and coordinates the UfM’s work.

Regional dimensions:
1. Eastern Partnership (EaP): is a joint policy initiative launched at the Prague Summit
in May 2009. It aims to deepen and strengthen relations between the European Union
and its six Eastern neighbours:
Armania, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine.

It represents the Eastern dimension of ENP. It is funded by ENI.

Objectives:
-The main goal of the EaP is to ‘accelerate political association and deepen economic
integration’ between the EU and its eastern neighbours. The level of integration and
cooperation reflects each partner country’s commitment to European values, and progress.
-The Partnership aims to promote democracy and good governance, strengthen energy
security, encourage sectoral reforms (including environmental protection), encourage people-
to-people contacts, support economic and social development and offer additional funding for
projects to reduce socio-economic imbalances and increase stability.

Under the EaP, the EU and its Eastern partners have developed Association Agreements,
including Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Areas (DCFTAs), with three countries:
Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine. These agreements provide a comprehensive framework for
cooperation, trade liberalization, and regulatory approximation, while also encouraging
reforms in areas such as justice, governance, and the fight against corruption.

How does it work?

The Eastern Partnership has two tracks: (1) bilateral and (2) multilateral.
(1) The bilateral dimension supports political and socio-economic reforms in partner
countries to:
 Foster political association and further economic integration with the EU;
 Enhance sector cooperation;
 Support mobility of citizens and visa-free travel as a long-term goal.

(2) The multilateral dimension complements bilateral relations with:

 Thematic platforms to exchange best practices on issues of mutual interest: good
governance, economic integration and growth, energy security and transport, contacts
between people;
 Flagship initiatives, which are regional cooperation programmes in the fields of:
energy, environment, response to disasters, border management, support to small
businesses.

Diplomatic Relations
9. The main focus of following multilateral organisations (free choice): UN, EU, OSCE, Council of
Europe, NATO, African Union, Arab League
1. United Nations
The United Nations is an intergovernmental organization whose stated purposes are to
maintain international peace and security, develop friendly relations among nations, achieve
international cooperation, and serve as a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations.
Headquarter: New York
20
Other offices: Geneva, Nairobi, Vienna, and the Hague.
Languages: Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, and Spanish.

The UN was established after World War II with the aim of preventing future world wars, and
succeeded the League of Nations, which was characterized as ineffective. On 25 April 1945,
50 nations met in San Francisco, California for a conference and started drafting the UN
Charter, which was adopted on 25 June 1945. The charter took effect on 24 October 1945,
when the UN began operations.

The UN has six principal operational organizations: The General Assembly, the Security
Council, the Economic and Social Council, the International Court of Justice, the UN
Secretariat, and the Trusteeship Council, although the Trusteeship Council has been inactive
since 1994. Four of the five principal organs are located at the main UN Headquarters in New
York City, while the International Court of Justice is seated in The Hague.

Article 1
The Purposes of the United Nations are

1. To maintain international peace and security, to take effective collective measures

for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts
of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and
in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or
settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the
peace;
2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of
equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures
to strengthen universal peace;
3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an
economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and
encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without
distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and
4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these
common ends.
Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in
accordance with the following Principles:

1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
2. All Members, in order to ensure, to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from
membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance
with the present Charter.
3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a
manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force
against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other
manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in
accordance with the present Charter and shall refrain from giving assistance to any
state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.
6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations
act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance
of international peace and security.
21
 7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to
intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state
or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present
Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures
under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter.

United Nations General Assembly (Chapter IV):

- Deliberative assembly of all UN member states.
- May resolve non-compulsory recommendations to states or suggestions to the Security
Council (UNSC);
- Decides on the admission of new members, following proposal by the UNSC;
- Adopts the budget; The General Assembly approves the regular budget and determines
the assessment for each member. This is broadly based on the relative capacity of each
nation to pay, as measured by its gross national income (or GNI), with adjustments for
external debt and low per capita income.
- Elects the non-permanent members of the UNSC; all members of ECOSOC; the UN
Secretary-General (following their proposal by the UNSC); and the fifteen judges of
the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Each country has one vote.
- Voting in the General Assembly on certain important questions—namely
recommendations on peace and security; budgetary concerns; and the election,
admission, suspension, or expulsion of members—is by a two-thirds majority of those
present and voting. Other questions are decided by a simple majority.
- Apart from the approval of budgetary matters, including the adoption of a scale of
assessment, Assembly resolutions are not binding on the members. The Assembly may
make recommendations on any matters within the scope of the UN, except matters of
peace and security under the Security Council's consideration.
- Emergency special sessions can be called by the Security Council, if supported by at
least seven members, or by a majority of Member States of the United Nations. If
enough votes are had, the Assembly must meet within 24 hours, with Members being
notified at least twelve hours before the opening of the session. There have been 11
emergency special sessions in the history of the United Nations.
- The General Assembly subsidiary organs are divided into five categories: committees
(30 total, six main), commissions (six), boards (seven), councils (four) and panels
(one), working groups, and "other".
- the secretary-general is appointed by the General Assembly upon the recommendation
of the Security Council. As the recommendation must come from the Security Council,
any of the five permanent members of the council can veto a nomination.

UN Security Council (Chapter V):

- Responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security;
- May adopt compulsory resolutions;
- Has fifteen members: five permanent members with veto power and ten elected
members.
- recommending the admission of new UN members to the General Assembly, and
approving any changes to the UN Charter;
- The other ten members are elected on a regional basis for a term of two years. The
body's presidency rotates monthly among its members.
- Unlike the General Assembly, the Security Council meets year-round. Each Security
Council member must have a representative available at UN Headquarters at all times
in case an emergency meeting becomes necessary.
- Under Chapter VI of the Charter, "Pacific Settlement of Disputes", the Security
Council "may investigate any dispute, or any situation which might lead to
22
 international friction or give rise to a dispute". The Council may "recommend
appropriate procedures or methods of adjustment" if it determines that the situation
might endanger international peace and security. These recommendations are generally
considered to not be binding, as they lack an enforcement mechanism.
- Under Chapter VII, the council has broader power to decide what measures are to be
taken in situations involving "threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, or acts of
aggression." In such situations, the council is not limited to recommendations but may
take action, including the use of armed force "to maintain or restore international peace
and security."
- Decisions taken under Chapter VII, such as economic sanctions, are binding on UN
members; the Security Council is the only UN body with authority to issue binding
resolutions;
- The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court recognizes that the Security
Council has authority to refer cases to the Court in which the Court could not otherwise
exercise jurisdiction.
- Under Article 27 of the UN Charter, Security Council decisions on all substantive
matters require the affirmative votes of three-fifths (i.e. nine) of the members. A
negative vote or a "veto" by a permanent member prevents adoption of a proposal,
even if it has received the required votes.
- Abstention is not regarded as a veto in most cases, though all five permanent members
must vote for adopting any amendment of the UN Charter or any recommendation of
the admission of a new UN member state.
- These ten non-permanent members are elected by the United Nations General
Assembly for two-year terms starting on 1 January, with five replaced each year. To be
approved, a candidate must receive at least two-thirds of all votes cast for that seat,
which can result in deadlock if there are two roughly evenly matched candidates.
- After approval by the Security Council, the UN may send peacekeepers to regions
where armed conflict has recently ceased or paused to enforce the terms of peace
agreements and to discourage combatants from resuming hostilities. Since the UN does
not maintain its own military, peacekeeping forces are voluntarily provided by member
states.

UN Secretariat:
- Administrative organ of the UN; The UN Secretariat carries out the day-to-day duties
required to operate and maintain the UN system.
- Supports the other UN bodies administratively (for example, in the organization of
conferences, the writing of reports and studies and the preparation of the budget);
- Its chairperson—the UN Secretary-General—is elected by the General Assembly for a
five-year mandate and is the UN's foremost representative.
- The UN secretary-general's duties include helping resolve international disputes,
administering peacekeeping operations, organizing international conferences, gathering
information on the implementation of Security Council decisions, and consulting with
member governments regarding various initiatives.
- The Secretariat has an important role in setting the agenda for the deliberative and
decision-making bodies of the UN (the General Assembly, Economic and Social
Council, and Security Council), and the implementation of the decision of these bodies.
- The Secretary-General acts as the de facto spokesperson and leader of the UN. The
position is defined in the UN Charter as the organization's "chief administrative
officer". Article 99 of the charter states that the secretary-general can bring to the
Security Council's attention "any matter which in his opinion may threaten the
maintenance of international peace and security.”
- The Secretary-General is appointed by the General Assembly, after being
23
 recommended by the Security Council, where the permanent members have veto
power. There are no specific criteria for the post, but over the years it has become
accepted that the position shall be held for one or two terms of five years.

UN Economic and Social Council (Chapter X):

- for global economic and social affairs;
- Responsible for co-operation between states as regards economic and social matters;
- Co-ordinates co-operation between the UN's numerous specialized agencies;
- Has 54 members, elected by the General Assembly to serve staggered three-year
mandates;
- ECOSOC holds one four-week session each year in July, and since 1998 has also held
an annual meeting in April with finance ministers of heading key committees of the
World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Additionally, the High-Level
Political Forum (HLPF), which reviews the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development, is convened under the auspices of the Council every July.

International Court of Justice (Chapter XIV):

- Universal court for international law;
- Decides disputes between states that recognize its jurisdiction;
- Issues legal opinions;
- Renders judgment by relative majority. The ICJ consists of a panel of 15 judges elected
by the UN General Assembly and Security Council for nine-year terms. No more than
one judge of each nationality may be represented on court at the same time, and judges
collectively must reflect the principal civilizations and legal systems of the world.
- The judges are elected on a rotational basis, meaning that five judges are chosen every
three years.
- There is an informal understanding that the seats will be distributed by geographic
regions so that there are five seats for Western countries, three for African states
(including one judge of francophone civil law, one of Anglophone common law and
one Arab), two for Eastern European states, three for Asian states and two for Latin
American and Caribbean states.
- its rulings and opinions serving as primary sources of international law (subject to
Article 59 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice).
- Article 94 establishes the duty of all UN members to comply with decisions of the
court involving them. If parties do not comply, the issue may be taken before the
Security Council for enforcement action.
- There is also a possibility for ad hoc or temporary judges to be appointed. This
happens in case one of the states proceeding in front of the ICJ has a judge on the
bench while the other has none. Ad hoc judges, regarding the case at hand, are full
members of the Court as they have the right to participate and vote in the proceedings.
However, when the case is decided, their mandate terminates.
- There are two types of cases at the ICJ: contentious cases and advisory opinions.
Contentious cases involve legal disputes between states. It is compulsory to provide an
explanation to the judgment, but judges who do not agree with the Court’s decision
may express their views. If the judge agreed with the judgment itself, but not with the
reasoning provided, the judge may attach a separate opinion. If the judges voted
differently on the judgment, but remained in minority, they can attach a dissenting
opinion. The judgment is binding on the parties. The ICJ has one-tier procedure where
it is not possible to appeal. Only a re-examination of the case is possible within a
deadline. If any fact that could fundamentally affect the outcome of the case comes to
the attention of any of the parties, a new procedure may be initiated only within six
months of the discovery of the new fact, but not late than within 10 years after the
24
 judgment has been reached by the Court.

An advisory opinion may be requested by UNSC, UNGA, or UN bodies and specialized

agencies on matters relating to their responsibilities and tasks. The special nature of the
procedure is that there are no opposing parties, and the Court is not obliged to answer the
question. If it does, however, the advisory opinion remains non-binding.

UN Trusteeship Council:
- For administering trust territories;
- Was originally designed to manage colonial possessions that were former League of
Nations mandates;
- Has been inactive since 1994, when Palau, the last trust territory, attained
independence.

2. North Atlantic Treaty Organization

NATO is an intergovernmental military alliance between 31 member states – 29 European and

two North American. Established in the aftermath of World War II, the organization
implemented the North Atlantic Treaty, signed in Washington, D.C., on 4 April 1949. NATO
is a collective security system: its independent member states agree to defend each other
against attacks by third parties. During the Cold War, NATO operated as a check on the threat
posed by the Soviet Union. The alliance remained in place after the dissolution of the Soviet
Union and the Warsaw Pact, and has been involved in military operations in the Balkans, the
Middle East, South Asia, and Africa. The organization's motto is animus in consulendo liber
(Latin for "a mind unfettered in deliberation").

Headquarter: Brussels, Belgium.

NATO formed with twelve founding members and has added new members nine times, most
recently when Finland joined the alliance on 4 April 2023, exactly 74 years after NATO's
formation.

It transformed from traditional alliance for collective defense to a global cooperative security
provider based on the principle of cooperative security.

1950: Lord Ismay, NATO’s first Secretary-General, described NATO:

- To keep Russians out – refers collective defense; keeping the Germans down – refers
NATO’s role as pacificator; keeping the Americans in is about partnership and
common values.

NATO first time invoked clauses of Article 5 after the attacks on the World Trade Centre in
New York and the Pentagon in Washington.

NATO Strategic Concept 2010: “[collective defense] reconfirms the bond between our nations
to defend one another against attack, including against new threats to the safety of our
citizens.”
Shift in NATO focus:
- Western Europe (1950s-1980s);
- Balkans (1990s);
- Asia (2000s);
- Middle East/ North Africa (2010s).

25
Partnership for Peace is a North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) program aimed at
creating trust between the member states of NATO and other states mostly in Europe,
including post-Soviet states, launched in 1994.

The Mediterranean Dialogue, first launched in 1994, is a forum of cooperation between

NATO and seven countries of the Mediterranean. Its stated aim is "to create good relations and
better mutual understanding and confidence throughout the region, promoting regional
security and stability and explaining NATO's policies and goals."

NATO Organization:
- Civilian structure (NATO Headquarters, Permanent Representatives and National
Delegations, International Staff)
- Military structure (Military Committee, International Military staff, Allied Command
Operations
- Organizations and agencies.

NATO is resourced through the direct and indirect contributions of its members. NATO’s
common funds are composed of direct contributions to collective budgets and programmes,
which equate to only 0.3% of total Allied defence spending (around EUR 3.3 billion for 2023).

NATO has three principal common-funded budgets: the civil budget (funding NATO
Headquarters), the military budget (funding the NATO Command Structure) and the NATO
Security Investment Programme (funding military infrastructure and capabilities).

North Atlantic Council (NAC): The NAC is the principal decision-making body of NATO. It
consists of permanent representatives from each member country, typically ambassadors or
high-ranking officials, who meet at least once a week. The NAC provides a forum for member
states to discuss and make decisions on a wide range of political and security issues.
Consensus is the preferred method for decision-making within the NAC, meaning that all
member states must agree for a decision to be adopted. However, in cases where consensus
cannot be reached, member states may resort to other voting procedures.

Consensus Decision-Making: Consensus decision-making is the primary method used within

NATO. It means that all member states must reach a general agreement on a particular issue
before a decision can be made. This process allows for the involvement and consideration of
all member states' perspectives and ensures that decisions have broad support.

3. Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe

With 57 participating States in North America, Europe and Asia, the OSCE – the Organization
for Security and Co-operation in Europe – is the world’s largest regional security organization.
The OSCE works for stability, peace and democracy for more than a billion people, through
political dialogue about shared values and through practical work that aims to make a lasting
difference. Established as the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe in 1973;
renamed OSCE in 1995.

The six official languages of the OSCE are English, French, German, Italian, Spanish and
Russian

The OSCE is a forum for political dialogue on a wide range of security issues and a platform
for joint action to improve the lives of individuals and communities. The organization uses a
comprehensive approach to security that encompasses the politico-military, economic and
environmental, and human dimensions.
26
With its Institutions, expert units and network of field operations, the OSCE addresses issues
that have an impact on our common security, including arms control, terrorism, good
governance, energy security, human trafficking, democratization, media freedom and national
minorities.

Political direction to the organization is given by heads of state or government during

summits. Summits are not regular or scheduled but held as needed. The high-level decision-
making body of the organization is the OSCE Ministerial Council, which meets at the end of
every year. At the ambassadorial level, the OSCE Permanent Council convenes weekly in
Vienna and serves as the regular negotiating and decision-making body. The chairperson of
the Permanent Council is the ambassador to the Organization of the participating State which
holds the chairmanship.

In addition to the Ministerial Council and Permanent Council, the Forum for Security Co-
operation is also an OSCE decision-making body. It deals predominantly with matters of
military co-operation, such as modalities for inspections according to the Vienna Document of
1999.

The OSCE's Secretariat is located in Vienna, Austria. The organization also has offices in
Copenhagen, Geneva, The Hague, Prague and Warsaw.

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe is
made up of 323 parliamentarians from 57 member states.

The Parliamentary Assembly passes resolutions on matters such as political and security
affairs, economic and environmental issues, and democracy and human rights. Representing
the collective voice of OSCE parliamentarians, these resolutions and recommendations are
meant to ensure that all participating states live up to their OSCE commitments. The
Parliamentary Assembly also engages in parliamentary diplomacy, and has an extensive
election observation program.

The OSCE chairmanship is assumed at yearly intervals by one participating state, which then
plays the central role in managing the organization's work and in its external representation.
The foreign minister of the country possessing the chair holds the OSCE's most senior position
as Chairperson-in-Office (CiO).

The responsibilities of the Chairperson-in-Office include:

- co-ordination of the work of OSCE institutions;
- representing the OSCE;
- supervising activities related to conflict prevention, crisis management, and post-
conflict rehabilitation.

While the Chairperson-in-Office is the OSCE's most senior official, on a day-to-day basis the
Secretary General is the OSCE's chief administrative officer and can, when requested by the
Chairmanship, serve as a representative of the Chairperson-in-Office.

The OSCE considers itself a regional organization in the sense of Chapter VIII of the United
Nations Charter and is an observer in the United Nations General Assembly. The Chairperson-
in-Office gives routine briefings to the United Nations Security Council.

Three dimensions:
27
 - Politico-military dimension;
- Economic and military environmental dimension;
- Human dimension.

10. Prospects of a reform of the UN

Since its establishment, the UN has been subject to a number of reforms, adapting it to the
changing needs and expectations of the international system. These reforms have encompassed
variety of issues, including restructuring the permanent membership of the UN Security Council
(UNSC), increasing UN secretariat transparency, accountability and efficiency, financial reform,
calling for diversity and democracy through the implementation of a representative voting
system in the General Assembly (UNGA), and reforming the human rights petition system,
among other examples.

The two options mentioned by Annan are referred to as Plan A and Plan B:

Plan A calls for creating six new permanent members, plus three new nonpermanent members
for a total of 24 seats in the council.
Plan B calls for creating eight new seats in a new class of members, who would serve for four
years, subject to renewal, plus one nonpermanent seat, also for a total of 24.

UNSC members before 1963: 5 permanent members and 6 non-permanent

After 1963: P5 and 10 Non-P

A very frequently discussed change to the UN structure is to change the permanent membership
of the UNSC, which reflects the power structure of the world as it was in 1945. Various
proposals have been put forward, including ones by the G4 nations, the Uniting for Consensus
group, and former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, suggesting that other nations – most
notably Brazil, Germany, India, and Japan – should also have permanent membership, to allow
for a more equitable representation within the council.

1. G4 Proposal: The G4 countries, comprising Brazil, Germany, India, and Japan, have been
advocating for their inclusion as permanent members on an expanded Security Council.
28
 They argue that their global significance and contributions to international peace and
security warrant a permanent seat. The G4 proposal also calls for an increase in the
overall number of permanent and non-permanent members to make the Council more
representative.
2. African Union (AU) Proposal: The African Union has consistently called for Africa's
representation to be increased in the Security Council. The AU's Common African
Position suggests adding two permanent seats and five non-permanent seats for African
countries. This proposal aims to rectify what is seen as an underrepresentation of African
nations on the Council, considering the continent's size, population, and its role in global
affairs.
3. Coffee Club Proposal: The "Coffee Club" is a group of 27 small- and medium-sized UN
member states, including Costa Rica, Jordan, Liechtenstein, and Singapore. Their
proposal suggests expanding the Security Council to include more non-permanent seats
and improving the involvement of smaller states in decision-making processes. The
Coffee Club argues that a more inclusive Council would enhance legitimacy and provide
a platform for diverse perspectives.
4. Arab Group Proposal: The Arab Group has proposed increasing the number of non-
permanent seats and giving the Arab states a permanent seat on the Security Council.
Their proposal emphasizes the importance of addressing regional conflicts and the need
for enhanced representation of Arab countries in decisions related to the Middle East and
North Africa.
5. L.69 Proposal: The L.69 group, composed of developing countries from Africa, Asia,
Latin America, and the Caribbean, has put forward a joint proposal. The L.69 proposal
calls for an expansion of the Security Council, with additional permanent and non-
permanent seats distributed among various regions. It emphasizes the need for equitable
geographic representation and balanced regional allocations.

THE COUNCIL NEEDS TO IMPROVE ON:

1. EQUITABLE GEOGRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION
2. TRANSPARENCY
3. ACCOUNTABILITY
4. CREDIBILITY

CURRENTLY 3 (THREE) major proposals for reform:

• G4 Group: Brasil, Germany, India and Japan> want to add 6 (six) NEW PERMANENT
MEMBERS to the Council. 2 Africa, 2 Asia, 1 Latin America and Caribbean, 1 West Europe
AND 4 NON Permanent, 1 Africa, 1 Latin America and Caribbean and 1 West Europe
• UNITING FOR CONSENSUS: also known as Coffee Club, leading state being Italy,
wish to add NON PERMANENT MEMBERS ONLY! Totaling 26 Council members and each
non permanent member can be re-elected.
• AFRICAN GROUP: Having the sole argument of not having any permanent seat within
the Security Council, the African Group proposed to enlarge the SC by 6 new permanent
members (Africa 2, Asia 2, Latin America and Caribbean 1, Western Europe and Others 1 seat)
and 5 new non-permanent members (Africa 2, Asia 1, Latin America and Caribbean 1, East
Europe 1).

2. UN CHARTER:
• Needs updating!
• Still contains clauses, such as ENEMY STATES: such as Hungary, Germany and Japan,
which were allies of the Axis.
• Does not mention anything about peacekeeping operations, the main activity of the
current UN
29
 • Removal of Trusteeship Committee

3. OTHER:
• NEED TO INCREASE: TRANSPARENCY, ACCOUNTABILTY AND
CREDIBILITY!!! In Security Council and Secretariat

11. Definition and consequences of bipolarity and multipolarity in diplomatic relations

Bipolarity is a distribution of power in which two states have a preponderance of power. In
bipolarity, spheres of influence and alliance systems have frequently developed around each
pole. For example, in the Cold War of 1947-1991, most Western and capitalist states would
fall under the influence of the US, while most Communist states would fall under the influence
of the USSR. According to Kenneth Waltz, the bipolar system is considered the most
stable structure in the long term because both parties can counterbalance and mitigate the
violent aspirations of the other, thus preventing the system’s destabilization. In a bipolar
system, the two poles are clearly and unequivocally separated, it is knowable from each state
to which pole is linked. The leading powers of both poles can act almost exclusively watching
the other and try to calculate the othe`r’s actions or possible responses. The neorealist
Kenneth Waltz argues that bipolar international system is the most stable structure in the
long run because of its predictability. In such a system, a clear difference exists in how
much power each pole holds compared with what other state actors hold. Because of the
power disparity, each of the two poles can focus its activity almost exclusively on the other.
Each can anticipate the other’s actions and accurately predict its responses because of their
history of repeated interactions. Each tries to preserve this balance of power to preserve itself
and the bipolar system. Dale Copeland has challenged Waltz on this, arguing that bipolarity
creates a risk for war when a power asymmetry or divergence happens.

Multipolarity is a distribution of power in which more than two states have similar amounts
of power. The Concert of Europe, a period from after the Napoleonic Wars to the Crimean
War, was an example of peaceful multipolarity (the great powers of Europe assembled
regularly to discuss international and domestic issues), as was the Interwar period. Examples
of wartime multipolarity include World War I, World War II, the Thirty Years War. Classical
realist theorists, such as Hans Morgenthau and E. H. Carr, hold that multipolar systems are
more stable than bipolar systems, as great powers can gain power through alliances and petty
wars that do not directly challenge other powers; in bipolar systems, classical realists argue,
this is not possible. Neorealists hold that multipolar systems are particularly unstable and
conflict-prone, as there is greater complexity in managing alliance systems, and a greater
chance of misjudging the intentions of other states. (The Westphalian System, the Concert of
Europe)

12. The evolution of relations between the West and Russia in the last 25 years
Before answering this question, we should clarify what we mean by the West exactly?
John Ikenberry in his book Liberal Leviathan argues that: “The order created by the United
States in the decades after WWII is a curious amalgam of logics, institutions, roles, and
relationships. It is an order that has been given various names - the free world, the American
system, the West, the Atlantic world, Pax Democratica, Pax Americana, the Philadelphian
system.”

The relations between the West and Russia have undergone significant changes over the last
25 years, with periods of cooperation and engagement as well as periods of heightened
tensions and confrontation. Here is a broad overview of the evolution of these relations during
this time:
30
 - Post-Cold War Cooperation (1990s): Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, there
was a period of relative cooperation and engagement between the West and Russia.
Efforts were made to integrate Russia into the international community and foster
democratic reforms. Russia became a member of the G8 (now G7) group of leading
industrialized nations, and there were initiatives to promote economic cooperation and
investment. (The Clinton Administration – reform of Russia => the Washington
Consensus)
- NATO Expansion and Kosovo War (late 1990s): Tensions began to emerge as NATO
expanded its membership eastward, including former Soviet bloc countries. Russia
viewed this as a threat to its security and protested against the alliance's encroachment
into its traditional sphere of influence. The NATO intervention in Kosovo without UN
Security Council approval further strained relations between Russia and the West.
- 9/11 and the War on Terror (early 2000s): In the aftermath of the September 11
attacks, Russia and the West found common ground in the fight against terrorism.
Russia supported the U.S.-led military campaign in Afghanistan and cooperated on
intelligence sharing and counterterrorism efforts. This period saw a relative thaw in
relations, with Russia even offering assistance to NATO in its operations. May 2002 -
Creation of the NATO-Russia Council:
(a) During the Rome NATO Summit, President Bush, the other NATO heads of
state, and President Putin agreed to create a NATO-Russia Council that would
focus on specific, well-defined projects, where NATO and Russia shared a
common interest.
(b) Initial projects included work on nonproliferation, assessing the terrorist threat,
defense reform, military cooperation, and civil emergencies.
In 2002, the U.S. withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in order to move forward
with plans for a missile defense system. Putin called the decision a mistake. Russia strongly
opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq, though without exercising its veto in the United Nations
Security Council. Russia has regarded the expansion of NATO into the old Eastern Bloc, and
U.S. efforts to gain access to Central Asian oil and natural gas as a potentially hostile
encroachment on Russia's sphere of influence.
- Color Revolutions and "Reset" (mid-2000s to early 2010s): As pro-democracy
movements emerged in some post-Soviet states, Russia became increasingly suspicious
of Western involvement and accused the West of meddling in its sphere of influence.
This led to strained relations, particularly during the "color revolutions" in Georgia
(2003) and Ukraine (2004-2005 and 2014). However, in 2009, there was an attempt to
reset relations between Russia and the United States under the Obama administration,
emphasizing cooperation on nuclear arms control and other issues.
(a) As of late 2013, Russia–United States relations were at a low point The United
States canceled a summit (for the first time since 1960), after Putin gave
asylum to Edward Snowden. The granting of asylum further aggravated
relations between the two countries and led to the cancellation of a meeting
between Obama and Putin that was scheduled for early September 2013 in
Moscow.
- Ukraine Crisis and Crimea Annexation (2014): The Ukraine crisis marked a significant
turning point in Russia-West relations. Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014,
following the ousting of the pro-Russian Ukrainian president, led to widespread
condemnation from the West. The conflict escalated into a full-blown crisis, with
Western countries imposing economic sanctions on Russia, and Russia responding
with counter-sanctions. The conflict in eastern Ukraine, involving Russian-backed
separatists, further strained relations.
- Syria, Cyberattacks, and Election Interference (2010s): Disagreements over the Syrian
civil war and Russia's support for the Assad regime created additional tensions.
31
 Russia's alleged cyberattacks targeting Western institutions and accusations of
interference in Western elections further strained relations. The poisoning of former
Russian spy Sergei Skripal in the UK in 2018 and subsequent diplomatic expulsions
added to the deteriorating relations.

Current State: Relations between the West and Russia remain tense and confrontational.
Disagreements persist over various issues, including Ukraine, Syria, human rights, and
democratic values. Both sides continue to engage in political rhetoric, economic sanctions, and
countermeasures. However, diplomatic channels are still open, and there are occasional
attempts to find common ground on specific issues, such as arms control or climate change.
The Trump Administration designated Russia (China) as the revisionist power who challenges
the supremacy of the U.S. and the world order => enshrined in the National Security Strategy
of 2018.

The European Union and European Policies

13. Integration theories
Many theories have emerged which attempt to explain the process and outcome of integration
in Europe. They try to clarify how and why the European Union came about and how it is
today. The following are some of the most dominant theories of European integration.

Neofunctionalism takes on the functionalist idea that international cooperation is a response

to scale economies in the provision of public goods. Whereas functionalists argue that the only
feasible way to bypass state sovereignty is by transferring specific state functions to
specialized international agencies, neofunctionalists emphasize the potential for deeper and
broader governance at the regional level. Whether this will lead to some kind of federal polity
is unknown. Neofunctionalists have been more interested in the direction of regional
integration than its outcome. Neofunctionalists pay detailed attention to how regional
integration in one policy induces integration in other policies, either by opening up new
possibilities for cooperation, or more likely, by generating unanticipated problems that trigger
further integration.

Intergovernmentalists, by contrast, view European integration from the standpoint of

national states searching for mutually advantageous bargains. Whereas neofunctionalism
explains integration as the outcome of cooperation and competition among societal actors,
intergovernmentalism explains integration as the outcome of cooperation and competition
among national governments.
One stream of intergovernmentalism views regional integration as a response to shifts in the
balance of power. In the case of European integration, the key development is the post-war
US-Soviet duopoly which relegated European states to mid-range powers. The founding states
had each failed the essential test of legitimacy, defending their populations from foreign
occupation. However, all this did not abolish deeply rooted nations, nor did it extinguish the
zero-sum nature of geopolitics within Europe itself. This underpins the idea that integration
stands in contradiction to national diversity and, when these logics collide, national differences
are likely to prevail. Integration therefore has its core in economics, and it leaves state
sovereignty untouched or it strengthens the national state (Milward 1992: 2–3). As a
consequence, integration comes to a standstill once it affects high politics (Hoffmann 1966:
868).

Liberal intergovernmentalism: Like intergovernmentalism, liberal intergovernmentalism

emphasises national governments as the key actors in the process of integration. However, it
also incorporates the liberal model of preference formation, whereby national governments
32
have a strong idea of what their preferences are and pursue them in bargaining with other
member states. Liberal intergovernmentalists argue that the bargaining power of member
states is important in the pursuit of integration, and package deals and side payments also
occur in the process of making deals. They see institutions as a means of creating credible
commitments for member governments, that is, as a way of making sure that other
governments that they make deals with will stick to their side of the bargain. Liberal
intergovernmentalists consider supranational institutions to be of limited importance in the
integration process, in contrast to neofunctionalists.

(New) Institutionalism: Institutionalism emphasises the importance of institutions in the

process of European integration. New institutionalism developed over the course of the 1980s
and 1990s to explain behaviour in the United States Congress, but has since been used to
explain European integration. New institutionalism has three key strands: rational choice,
sociological and historical.

Federalism: The integration of several national actors take place as a consequence of willful
political decisions taken by politicians and nations and based on common political and socio-
economic norms and objectives. At the beginning of the integration process, a common
constitution for the newly integrated actor will be formulated. This actor usually takes the
form of a federal state with horizontal and vertical separation of powers; the formerly
autonomous units given up their claim to sovereignty and submit to a common will.

European integration theories are frameworks that aim to explain the process and dynamics of
European integration, which refers to the deepening political, economic, and social
cooperation among European countries. These theories provide different perspectives on the
motivations, mechanisms, and consequences of European integration. Here are some key
theories:
1. Neo-Functionalism: Neo-functionalism, developed by Ernst B. Haas, suggests that
European integration starts with functional cooperation in specific policy areas, such as
trade or agriculture, and then spills over into other policy areas. This process creates a
supranational authority that gains power over national governments, leading to further
integration.
2. Intergovernmentalism: Intergovernmentalism focuses on the role of national
governments in driving European integration. It argues that integration is primarily a
result of intergovernmental negotiations and agreements between member states. The
European Union (EU) is seen as a forum for cooperation among sovereign states, with
decisions made through intergovernmental consensus.
3. Liberal Intergovernmentalism: Developed by Andrew Moravcsik, liberal
intergovernmentalism combines elements of both intergovernmentalism and liberal
theory. It emphasizes the influence of domestic interests and institutions in shaping
European integration. According to this theory, national governments act as rational
actors, pursuing their own interests and maximizing their benefits through integration.
4. Constructivism: Constructivism focuses on the role of ideas, norms, and social
constructions in European integration. It suggests that integration is not solely driven
by material interests but also by shared beliefs and values. Constructivists argue that
the process of integration involves the construction of a European identity and the
reshaping of national identities.
5. Postfunctionalism: Postfunctionalism challenges the idea that European integration
always leads to deeper integration. It suggests that integration reaches a point of
diminishing returns, where further integration faces diminishing public support and
increasing political backlash. Postfunctionalists argue that integration can be reversed
or halted when it becomes politically controversial.
33
 6. Multi-Level Governance: Multi-level governance theory focuses on the complex and
overlapping governance structures within the EU. It recognizes the presence of various
actors, including national governments, supranational institutions, regional authorities,
and non-state actors, and highlights the need for coordination and cooperation across
different levels of governance.
7. Neofunctional Federalism: Neofunctional federalism builds upon the original
neofunctionalism theory and emphasizes the creation of a supranational federal
authority as a necessary step for further European integration. It argues that functional
spillover can lead to the development of a federal governance structure, where
decision-making powers are transferred from member states to supranational
institutions.

14. Institutions of the European Union

About EU institutions: Art. 13 of the Lisbon Treaty.

European Parliament (10 September 1952)

Represents the citizens of EU countries and is directly elected by them. It takes decisions on
European laws jointly with the Council of the European Union. It also approves the EU
budget. It runs a network of liaison offices in EU capitals, London, Edinburgh and Washington
D.C.

Role: Directly-elected EU body with legislative, supervisory, and budgetary responsibilities

Members: 705 MEPs (Members of the European Parliament)
President: Roberta Metsola
Established in: 1952 as Common Assembly of the European Coal and Steel Community,
1962 as European Parliament, first direct elections in 1979
Location: Strasbourg (France), Brussels (Belgium), Luxembourg
Some parties: European People’s party, Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats,
Renew Europe, Greens-European Free Alliance, Identity and Democracy.

The Parliament has 3 main roles:

1. Legislative
- Passing EU laws, together with the Council of the EU, based on European
Commission proposals
- Deciding on international agreements
- Deciding on enlargements
- Reviewing the Commission's work programme and asking it to propose legislation
2. Supervisory
- Democratic scrutiny of all EU institutions
- Electing the Commission President and approving the Commission as a body. Possibility of
voting a motion of censure, obliging the Commission to resign
- Granting discharge, i.e. approving the way EU budgets have been spent
- Examining citizens' petitions and setting up inquiries
- Discussing monetary policy with the European Central Bank
- Questioning Commission and Council
- Election observations
3. Budgetary
Establishing the EU budget, together with the Council
Approving the EU's long-term budget, the "Multiannual Financial Framework"
Composition
The number of MEPs for each country is roughly proportionate to its population, but this is
by degressive proportionality: no country can have fewer than 6 or more than 96 MEPs and
34
the total number cannot exceed 705 (704 plus the President). MEPs are grouped by political
affiliation, not by nationality.
The President represents Parliament to other EU institutions and the outside world and gives
the final go-ahead to the EU budget.
The President of the European Parliament is elected for a term of two and a half years, which
is equal to half of the parliamentary term. The European Parliament is the directly elected
legislative body of the European Union, representing the interests of EU citizens.
Parliament's work comprises two main stages:
Committees - to prepare legislation.
The Parliament numbers 20 committees and three subcommittees, each handling a particular
policy area. The committees examine proposals for legislation, and MEPs and political groups
can put forward amendments or propose to reject a bill. These issues are also debated within
the political groups.
Plenary sessions – to pass legislation.
This is when all the MEPs gather in the chamber to give a final vote on the proposed
legislation and the proposed amendments. Normally held in Strasbourg for four days a month,
but sometimes there are additional sessions in Brussels.
MEPs in Parliament are organised into eight different parliamentary groups, including thirty
non-attached members known as non-inscrits.

European Council (Established as an informal summit in 1975, the European Council was
formalised as an institution in 2009 upon the commencement of the Treaty of Lisbon.
The heads of state or government of the EU countries meet, as the European Council, to define
the general political direction and priorities of the European Union. The European Council is
chaired by a president who is elected for a 2.5-year term, renewable once. It does not adopt
laws except for possible EU Treaty amendments.

Role: Defines the general political direction and priorities of the European Union
Members: Heads of state or government of EU countries, European Council President,
European Commission President
President: Charles Michel
Established in: 1974 (informal forum), 1992 (formal status), 2009 (official EU institution)
Location: Brussels (Belgium)
What does the European Council do?
- decides on the EU's overall direction and political priorities – but does not pass laws
- deals with complex or sensitive issues that cannot be resolved at lower levels of
intergovernmental cooperation
- sets the EU's common foreign & security policy, taking into account EU strategic interests
and defence implications
- nominates and appoints candidates to certain high profile EU level roles, such as the ECB
and the Commission
On each issue, the European Council can:
- ask the European Commission to make a proposal to address it
- pass it on to the Council of the EU to deal with
Composition
The European Council is made up of the heads of state or government of all EU countries, the
European Council President, and the European Commission President.
It is convened and chaired by its President, who is elected by the European Council itself for a
once-renewable two-and-a-half-year term. Among other things, the President represents the
EU to the outside world.
How does the European Council work?
It usually meets 4 times a year – but the President can convene additional meetings to address
35
urgent issues.
It generally decides issues by consensus – but by unanimity or qualified majority in some
cases. Only the heads of state/government can vote.

Council of the European Union (1957)

Represents the governments of EU countries. The Council of the EU is where national
ministers from each government meet to adopt laws and coordinate policies. Ministers meet in
different configurations depending on the topic to be discussed. The Council of the EU takes
decisions on European laws jointly with the European Parliament.
Role: Voice of EU member governments, adopting EU laws and coordinating EU policies
Members: Government ministers from each EU country, according to the policy area to be
discussed
President: Each EU country holds the presidency on a 6-month rotating basis
Established in: 1958 (as Council of the European Economic Community)
Location: Brussels (Belgium)
What does the Council do?
- negotiates and adopts EU laws, together with the European Parliament, based on proposals
from the European Commission
- coordinates EU countries' policies
- develops the EU's foreign & security policy, based on European Council guidelines
- concludes agreements between the EU and other countries or international organisations
- adopts the annual EU budget - jointly with the European Parliament
Composition
There are no fixed members of the EU Council. Instead, the Council meets in 10 different
configurations, each corresponding to the policy area being discussed. Depending on the
configuration, each country sends their minister responsible for that policy area.
For example, when the Council meeting on economic and financial affairs (the "Ecofin
Council") is held, it is attended by each country's finance minister.
Who chairs the meetings?
The Foreign Affairs Council has a permanent chairperson - the EU High Representative for
Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. All other Council meetings are chaired by the relevant
minister of the country holding the rotating EU presidency. For example, any Environment
Council meeting in the period when Estonia holds the presidency will be chaired by the
Estonian environment minister.
Overall consistency is ensured by the General Affairs Council - which is supported by the
Permanent Representatives Committee. This is composed of EU countries' Permanent
Representatives to the EU, who are, in effect, national ambassadors to the EU.

Eurozone countries
Eurozone countries coordinate their economic policy through the Eurogroup, which consists
of their economy and finance ministers. It meets the day before Economic & Financial Affairs
Council meetings. Agreements reached in Eurogroup gatherings are formally decided upon in
the Council the next day, with only ministers of Eurozone countries voting on those issues.
How does the Council work?
EU ministers meet in public when they discuss or vote on draft legislative acts
to be passed, decisions usually require a qualified majority:
o 55% of countries (with 27 current members, this means 15 countries)
o representing at least 65 % of total EU population
To block a decision, at least 4 countries are needed (representing at least 35% of total EU
population)
exception - sensitive topics like foreign policy and taxation require a unanimous vote (all
countries in favour).
36
Simple majority is required for procedural & administrative issues

Since the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty the High Representative is also Vice-President
of the European Commission. This allows further coordination and ensure coherence in EU
foreign policy as the European Commission has important international responsibilities such
on trade, development, neighbourhood policy and humanitarian aid.

WHO APPOINTS THE HIGH REPRESENTATIVE / VICE-PRESIDENT?

The European Council, which comprises the heads of state or government of all EU member
states, appoints the HR/VP through a 'qualified majority' vote. The President of the
Commission must be in agreement with the decision. The High Representative also holds the
role of Vice-President of the European Commission, a body voted on by the European
Parliament before taking office.
The Commissioners are appointed for a five-year term, which is renewable and which
coincides with the five-year mandate of the European Commission.
Josep Borrell Fontelles.

EU Member states have committed themselves to a Common Foreign Security Policy for the
European Union. The Common Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union aims to
preserve peace and strengthen international security in accordance with the principles of the
United Nations Charter.
European Commission (1958)
Represents the common interests of the EU and is the EU’s main executive body. It uses its
‘right of initiative’ to put forward proposals for new laws, which are scrutinised and adopted
by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. It also manages EU
policies (except for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, which is conducted by the High
Representative for CFSP, Vice-President of the European Commission), and the EU’s budget
and ensures that countries apply EU law correctly. Representation offices act as the
Commission’s voice across the EU. They monitor and analyse public opinion in their host
country, provide information about EU policies and the way the EU works, and facilitate the
Commission’s cooperation with the host member country.
Role: Promotes the general interest of the EU by proposing and enforcing legislation as well
as by implementing policies and the EU budget
Members: A team or 'College' of Commissioners, 1 from each EU country
President: Ursula von der Leyen
Year established: 1958
Location: Brussels (Belgium)
What does the Commission do?
- Proposes new laws
The Commission is the sole EU institution tabling laws for adoption by the Parliament and the
Council that:
protect the interests of the EU and its citizens on issues that can't be dealt with effectively at
national level
get technical details right by consulting experts and the public
- Manages EU policies & allocates EU funding
sets EU spending priorities, together with the Council and Parliament
draws up annual budgets for approval by the Parliament and Council
supervises how the money is spent, under scrutiny by the Court of Auditors
- Enforces EU law
together with the Court of Justice, ensures that EU law is properly applied in all the member
countries
- Represents the EU internationally
37
speaks on behalf of all EU countries in international bodies, in particular in areas of trade
policy and humanitarian aid
negotiates international agreements for the EU

Political leadership is provided by a team of 27 Commissioners (one from each EU country)

– led by the Commission President, who decides who is responsible for which policy area.
The College of Commissioners is composed of the President of the Commission, eight Vice-
Presidents, including three Executive Vice-Presidents, the High Representative of the Union
for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, and 18 Commissioners, each responsible for a
portfolio.
Appointing the President
The candidate is put forward by national leaders in the European Council, taking account of
the results of the European Parliament elections. He or she needs the support of a majority of
members of the European Parliament in order to be elected.
Selecting the team
The Presidential candidate selects potential Vice-Presidents and Commissioners based on
suggestions from the EU countries. The list of nominees has to be approved by national
leaders in the European Council.
Each nominee appears before the European Parliament to explain their vision and answer
questions. Parliament then votes on whether to accept the nominees as a team. Finally, they
are appointed by the European Council, by a qualified majority.
The current Commission's term of office runs until 31 October 2024.

Court of Justice of the European Union (1952)

The Court ensures that EU law is followed, and that the Treaties are correctly interpreted and
applied: it reviews the legality of the acts of the EU institutions, ensures that EU countries
comply with their obligations under the Treaties, and interprets EU law at the request of
national courts. The Court of Justice is composed of 27 Judges and 11 Advocates General.
Role: Ensuring EU law is interpreted and applied the same in every EU country; ensuring
countries and EU institutions abide by EU law.
Members:
Court of Justice: 1 judge from each EU country, plus 11 advocates general
General Court: 2 judges from each EU country
Location: Luxembourg
The CJEU gives rulings on cases brought before it. The most common types of case are:
- interpreting the law (preliminary rulings) – national courts of EU countries are
required to ensure EU law is properly applied, but courts in different countries might
interpret it differently. If a national court is in doubt about the interpretation or validity
of an EU law, it can ask the Court for clarification. The same mechanism can be used
to determine whether a national law or practice is compatible with EU law.
- enforcing the law (infringement proceedings) – this type of case is taken against a
national government for failing to comply with EU law. Can be started by the
European Commission or another EU country. If the country is found to be at fault, it
must put things right at once, or risk a second case being brought, which may result in
a fine.
- annulling EU legal acts (actions for annulment) – if an EU act is believed to violate
EU treaties or fundamental rights, the Court can be asked to annul it – by an EU
government, the Council of the EU, the European Commission or (in some cases) the
European Parliament. Private individuals can also ask the Court to annul an EU act that
directly concerns them.
- ensuring the EU takes action (actions for failure to act) – the Parliament, Council and
Commission must make certain decisions under certain circumstances. If they don't,
38
 EU governments, other EU institutions or (under certain conditions) individuals or
companies can complain to the Court.
- sanctioning EU institutions (actions for damages) – any person or company who has
had their interests harmed as a result of the action or inaction of the EU or its staff can
take action against them through the Court.
The CJEU is divided into 2 courts:
- Court of Justice – deals with requests for preliminary rulings from national courts,
certain actions for annulment and appeals.
- General Court – rules on actions for annulment (=declare invalid (an official
agreement, decision, or result) brought by individuals, companies and, in some cases,
EU governments. In practice, this means that this court deals mainly with competition
law, State aid, trade, agriculture, trade marks.
In the Court of Justice, each case is assigned 1 judge (the "judge-rapporteur") and 1 advocate
general. Cases are processed in 2 stages:
Written stage
o The parties give written statements to the Court - and observations can also be
submitted by national authorities, EU institutions and sometimes private individuals.
o All of this is summarised by the judge-rapporteur and then discussed at the Court's
general meeting, which decides:
 How many judges will deal with the case: 3, 5 or 15 judges (the whole Court),
depending on the importance and complexity of the case. Most cases are dealt
with by 5 judges, and it is very rare for the whole Court to hear the case.
 Whether a hearing (oral stage) needs to be held and whether an official opinion
from the advocate general is necessary.
Oral stage – a public hearing
o Lawyers from both sides can put their case to the judges and advocate general, who
can question them.
o If the Court has decided an Opinion of the advocate general is necessary, this is given
some weeks after the hearing.
o The judges then deliberate and give their verdict.
General Court procedure is similar, except that most cases are heard by 3 judges and there
are no advocates general.

Each judge and advocate general is appointed for a renewable 6-year term, jointly by national
governments. In each Court, the judges select a President who serves a renewable term of 3
years.

European Central Bank (1998)

The ECB and the European System of Central Banks are responsible for keeping prices stable
in the euro area. They are also responsible for the monetary and exchange rate policy in the
Eurozone and support EU economic policies.
Role: To manage the euro, keep prices stable and conduct EU economic & monetary policy
President: Christine Lagarde
Members: ECB President and Vice-President and governors of national central banks from all
EU countries
Established in: 1998
Location: Frankfurt (Germany)
The European Central Bank (ECB) manages the euro and frames and implements EU
economic & monetary policy. Its main aim is to keep prices stable, thereby supporting
economic growth and job creation.

What does the ECB do?

39
- sets the interest rates at which it lends to commercial banks in the eurozone (also known as
the euro area), thus controlling money supply and inflation
- manages the eurozone's foreign currency reserves and the buying or selling of currencies to
balance exchange rates
- ensures that financial markets & institutions are well supervised by national authorities,
and that payment systems work well
- ensures the safety and soundness of the European banking system
- authorises production of euro banknotes by eurozone countries
- monitors price trends and assesses risks to price stability.
The ECB President represents the Bank at high-level EU and international meetings. The
ECB has the 3 following decision-making bodies:
Governing Council – the main decision-making body.
Consists of the Executive Board (see below) plus the governors of the national central banks
from eurozone countries.
Executive Board – handles the day-to-day running of the ECB.
Consists of the ECB President and Vice-President and 4 other members appointed for 8-year
terms by the leaders of the eurozone countries.
General Council – has more of an advisory & coordination role.
Consists of the ECB President and Vice-President and the governors of the central banks from
all EU countries.
How does the ECB work?
The ECB works with the national central banks of all EU countries. Together they form
the European System of Central Banks.
It leads cooperation between central banks in the eurozone. This is referred to as
the Eurosystem.
The work of the governing bodies
Governing Council – assesses economic and monetary developments, defines eurozone
monetary policy and fixes the interest rates at which commercial banks can borrow from the
ECB.
Executive Board – implements monetary policy, manages day-to-day operations, prepares
Governing Council meetings and exercises powers delegated to it by the Governing Council.
General Council – contributes to advisory and coordination work and helps to prepare for
new countries joining the euro.

European Court of Auditors (1977)

The ECA contributes to improving EU financial management, and promoting accountability
and transparency, and acts as the independent guardian of the financial interests of EU
citizens. It checks that EU funds are correctly accounted for, that they are raised and spent in
accordance with the relevant rules and regulations, and that they deliver value for money.
Role: To check EU funds are collected and used correctly, and help improve EU financial
management.
President:
Members: 1 from each EU country
Established in: 1977
Location: Luxembourg

What does the ECA do?

- audits EU revenue & expenditure, to check EU funds are correctly raised, spent, achieve
value for money and accounted for
- checks any person or organisation handling EU funds – including spot checks in EU
institutions (especially the Commission), EU countries and countries receiving EU aid
- writes up findings and recommendations in audit reports, for the European Commission and
40
national governments
- reports suspected fraud, corruption or other illegal activity to the European Anti-Fraud
Office (OLAF)
- produces an annual report for the European Parliament and Council of the EU, which the
Parliament examines before deciding whether to approve the Commission's handling of the
EU budget
- gives its expert opinion to EU policymakers on how EU finances could be better managed
and made more accountable to citizens

Court members are appointed by the Council, after consulting the Parliament, for
renewable 6-year terms. They choose one of their number as President for a 3-year term (also
renewable).

It carries out 3 types of audit:

Financial audits – checking that accounts accurately present the financial position, results and
cash flow for the year.
Compliance audits – checking that financial transactions follow the rules.
Performance audits – checking that the EU funds achieve its goals with the fewest possible
resources and in the most economical manner.
The Court is divided into audit groups called 'chambers'. They prepare reports &
opinions for the Court members to adopt, thus making them official.

Others:
I. European External Action Service (EEAS)

Role: Manages the EU's diplomatic relations with other countries outside the bloc and
conducts EU foreign & security policy
High Representative for Foreign Affairs & Security Policy: Federica Mogherini
Established in: 2011
Location: Brussels (Belgium)
The European External Action Service (EEAS) is the EU's diplomatic service. It aims to
make EU foreign policy more coherent and effective, thus increasing Europe's global
influence.

II. European Economic and Social Committee (EESC)

Role: Advisory body representing workers' and employers' organisations and other interest
groups
President: Georgios Dassis
Members: 350 from all EU countries
Established in: 1957
Location: Brussels (Belgium)
The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) is an EU advisory body comprising
representatives of workers' and employers' organisations and other interest groups. It
issues opinions on EU issues to the European Commission, the Council of the EU and the
European Parliament, thus acting as a bridge between the EU's decision-making institutions
and EU citizens.

III. European Committee of Regions (CoR)

Role: Advisory body representing Europe's regional and local authorities

President: Markku Markkula (EPP/FI), City Councillor of Espoo, Finland
41
 Members: 350 from all EU countries
Established in: 1994
Location: Brussels (Belgium)

IV. European Investment Bank

Role: provides funding for projects that help to achieve EU aims, both within and outside the
EU
President: Werner Hoyer
Board of Directors: comprises one director per EU country, plus one from the European
Commission
Founded in: 1958
Location: Luxembourg

V. European Ombudsman

Role: Investigates complaints against EU institutions, bodies, offices & agencies

Ombudsman: Emily O'Reilly
Established in: 1995
Location: Strasbourg (France)

The European Ombudsman investigates complaints about poor administration by EU

institutions or other EU bodies. These may be lodged by citizens or residents of EU countries
or by EU-based associations or businesses.

VI. European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS)

Role: Ensures that EU institutions and bodies respect people's right to privacy when
processing their personal data
Supervisor: Giovanni Buttarelli
Assistant Supervisor: Wojciech Wiewiórowski
Established in: 2004
Location: Brussels (Belgium)

15. Democratic deficit in the EU

‘Democratic deficit’ is a term used to denote a situation where institutions and their decision-
making procedures may suffer from a lack of democracy and accountability. In the case of the
European Union (EU), it refers to a perceived lack of accessibility or lack of representation of
the ordinary citizen with respect to the EU institutions – a sense of there being a gap between
the powers of those institutions and a perceived inability of citizens to influence those
institutions’ decisions.

The issue of democratic legitimacy has been a sensitive one at each stage of the European
integration process. It was addressed in the Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice Treaties, which
progressively gave more powers to the directly elected European Parliament and extended the
areas in which it has joint decision-making powers with the Council of the European Union.
As a result, the Parliament has evolved from a consultative assembly to a co-legislator.

Several changes introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon, which has applied since 1 December
42
2009, served to address concerns of a democratic deficit in the EU. The treaty strengthened the
Parliament’s powers in the following three areas:
- Financial. The Parliament plays a key role in approving all categories of EU annual
budget expenditures.
- Legislative. The co-decision procedure became the ordinary legislative procedure and
applies to almost all areas where the Council decides by qualified majority vote.
- Nomination. The Parliament elects the President of the European Commission on the
basis of a candidate proposed by the European Council taking into account the results
of the Parliament elections. The Commission as a body is subject to the consent of the
Parliament before being appointed by the European Council.

With the principle of subsidiarity in mind, the Treaty of Lisbon also introduced ways to
encourage national parliaments to participate in EU policy formulation, giving them the
opportunity to scrutinise the Commission’s legislative proposals (known as the subsidiarity
scrutiny mechanism).

The Treaty of Lisbon also establishes a citizens’ initiative right, where citizens can ask the
Commission to propose legislation in any field in which it has the power to act. To launch a
European citizens’ initiative, a group of organisers must be set up, comprising at least seven
EU citizens from seven different EU Member States. Once an initiative has reached 1 million
signatures and the prescribed minimum thresholds in seven Member States, the Commission
will decide what action to take.

Members of the Council meet in public sessions when discussing or voting on proposals for
legislative acts. The first deliberation on important non-legislative proposals is also public and
the Council also regularly holds public debates on key issues affecting the interests of the EU
and its citizens.

The Conference on the Future of Europe was a proposal of the European Commission and
the European Parliament, announced at the end of 2019, with the aim of looking at the
medium to long term future of the EU and what reforms should be made to its policies and
institutions. It is intended that the Conference should involve citizens, including a significant
role for young people, civil society, and European institutions as equal partners and last for
two years. It will be jointly organised by the European Parliament, the EU Council and the
European Commission.

The European Citizens’ Panels are a key feature of the Conference on the Future of
Europe.
Four European Citizens’ Panels are organized to allow citizens to jointly think about the future
they want for the European Union.
 4 Panels of 200 European citizens each chosen through random selection, from the 27
Member States;
 Reflecting the EU’s diversity: geographic origin (nationality and urban/rural), gender,
age, socioeconomic background and level of education;
 At least one female and one male citizen per Member State is part of each Panel;
 A third of each Panel is composed of young people (age 16 – 25). A special link
between this youth group and the European Youth Event has been created.

The Conference on the Future of Europe, which formally concluded on 9 May 2022 (Europe
Day), was a bottom-up, grassroots exercise, which has allowed citizens to have a say on what
they expect from the EU and have a greater role in shaping its future. The conference was a
joint undertaking of the Parliament, the Council and the Commission, acting as equal partners
43
 together with the Member States. A key component of the conference was the creation of
citizen panels at the EU level and in several Member States, which held debates and events
designed to feed into the conference plenary with recommendations for the EU institutions.
The conference results are presented in a report which puts forward 49 proposals on the future
of Europe, covering several topics including European democracy. The EU institutions
provided their feedback regarding these proposals at a feedback event in autumn 2022.

16. Citizens and the EU: public opinion and electoral participation
EU citizens' electoral rights
All EU citizens have the right to vote for and stand as a candidate in European Parliament
elections in their country of origin, or if they live in another EU country, they may choose to
vote and stand there, under the same conditions as the nationals of that country.

EU citizens who live in another EU country also have the right to vote and stand as candidate
in local or municipal elections in the country they live in, again under the same conditions as
the nationals of that country.

This is in Article 22 of the EU treaty and Articles 39 and 40 of the EU Charter of Fundamental
Rights.

Since 1974 the European Commission has systematically monitored public opinion on Europe
through its Eurobarometer surveys. They followed up on a 1972 report by the European
Parliament which pressed for a more active and effective information policy on the part of the
European Commission in order to educate the public about Europe.

Every spring and autumn surveys are carried out in all member states amongst 1,000 randomly
selected citizens from the age of 15+. This makes it possible to analyse and compare
developments in public opinion across the member states as well as over time. The bulk of the
questions focus on evaluating the EU: their country’s membership, the speed of the integration
process,attachment to the EU, trust in the different EU institutions, citizens knowledge and
interest in EU affairs and their attitudes towards further expanding the EU.

Public opinion and electoral participation are essential aspects of the relationship between
citizens and the European Union (EU). Here's an overview of public opinion and electoral
participation in the context of the EU:
Public Opinion:
1. Eurobarometer: Eurobarometer surveys are conducted regularly to gauge public
opinion on various EU-related issues across member states. These surveys measure
citizens' attitudes towards the EU, their trust in EU institutions, and their opinions on
specific policies and initiatives.
2. Euroscepticism: Euroscepticism refers to skepticism or opposition towards the EU.
Eurosceptic sentiment can stem from concerns about loss of national sovereignty,
democratic deficit, economic integration, or cultural factors. Eurosceptic parties have
gained electoral support in some member states.
3. European Identity: European identity pertains to citizens' sense of belonging and
identification with the EU. It encompasses shared values, culture, and a sense of
European citizenship. European identity can influence citizens' support for further
integration and their engagement with EU institutions.
Electoral Participation:
1. European Parliament Elections: The European Parliament (EP) is directly elected by
EU citizens every five years. Voter turnout in EP elections varies across member
44
 states, with some experiencing high turnout while others face low levels of
participation. Factors such as national electoral systems, campaign efforts, and citizens'
perception of the importance of the EP influence turnout.
2. National Elections and EU-related Issues: EU-related issues can also be significant in
national elections. Parties may include EU matters in their campaigns, and citizens
may cast their votes based on their stance towards the EU. This interplay between
national elections and EU-related issues can influence citizens' participation and shape
political landscapes.
3. Non-Electoral Participation: Apart from voting, citizens engage with the EU through
other means, such as participating in consultations, joining interest groups, or
participating in civil society organizations. These forms of non-electoral participation
contribute to shaping EU policies and fostering dialogue between citizens and EU
institutions.
Challenges and Implications:
1. Democratic Deficit: The EU has faced criticism regarding its democratic deficit,
whereby citizens perceive a lack of direct influence and accountability over decision-
making processes. Efforts have been made to address this deficit through enhanced
transparency, participatory mechanisms, and strengthening the role of the European
Parliament.
2. Bridging the Gap: Bridging the gap between citizens and the EU involves fostering
dialogue, providing accessible information, and involving citizens in decision-making
processes. Efforts to increase citizens' understanding of EU institutions and policies,
and to address concerns and incorporate diverse perspectives, are crucial for
strengthening the relationship between citizens and the EU.

17. Strengths and weaknesses of Common Foreign and Security Policy

The common foreign and security policy (CFSP) is the EU’s joint foreign and security policy.
It seeks to:
 preserve peace;
 reinforce international security; and
 promote international cooperation, democracy, the rule of law and the respect for
human rights and fundamental freedoms.
The EU has a diplomatic service, the European External Action Service (EEAS), which was
formally launched in 2011. The EEAS acts under the authority of the EU’s High
Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice-President of the
Commission (HR/VP), a position currently held by Josep Borrell Fontelles.

The Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) of the European Union aims to preserve
peace and strengthen international security in accordance with the principles of the United
Nations Charter.

The Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) was established with the signing of the
Maastricht Treaty on November 7, 1991. The Maastricht Treaty laid the foundation for the
creation of the European Union (EU) and introduced the CFSP as one of its pillars. The treaty
came into effect on November 1, 1993, and since then, the CFSP has been an integral part of
the EU's external relations framework.

The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy/Vice-President
of the European Commission (HR/VP[b]) is the chief co-ordinator and representative of the
Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) within the European Union (EU). The position
is currently held by Josep Borrell Fontelles.

45
The High Representative is appointed by the European Council acting by qualified majority.
However, in order to take up their role in the Commission, in particular as a vice-president, the
High Representative has to appear before Parliament for questioning and then be subject to
Parliament's vote of approval on the proposed Commission.

The European Commission uses the Common Foreign and Security Policy budget to respond
in a rapid and flexible manner to external conflicts and crises, to build the capacity of partner
countries and to protect the EU and its citizens. Under its Common Foreign and Security
Policy, the European Commission funds civilian stabilisation missions, EU Special
Representatives, the Kosovo Specialist Chamber, actions in the field of non-proliferation and
disarmament, the European Security and Defence College. The Service for Foreign Policy
Instruments prepares the budget for each operation, ensures the funding based on the Council
legal act and monitors implementation.

The Service for Foreign Policy Instruments implements the Common Foreign and Security
Policy budget in close consultation with the European External Action Service, responsible for
operational planning and policy direction. The Service participates actively in the legal,
financial and institutional negotiations and sets up the necessary financial implementation
structures, prepares and approves budgets and represents the Commission when Member
States discuss actions funded by the budget.

Three major developments have to be underlined: interrelating security with peace policies,
establishing the EU as an effective and credible global player, and promoting EU integration.

The Maastricht Treaty of 1993 allows the EU to develop a Common Foreign and Security
Policy (CFSP), covering all areas of foreign and security policy, with the following objectives:
- To safeguard the common values, interests, independence and integrity of the EU, in
conformity with the UN Charter.
- To protect the security of the EU.
- To preserve peace and international security, in accordance with international
agreements.
- To promote international co-operation.
- To consolidate democracy and the rule of law, respect for human rights and
fundamental freedoms.

The Maastricht Treaty (as amended by the Amsterdam Treaty) declares that these will be
achieved by:
- Defining general principles and guidelines for CFSP.
- Deciding on common strategies.
- Adopting joint actions.
- Adopting common positions.
- Strengthening systematic co-operation between member states in the conduct of policy

Strengths of the Common Foreign and Security Policy:

- Increased Influence: The CFSP allows the EU to speak with a united voice on foreign
policy issues, increasing its global influence. By coordinating positions and actions
among member states, the EU can have a greater impact on international affairs.
- Enhanced Cooperation: The CFSP promotes cooperation and dialogue among EU
member states, fostering a culture of shared decision-making and common objectives.
It encourages joint actions, policy coordination, and mutual support, leading to a more
coherent and effective foreign policy approach.
- Normative Power: The CFSP enables the EU to project its values and promote human
46
 rights, democracy, and the rule of law globally. By aligning foreign policies with its
core principles, the EU can exert soft power and encourage positive change in other
countries.
- Economic Leverage: The EU's economic power provides it with leverage in
international relations. The CFSP can leverage the EU's vast market and economic
incentives to encourage cooperation or influence the behavior of other countries.

Weaknesses of the Common Foreign and Security Policy:

- Decision-making Challenges: The CFSP faces challenges in decision-making due to
the complex and diverse nature of the EU member states' interests and priorities.
Achieving consensus among 27 (as of 2021) sovereign countries can be time-
consuming and lead to compromises that may dilute the effectiveness of the policy.
- Lack of Military Integration: The CFSP struggles with limited military integration
among member states. Defense capabilities remain primarily under national control,
resulting in challenges for coordinated military actions and rapid response to security
threats.
- External Perception and Coordination: The EU's external actions are sometimes
perceived as fragmented or lacking coherence, particularly by external actors who
prefer dealing with individual member states. Coordinating positions and speaking
with a united voice can be challenging, diminishing the EU's ability to project
influence.
- Overreliance on Unanimity: The CFSP requires unanimous agreement among member
states on key policy decisions, which can lead to deadlock or watered-down
compromises. This unanimity requirement can slow down decision-making and hinder
the EU's ability to respond swiftly to evolving crises.
- Limited Resources: The EU's financial and military resources are relatively limited
compared to some global powers. This constraint can affect the EU's ability to
implement its foreign policy objectives effectively, particularly in addressing complex
security challenges.

Controversies
CFSP is one of the most controversial areas of EU activity. This is partly because of the close
association of foreign policy and defence with national sovereignty, the long histories of many
member states as world powers in their own rights, and the wide range of bilateral
relationships between member states and other parts of the world.

The EU's foreign policy is also hampered by its lack of many of the organs of a conventional
state - most fundamentally, the lack of national territory, interests and culture to promote.
Although the replacement of EPC with CFSP attempted to address many of these problems,
the retention of foreign policy as a 'non-Community' matter based on unanimous decisions
makes it a still highly 'intergovernmental' area. This failure to agree common CFSP principles
is in marked contrast to the EU's economic evolution, with the single European currency and
market.
The EU has tried to reform voting procedures to facilitate common agreement, but member
states have proved reluctant to relinquish this feature of their national sovereignty.

Indeed, the Commission and European Parliament have very limited roles in CFSP. The
European Parliament has a right to be consulted on the main aspects and basic choices of
CFSP, but the Council is not usually obliged to take account of its views.

The conflicting roles of the External Affairs Commissioner and the High Representative,
based in the European Council, emphasises the tensions between the EU's supranational and
47
 intergovernmental elements. The Commission's influence is limited when a large member state
occupies the EU Presidency.

The EU has progressed with its plans for a European Security and Defence Force in recent
years, and in 2003 despatched police and military missions to the Balkans.

Subject Area #3: Legal, Political and Institutional Aspects of the European Union

Comparative Constitutional Law and Governance Theory

1. Democracy, European models of democracy, forms or European parliamentary regimes,
structures and competences of national parliaments
Democracy originated in ancient Greece; the word “democracy” is combination of two Greek
words: demos (people) + kratia (rule) = ruling by the people.

The "Lijphart's typology" or the "Arendt Lijphart's classification of democracy."

1. Majoritarian Democracy: Majoritarian democracy is characterized by a concentration
of power and decision-making in the hands of the majority. It emphasizes a winner-
takes-all approach, where the majority party or coalition has significant control over
the legislative and executive branches. In this model, decisions are made by a simple
majority, and the minority has limited influence. Majoritarian democracies tend to have
a more adversarial political culture and can be prone to polarization (UK, US).
2. Consensus Democracy: Consensus democracy, on the other hand, seeks to achieve
broad-based agreement and cooperation among different societal groups. It aims to
include diverse perspectives and ensure that minority interests are represented and
protected. Consensus democracies often involve power-sharing arrangements,
proportional representation electoral systems, and consensual decision-making
processes. They prioritize stability, social cohesion, and the protection of minority
rights (Switzerland, Netherlands).

Lijphart argued that consensus democracies tend to be more inclusive, accommodating diverse
interests, and producing more consensual policy outcomes. Majoritarian democracies, on the
other hand, are more likely to have winner-takes-all dynamics and a more adversarial political
culture.

Frank Hendriks has also explored other forms of democracy, including pendulum
democracy, consensus democracy, voter democracy, and participatory democracy. Here's a
brief overview of these concepts:
1. Pendulum Democracy: Pendulum democracy refers to a model in which political
power alternates between different ideological or political groups over time. It
recognizes that different groups within society may have diverse perspectives and
policy preferences. In this model, power shifts back and forth like a pendulum, as
different parties or coalitions gain electoral victories and take turns governing. It aims
to balance competing interests and ensure a fair representation of various viewpoints.
(UK: Conservative and Labor Party; US: Republicans and Democrats)
2. Consensus Democracy: Consensus democracy, as mentioned earlier, emphasizes
broad-based agreement and cooperation among different societal groups. It seeks to
include diverse perspectives and achieve consensus through dialogue and negotiation.
Consensus democracy prioritizes stability, social cohesion, and the protection of
minority rights. It often involves power-sharing arrangements, consensual decision-
making processes, and proportional representation electoral systems (Austria, Belgium,
48
 Switzerland, Netherlands).
3. Voter Democracy: Voter democracy focuses on the role of individual voters in the
democratic process. It emphasizes free and fair elections as the primary mechanism for
citizens to express their preferences and hold elected representatives accountable.
Voter democracy highlights the importance of electoral competition, political parties,
and informed voter choices in shaping democratic outcomes. It emphasizes the
centrality of elections and the electoral system in democratic governance (Australia,
Canada).
4. Participatory Democracy: Participatory democracy emphasizes active citizen
engagement and direct involvement in decision-making processes beyond periodic
elections. It aims to broaden democratic participation by involving citizens in policy
formulation, community initiatives, and deliberative processes. Participatory
democracy encourages grassroots participation, citizen assemblies, referendums, and
other mechanisms that allow citizens to have a direct say in public affairs (Brazil,
Iceland).

There are three types of government systems in European politics: in a presidential system, the
president is the head of state and the head of government; in a semi-presidential system, the
president and the prime minister share a number of competences; finally, in a parliamentary
republic, the president is a ceremonial figurehead who has few political competences. As with
the definition of constitutional monarchies, sometimes the president does have non-ceremonial
competences, but does not use them by constitutional convention; this is the case in Austria,
for instance.

By definition, modern democratic constitutional monarchies are parliamentary, as there is no

elected head of state who could assume non-ceremonial competences; of the twenty
one republican member states of the European Union, only one is a presidential republic
(Cyprus) and four are semi-presidential republics (France, Lithuania, Portugal and Romania).
These four (semi-)presidential republics elect their president by direct popular vote. Among
the sixteen parliamentary republics, nine do the same
(namely Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech
Republic, Finland, Ireland, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia), whereas in the remaining seven
(Estonia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia and Malta), the president is elected by
parliament or other special representative body such as the German Bundesversammlung.

In Europe, there are different forms of parliamentary regimes that vary in their institutional
arrangements and the relationship between the executive and legislative branches. Here are
some common forms of European parliamentary regimes:
1. Parliamentary Republic: In a parliamentary republic, the head of state is usually a
president elected by the parliament or an electoral college. The executive power is held
by a prime minister or a chancellor, who is accountable to the parliament. The
government is formed by the majority or coalition of political parties in the parliament,
49
 and the prime minister is typically the leader of the ruling party or coalition.
Examples of parliamentary republics in Europe include Germany, Italy, and Ireland.
2. Constitutional Monarchy with a Parliamentary System: In a constitutional monarchy
with a parliamentary system, a monarch serves as the ceremonial head of state, while
the executive power is exercised by a prime minister and the government. The
monarch's role is typically symbolic, and the real power lies with the elected officials
and the parliament. The prime minister is appointed from the majority or coalition in
the parliament.
Examples of constitutional monarchies with parliamentary systems in Europe include the
United Kingdom, Sweden, Spain, and the Netherlands.
3. Semi-Presidential System: A semi-presidential system combines elements of a
presidential and parliamentary system. It features a directly elected president with
significant executive powers and a prime minister who is accountable to the
parliament. The president represents the state and may have powers such as appointing
ministers and dissolving the parliament, while the prime minister is responsible for
day-to-day governance.
Examples of countries in Europe with a semi-presidential system include France, Portugal, and
Romania.
4. Dual Executive System: In some parliamentary regimes, a dual executive system exists
where power is shared between the head of state and the head of government. The head
of state, often a president, represents the country symbolically and diplomatically,
while the head of government, typically a prime minister, is responsible for the
administration and policy-making. The division of powers between the two executives
may vary in different countries.
Examples of countries with a dual executive system in Europe include Austria and
Switzerland.

National parliaments vary in their structures and competences across different countries, but
there are some common elements and functions. Here are the key aspects of the structures and
competences of national parliaments:
1. Bicameral or Unicameral Structure: National parliaments can be either bicameral,
consisting of two chambers (e.g., an upper house and a lower house), or unicameral,
with a single chamber. Bicameral structures are often found in federal systems or
countries with a historical or constitutional need for separate chambers. Bicameral: US
– the Senate and House of Representatives; Germany. Unicameral: Sweden (Riksdag)
2. Legislative Function: The primary function of national parliaments is to enact laws.
Members of parliament (MPs) propose, debate, and vote on legislation, which shapes
the legal framework of the country. They review and scrutinize proposed bills and may
suggest amendments to improve or modify them.
3. Representation: National parliaments serve as representative bodies, where MPs are
elected by the people to represent their interests and concerns. MPs are expected to be
responsive to the needs of their constituents and advocate for their rights and welfare.
4. Oversight and Control: Parliaments play a crucial role in overseeing the executive
branch of government. They scrutinize government actions, policies, and budgets to
ensure accountability and transparency. MPs can question government officials,
conduct inquiries, and provide oversight on the implementation of laws and policies.
Parliamentary democracies with active oversight: Canada, India.
5. Budgetary Powers: National parliaments typically have the power to approve the
national budget and oversee public finances. They review and debate the budget
proposals, make amendments, and ultimately authorize government spending.
6. Electoral Function: National parliaments often have a role in the electoral process.
They may be responsible for setting electoral laws, regulating political parties, and
50
 overseeing elections to ensure fairness and integrity.
7. Committee System: Parliaments usually have a committee system that allows for
specialized scrutiny of legislation and specific areas of government policy. Committees
are responsible for conducting detailed examinations of bills, conducting inquiries, and
producing reports. Parliamentary democracy with strong Committee system: UK,
Australia.
8. Parliamentary Debate and Discourse: Parliaments provide a forum for MPs to engage
in debates, discussions, and deliberations on various issues of national importance.
This allows for the exchange of different perspectives, the expression of diverse
opinions, and the shaping of public policy through democratic discourse.

In Europe, the relationship between the parliament and the president, as well as the parliament
and the constitutional court, can vary depending on the constitutional framework of each
country. Here is a general overview of these relationships:
1. Parliament and President: The relationship between the parliament and the president
differs based on whether the country has a parliamentary or a presidential system of
government.
a. Parliamentary System: In parliamentary systems, such as the United Kingdom, Germany, or
Italy, the parliament holds significant power. The head of government is usually the prime
minister, who is elected by the parliament and is accountable to it. The president, in this case,
is often a ceremonial figurehead with limited executive powers. The president's role may
include tasks like representing the country, signing legislation into law, and serving as a
symbol of national unity. However, the real power lies with the parliament and the prime
minister who leads the government.
b. Presidential System: In countries with a presidential system, such as France or Russia, the
president is the head of state and holds substantial executive powers. The president is elected
separately from the parliament and is not accountable to it in the same way a prime minister is
in a parliamentary system. The parliament, in this case, acts as a legislative body and may
have the power to propose and pass laws. However, the president often has authority over
areas such as foreign policy, defense, and the implementation of laws. The relationship
between the president and the parliament can vary depending on the specific constitutional
provisions and the political dynamics of the country.
2. Parliament and Constitutional Court: The relationship between the parliament and the
constitutional court is centered around the principle of constitutional review.
Constitutional courts play a crucial role in upholding the constitution and ensuring the
legality and constitutionality of laws passed by the parliament.
a. Independence of the Constitutional Court: In many European countries, constitutional courts
are independent bodies separate from the parliament and the government. They serve as a
check on the legislative and executive branches to ensure that their actions are in compliance
with the constitution. The judges of the constitutional court are often appointed for long terms
and are expected to be impartial and independent in their decision-making.
b. Powers of the Constitutional Court: The constitutional court has the authority to review
legislation and determine its constitutionality. If a law is found to be unconstitutional, it may
be invalidated or struck down by the court. This process ensures that the parliament operates
within the framework of the constitution and respects fundamental rights and principles. In
some countries, the constitutional court also has the power to provide interpretations of the
constitution and resolve constitutional disputes.
c. Judicial Review: Constitutional courts often hear cases brought before them by individuals,
groups, or even the government, challenging the constitutionality of specific laws or actions.
They provide an avenue for citizens to seek protection of their rights and ensure the rule of
law. The decisions of the constitutional court are usually binding and have significant legal
implications.
51
 In most parliamentary systems, including constitutional monarchies, the head of government is
the de facto political leader of the government, and is answerable to at least one chamber of
the legislature. Although there is often a formal reporting relationship to a head of state, the
latter usually acts as a figurehead who may take the role of chief executive on limited
occasions, either when receiving constitutional advice from the head of government or under
specific provisions in a constitution.

In presidential republics or in absolute monarchies, the head of state is also usually the head of
government. The relationship between that leader and the government, however, can vary
greatly, ranging from separation of powers to autocracy, according to the constitution (or other
basic laws) of the particular state.

In semi-presidential systems, the head of government may answer to both the head of state and
the legislature with the specifics provided by each country's constitution. A modern example is
the present French government, which originated as the French Fifth Republic in 1958. In
France, the president, the head of state, appoints the prime minister, who is the head of
government. However, the president must choose someone who can act effectively as an
executive, but who also enjoys the support of France's legislature, the National Assembly, to
be able to pass legislation. In some cases, the head of state may represent one political party
but the majority in the National Assembly is of a different party.

2. Political responsibility, form of government. Role of European heads of states, competences and
functions of national governments. Legal structure of national central administrations.
Political Responsibility: Political responsibility refers to the concept that those in power,
whether it be the executive or legislative branch of government, are held accountable for their
actions and decisions. It implies that individuals or institutions in positions of authority are
answerable to the public or other governing bodies for their conduct and the outcomes of their
governance. Political responsibility can be enforced through various mechanisms such as
elections, impeachment, votes of no confidence, or other legal and constitutional processes.

Forms of Government I – Broad (Political Science):

- Oligarchy, this is government ruled by a small group in their own interest;
- Dictatorship, this is where an individual holds absolute power over the people by force.
Such a person is usually termed dictator. The dictator controls the country through
controlling the political parties and the security forces;
- Totalitarianism, a system of government which is formed by one political group and
does not tolerate opposition;
- Democracy, government which allow citizens to govern themselves through direct or
indirect means.

Forms of Government II – Narrow (CCL):

- Based on who is Head of State: Monarchic and Republican;
- Based on who is the Head of Government: Presidential, Semi-presidential, and
Parliamentary.

Heads of State in Republics:

a) Presidentialism > Central figure (also head of government) > Autonomous decisions
require few checks and balances;
b) Semi-presidentialism > Central figure (one of the heads of government) > division of
powers internally (IR + domestic affairs);
52
 c) Parliamentarism > Largely symbolic, guardian > few are autonomous political
decisions+symbolic representative

3. Role of European Heads of States: In the context of Europe, the role of heads of states
varies across different countries. Generally, the head of state represents the country and
performs ceremonial, symbolic, and diplomatic functions. Some of the key roles of
European heads of states include:
a. Symbolic and Ceremonial Duties: Heads of states often serve as a symbol of national unity
and continuity. They may participate in state ceremonies, greet foreign dignitaries, and
represent the country on formal occasions.
b. Diplomatic Functions: European heads of states often engage in diplomatic activities, such
as meeting with other heads of state, attending international summits, and promoting
diplomatic relations with other countries.
c. Appointment of Government Officials: In some countries, the head of state has the power to
appoint or nominate key government officials, such as ministers, ambassadors, or judges.
However, the extent of this power can vary significantly between different countries.

Head of State in a Constitutional Monarchy – The UK

 ‘king in parliament’
 based on parliamentary tradition
 reigns, but does not rule
 more representative role
 foundation of a constitutional monarchy turning into parliamentary
 symbolic (reserve powers)/ royal prerogative
 approval or promulgation (signature) of laws
 presence in parliament, address parliament
 holder of crown = holder of sovereignty
 symbolizes the unity of the nation
 guarantees independence

Evolution of forms of government:

 organic/ historical
 constitutional, e.g.: shift from unwritten to written constitution
 democratic
 political

ROLE OF EUROPEAN HEADS OF STATE

Parliamentary Heads of State
State of Things
Role, Status, Function
 strong: Czech, Polish
 weak, symbolic: Austria, Germany, Hungary
Function: neutral
 Benjamin Constant: neutral power
 strongest: executive
Parliamentary Republics
HU (Hungarian):
 President: commander in chief (namely), (divided: PM, Minister for ND, ND
Committee)
 may dissolve legislation in 2 cases:

53
 personal recommendation for PM
if parliament doesn’t adopt legislation
 recommends candidate for public office
 5-year term
DE (German):
 5-year term
 countersignature
 ind. pardons
 appoint/dismiss chance
Semi-Presidential republics
France, Poland:
 different in relations of President and PM
 Fr.: cohabitation
 impeachment
Presidential Republic
US:
 commander in chief (sole and only)
 appointment powers
 political patronage: administration of government is formed by this -> supported
candidate will take office
 winner takes it all, types:
landslide: electorate victory: when 1 candidate receives an overwhelming majority of
the votes
mudfall: (??) the opposite of landslide
 institutional bipartisanship: politics of compromise
 impeachment: President can be removed if commits high crimes in violation of the
constitution
1803: President Adams (earliest)
Nixon: but did not lose his office
Clinton

A vote of no confidence, also variously called a motion of no confidence, no-confidence

motion, motion of confidence, or vote of confidence, is a statement or vote about whether a
person in a position of responsibility like in government or management is still deemed fit to
hold that position, such as because they are inadequate in some aspect, fail to carry out their
obligations, or make decisions that other members feel to be detrimental. The parliamentary
motion demonstrates to the head of government that the elected parliament either has or no
longer has confidence in one or more members of the appointed government. In some
countries, a no-confidence motion being passed against an individual minister requires the
minister to resign. In most cases, if the minister in question is the premier, all other ministers
must also resign.

Impeachment is the process by which a legislative body or other legally constituted tribunal
initiates charges against a public official for misconduct. It may be understood as a unique
process involving both political and legal elements.

3. Unitary and federal states, decentralization, deconcentration, devolution, self-governance in

Europe
State – territory, population, and sovereignty (+recognition of the international community).

Depending on how a constitution organizes power between the central and subnational
54
governments, a country may be said to possess either a unitary or a federal system.
A unitary state is a sovereign state governed as a single entity in which the central
government is the supreme authority. The central government may create (or
abolish) administrative divisions (sub-national units). Such units exercise only the powers that
the central government chooses to delegate. Although political power may be delegated
through devolution to regional or local governments by statute, the central government may
abrogate the acts of devolved governments or curtail (or expand) their powers.

In a unitary system, the only level of government besides the central is the local or municipal
government. Although local governments may enjoy considerable autonomy, their powers are
not accorded constitutional status; the central government determines which decisions to
“devolve” to the local level and may abolish local governments if it so chooses.

Unitary Government System: This type of government system works best in nation-states
where few cultural differences exist within the state and a strong sense of national pride and
unity is prevalent. Since the power is centralized in a unitary system, there must be efficient
communication throughout the country, therefore smaller states tend to have unitary
government systems. Governments of this type are common in Europe. Although typically
nation-states tend to have a unitary system in place, multi-national states have also had a
unitary system in the past. When a unitary system exists in a multinational state, it is often
predictable that values and beliefs of one nationality are imposed over the lesser ones. When
Communist parties controlled government, many Eastern European countries had unitary
systems to spread and promote diffusion of Communist values.
* There is no hierarchy of sovereign powers.
* States have no authority to pass their own laws, and the central (national) government can
order the states to do anything. (Just like a state can order a town to do anything, because the
town is not sovereign.)
Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia,
Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg,
Macedonia, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Ukraine

A federation (also known as a federal state) is a political entity characterized by a union of

partially self-governing provinces, states, or other regions under a central federal
government (federalism). In a federation, the self-governing status of the component states, as
well as the division of power between them and the central government,
is constitutionally entrenched and may not be altered by a unilateral decision, neither by the
component states nor the federal political body. Alternatively, a federation is a form of
government in which sovereign power is formally divided between a central authority and a
number of constituent regions so that each region retains some degree of control over its
internal affairs.

In federal systems, there is an intermediate level of governmental authority between the central
and the local; it usually consists of states or provinces, though other entities (e.g., cantons or
republics) may exist in some countries. Aside from the number of levels, the most important
distinction between a unitary system and a federal one is that the states or provinces of a
federal state have constitutionally protected sovereignty. Within a federal system the state or
provincial governments share sovereignty with the central government and have final
jurisdiction over a broad range of policy areas.

Federal Government System: This type of government system distributes power from the
national government to local governments in order to adopt their own laws within reason of
the country. Multinational states tend to adopt a federal system of government to empower
55
different nationalities and avoid political instability. Under a federal system, local government
boundaries can be drawn to encompass a region inhabited by a certain ethnicity. The federal
system also works effectively for larger states because the capital may be too far away to
efficiently control further regions. However, the size of state does not always reveal its type of
government because Belgium for example, is a small country with a federal system for the
purpose of managing two majority ethnicities.
* Has multiple hierarchy levels, with both the central authority and the states (or provinces)
both being sovereign.
* The central (national) rules override the state rules.
* Has a balance between them. (The US)
* Shared between national and local levels. In a federal form of government, the term
"federal" is also used to refer to the national level of government.
Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Germany, Russia, Switzerland

Decentralization:
Decentralization—the transfer of authority and responsibility for public functions from the
central government to subordinate or quasi-independent government organizations and/or the
private sector—is a complex multifaceted concept. Types of decentralization include political,
administrative, fiscal, and market decentralization.
The three major forms of administrative decentralization – deconcentration, delegation, and
devolution -- each have different characteristics.

Administrative decentralization refers to the transfer of administrative authority,

responsibility, and decision-making from a central government to lower levels of government
or other administrative entities. There are several types of administrative decentralization,
including:
1. De-concentration: This type of decentralization involves the delegation of
administrative functions and responsibilities to lower-level offices or branches of the
central government within a specific geographical area. The central government retains
ultimate decision-making authority, but some administrative tasks are carried out
locally.
2. Devolution: Devolution involves the transfer of political, administrative, and fiscal
powers from the central government to subnational or regional levels of government. It
grants more autonomy to these lower-level entities, allowing them to make decisions
on local matters such as education, health, infrastructure, and economic development.
3. Delegation: Delegation refers to the transfer of administrative responsibilities and
decision-making authority from one level of government to another non-governmental
entity, such as an autonomous agency or local council. This type of decentralization
often occurs when specialized functions or services are entrusted to independent bodies
to ensure efficiency and expertise.
4. Decentralization by Privatization: This form of decentralization involves transferring
administrative functions and responsibilities from the government to private entities.
The government may contract out certain services or functions to private companies or
organizations to improve efficiency, reduce costs, or benefit from specialized expertise.
5. Deconcentration with Delegation: This type of decentralization combines elements of
deconcentration and delegation. It involves both the transfer of administrative
functions to lower-level offices or branches of the central government and the
delegation of certain responsibilities to non-governmental entities.
6. Decentralization through Special Purpose Bodies: In this approach, specific functions
or sectors are decentralized to special-purpose bodies or organizations that are created
to focus on specific policy areas. These bodies may have their own decision-making
powers and operate independently of the central government.
56
SELF-GOVERNANCE IN EUROPE
State traditions (Dyson-typology):
Anglo-Saxon tradition: weak state, dominated by society; social science approach; power
relations are important behind the administrative structure, not the structure itself.
Continental Europe: state is an entity with legal personality, dominating society; public
administration and policy are understood and determined by public law; policy over society.
French tradition (Napoleonic): centralized state, uniformity.
Germanic tradition: corporatist, organic character.
Scandinavian tradition: strong unitary state, strong local governments.

Anglo tradition: UK, USA, Austria, Canada, New-Zealand, Ireland

Continental Europe: 2 different state traditions influence EU local democracies
Anglo tradition:
 form of decentralization
 weak state, dominated by society
 politics dominated by groups
 state-society relations: pluralistic
 no legal basis for the state
 from of political organization: union state/ limited federalist
 UK: devolution, local government
 US: state power
Continental Europe:
 state: centre of understanding
 legal entity
 state priority over society
 public administration is determined by public law
 formal structure is important
 heterogeneous tradition: French, German + Scandinavian
French:
- centralized state uniformity
- form of decentralization: regional unitary state
- relationship: society-state-nation (antagonistic)
- state is embodying the nation
- nation = demos
- all citizens create nation, link together -> common will
- France, Italy, Spain (until ’78), Portugal, Quebec, Greece, Belgium (until ’88)
Germanic:
- organic, corporatist groups
- incorporated in policy making (policy style: legal corporatist)
- form of decentralization: federal units, united by common nation (cooperative
federalist)
- in a cultural organic way
- nation = ethos (state – society relations: organistic)
- Germany, Austria, Netherlands, Spain (after ’78), Belgium (after ’88)
Scandinavian:
- strong cultural unitary state (like French)
- but with corporatist features
- strong local-government: form of decentralization
- Sweden, Norway, Denmark (influencing the state structure + local democracy, case
57
 studies: hybrid)

Subgroups of 29 European States:

1. British Isles:
BRITISH ISLES
pendulum (Westminster) democracy, selective insertions of
Democracy consensus democracy,
direct forms of democracy are traditionally not common

some coalitions at the local level (consensus democracy),

attempts to introduce participatory level at local level, tools
Subnational democracy of direct democracy are informal,
voter democracy (e.g. local
referendums)are not institutionalized in Ireland

centralized unitary state (devolution reforms in the UK in

1997),
Territorial governance two-tier local government system, relatively weak meso-
level of government

Representative countries The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
and the Republic of Ireland

2. Rhinelandic:
 mostly federal, decentralized states
 consensus democracy
 strong intermediate
 trust in regional authorities is relatively high
 subnational share of public expenditure: relatively low Luxembourg
 Belgium?, Netherland, Luxemburg, Germany, Austria
RHINELANDIC STATES
prototypes of consensus democracy,
Democracy voter democracy, especially in Switzerland and Germany

some elements of pendulum democracy (directly elected

mayor, political polarization),
Subnational democracy local referendum is on the rise, and other informal tools of
direct democracy

federal states, except Luxembourg and the Netherlands

(organic, cooperative federalism)
Territorial governance strong meso-governments with
intertwined local and national tiers of
government (except Luxemburg)
Representative countries Belgium, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Germany, Austria,
Switzerland

58
3. Nordic states:
 Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland
 strong consensus, but not as strong as above
 intermediate level does not exist
 developed participatory democracy, first invented in Sweden
 trust in regional authorities is relatively high
 subnational share of public expenditure: relatively high
NORDIC STATES
consensus democracy, combined with some elements of
pendulum democracy (e.g. coalition governments but usually with
Democracy one dominant party),
direct democracy is not deeply rooted, institutionalization in
this field is less advanced

party-political, representative democracy,

Subnational democracy voter democracy (local referendums usually non-binding)

unitary welfare states,

strong position of local governments (‘self-regulating
Territorial governance municipality’),
introduction of regions (similar to the English counties) primarily
for administrative purposes

Representative Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland

countries

4. Southern European states:

 France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Malta, Cyprus
 history of centralization
 Italy, Spain, France – strong shift towards decentralization + federalization
 no developed consensus democracy
 subn. share of public e.: relatively high in Spain, relatively low Portugal, Greece,
Cyprus, Malta
 trust in regional authorities: realtively low in Italy, Greece,
SOUTHERN EUROPEAN STATES
Democracy pendulum democracy,
some elements of consensual democracy in Italy and Spain,
consociational democracy as exception in Cyprus, referendums
are less advanced at all levels
Subnational democracy majoritarian democracy, modest voter democracy,
participatory democracy at regional level in Italy, Spain and
France, but traditionally it has been weak
Territorial governance strong centralization, concentration of political and
administrative power, unitary states,
Italy and Spain as ‘regional states’, territorial autonomies in
Portugal, the special case of Cyprus because of the
Greek/Turkish subdivision
Representative countries France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Malta, Cyprus

59
 5. The New Democracies in eastern Europe:
 Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia,
Bulgaria, Romania
 communist heritage, destruction of civil society, mined democracy, not democracy as a
procedure
 Cz. R., Hu., Slovakia, Slovenia influenced by German model
 Poland – parts
 Belgium – Napoleon
 Estonia, Lithuania – Scandinavian model
 trust in regional authorities: low: Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Bulgaria
 subnational share of public e.: relatively low: Slovakia, Slovenia, Bulgaria
 reconstruction under strong US influence
 later CoE, EU decisive law: democracy reinvented
 strong problems with inventing democracy
 weak civil society, corruption – obstacles
 social transformation where necessary
 local democracies were not imposed
 proliferation of political parties
‘NEW’ DEMOCRACIES
Democracy mixture of the French Napoleonic, Germanic and
Scandinavian traditions, but primarily pendulum
democracy
Subnational democracy pendulum democracy,
institutionalized local referendums, but rarely used

Territorial governance unitary states,

strong centralization and uniformity,
inefficient introduction of local self-governments

Representative countries Hungary, Czechia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia, Bulgaria,

Romania, Latvia, Litvania, Estonia, Poland, and others in
Eastern and Central Europe

4. The notion of constitution. Constitutionalism and constitutional protection. Institutional and

procedural tools for the protection of the constitution and constitutionality
A constitution is the rule book for a state. It sets out the fundamental principles by which the
state is governed. It describes the main institutions of the state, and defines the relationship
between these institutions (for example, between the executive, legislature and
judiciary). It places limits on the exercise of power, and sets out the rights and duties of
citizens.

Constitution:
From a legal point of view, a State is created based on its constitution.
Constitutions can be written or non-written, but should be in force so that a modern,
constitutional State can exist.
Apart of the constitution of the State, they deal with two main subjects:
- fundamental rights

60
 - institutional framework
As such, they are not only creating the State, but they also limit with legal rules the exercising
of the supreme power.

Constitutionalism:
It means that legal norms of the Constitution are respected, the State ensures the conformity of
all norms it creates with the Constitution and in a more general way as it limits public power.
It implies legal limits to the exercise of power as for institutional norms and fundamental
rights, including Human Rights and political freedoms.

According to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, constitutionalism is the idea, often

associated with the political theories of John Locke and the founders of the American republic,
that government can and should be legally limited in its powers, and that its authority or
legitimacy depends on its observing these limitations.

Constitutionality is said to be the condition of acting in accordance with an applicable

constitution; the status of a law, a procedure, or an act's accordance with the laws or set forth
in the applicable constitution. When laws, procedures, or acts directly violate the constitution,
they are unconstitutional.

There are various models of constitutional protection employed in different countries to

safeguard the constitution and ensure its adherence. These models may vary in their
institutional arrangements, mechanisms of enforcement, and the role of different branches of
government. Here are three common models of constitutional protection:
1. Judicial Review Model: The judicial review model is characterized by the prominent
role of the judiciary in constitutional protection. Under this model, constitutional courts
or similar specialized courts have the authority to review the constitutionality of laws,
executive actions, and other legal acts. They ensure that legislation and governmental
actions conform to the provisions and principles of the constitution.
The United States is a notable example of the judicial review model, where the Supreme Court
has the power of judicial review. The courts can strike down laws that are found to be
unconstitutional, thereby protecting the constitution and individual rights. Many countries in
Europe, such as Germany, Spain, and Italy, have established constitutional courts with similar
powers of judicial review.
2. Parliamentary Model: The parliamentary model emphasizes the role of the legislative
branch in constitutional protection. In this model, the constitution is upheld through the
enactment of laws and the exercise of parliamentary oversight. The legislative body
ensures that laws are consistent with constitutional provisions and safeguards
individual rights and freedoms.
The United Kingdom follows the parliamentary model, where Parliament is considered
sovereign and has the authority to pass laws. While the UK does not have a codified
constitution, parliamentary sovereignty and the Rule of Law serve as constitutional principles.
3. Mixed Model: Some countries adopt a mixed model of constitutional protection,
combining elements of judicial review and parliamentary oversight. This model
involves a collaborative approach where both the judiciary and the legislature play
significant roles in upholding the constitution.
France is an example of a mixed model, where there is a constitutional council that reviews the
constitutionality of laws before they are enacted. Additionally, the judiciary has the power of
constitutional review and can strike down laws that are found to be unconstitutional.

Institutional and procedural tools for the protection of the constitution vary across different
legal systems and countries. Here are some common tools that are often utilized to protect and
61
 uphold constitutional principles:
1. Constitutional Courts: Constitutional courts or specialized judicial bodies have the
primary responsibility of interpreting and applying the constitution. These courts are
specifically tasked with reviewing the constitutionality of laws, executive actions, and
other legal acts. They ensure that these acts conform to the provisions and principles
laid out in the constitution. Constitutional courts have the authority to strike down or
invalidate laws that are found to be unconstitutional.
2. Judicial Review: Judicial review is a fundamental tool used by courts to assess the
compatibility of legislation or governmental actions with the constitution. Through
judicial review, courts can examine laws, regulations, and executive decisions to
ensure they do not violate the constitutional provisions. Judicial review provides a
mechanism for individuals and organizations to challenge the constitutionality of laws
or actions, seek remedies, and protect their constitutional rights.
3. Constitutional Complaints: Constitutional complaint mechanisms allow individuals to
directly petition a constitutional court or similar body to address violations of their
constitutional rights. This mechanism empowers individuals to seek redress for
constitutional violations without solely relying on traditional legal actions. It provides
an avenue for individuals to bring constitutional issues to the attention of the judiciary.
4. Ombudsman Institutions: Ombudsman institutions, also known as human rights
commissions or similar bodies, play a role in protecting the constitution by
investigating complaints of government misconduct and violations of rights. These
independent institutions serve as a bridge between citizens and the government,
ensuring that governmental actions are in line with constitutional principles and respect
fundamental rights. Ombudsman institutions can make recommendations, mediate
disputes, and report on systemic issues related to constitutional protection.
5. Parliamentary Oversight: Parliamentary oversight is an essential tool for constitutional
protection in systems with a parliamentary form of government. Legislatures have the
responsibility to enact laws that are consistent with constitutional provisions and to
oversee the actions of the executive branch. Through legislative debates, committee
hearings, and inquiries, parliamentarians ensure that the government operates within
the boundaries set by the constitution.
6. Public Awareness and Education: Promoting public awareness and education about the
constitution and constitutional rights is crucial for their protection. Citizen engagement
and understanding of constitutional principles empower individuals to exercise their
rights, hold public officials accountable, and participate in the democratic process.
Public awareness campaigns, civic education programs, and initiatives by civil society
organizations contribute to constitutional protection.
7. Constitutional Amendments: Constitutions usually include provisions for their
amendment or revision. The ability to amend the constitution allows for necessary
changes and adaptations over time. Amendment procedures typically involve the
participation of the legislature or specific processes, such as referendums.
Constitutional amendments enable the constitution to reflect the evolving needs of
society while maintaining its fundamental principles.
These institutional and procedural tools work in combination to protect the constitution, ensure
its proper implementation, and safeguard the rights and freedoms of individuals. The specific
tools employed may vary depending on the legal system, constitutional framework, and
political context of a particular country.

Protection of Human Rights

5. European Concept of Human Rights protection - philosophical and theoretical foundations.
Evolution of theories.
62
As much as Human Rights reflect the political and economic fundaments of European
societies, they are also based on social and even cultural values. They result from the
permanent evolution of philosophical thoughts on the general connections between individuals
and communities (i.e. persons and societies), on public power and its exercise by public
authorities, and on freedom and protection of the people and the realization of common goals
set by states.

Evolution of philosophical thoughts:

- Antiquity: During this period, with the development of Greek Polis (city states) and
different forms of government, a general questioning of good and bad governance
came about. This sort of thinking lead to interesting conclusions about political power
and its limits and about the legal framework of the government even though some
cannot be directly used for modern times. Medieval times: The Catholic Church was
the foundation of the monarchs’ power and thinking about power was related to
thinking about God and theology. Therefore, philosophers such as Saint Thomas of
Aquinas used the methodological thinking about, for example, natural law, and the
reason for all acts is always found in God.
- Humanism and Protestant Reformation: By the end of the Medieval Age, new ideas
appeared, in reference to the former period, but in a very new context, first in arts then
also in social sciences. Following general cultural, but also social and economic
changes, the human being as an individual appears at the heart of philosophical
thought. Consequently, the role of the community and the absolute power of the
Church and the monarchs have been brought into question. The foundation of the
authority, in cultural or scientific terms but also in the field of politics, should be
identified in connection with the individuals, which brings us to the idea of a legal
framework letting the sovereign exercise its sovereign powers but also guaranteeing
the rights of the persons subjected to it in exchange.
- Enlightenment. The theories of the philosophers of Enlightenment is proof to
continued evolution as their ideas contributed to a new, legal, modern constitutional
framework with the liberal revolutions in Europe. These will be the bases of exercising
public power and thus, also for Human Rights protection. The public authority will
become democratic, and the rights of persons, being at the origin of national
sovereignty (i.e. of public power), will be guaranteed by the law.

Origins of human rights:

Natural rights > universality
Legal positivism > legal protection

 As a result of Enlightenment, the idea that Human Rights are natural rights appeared
and spread in European legal theory. “All people were born and remain free and equal
in rights” – said the philosophers and the first legal documents not constituting but
declaring those rights.

The Theory of Natural Rights: The idea implies that every human being have those rights
and should benefit from their protection. The fact of being a human being, and of living in a
human society demands that those rights should be protected even without the existence of a
dedicated legal framework.

John Locke, Immanuel Kant, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Jeremy Bentham.

Legal positivism is the legal philosophy which argues that any and all laws are nothing more
and nothing less than simply the expression of the will of whatever authority created them.
63
Thus, no laws can be regarded as expressions of higher morality or higher principles to which
people can appeal when they disagree with the laws. It is a view that law is a social
construction. The creation of laws is simply an exercise in brute force and an expression of
power, not an attempt to realize any loftier moral or social goals.

Legal positivism is the approach in the philosophy of law which treats ‘positive law’ – law
laid down in human societies through human decisions – as a distinct phenomenon,
susceptible of analysis and description independently of morality, divine law or mere natural
reality.

Human rights are norms that help to protect all people from everywhere from severe political,
legal, and social abuse (of power).

The general definition of Human Rights highlights some basic characteristics, all of which
have to be present together so that we could speak about Human Rights.
As such:
1. They have, as values, a universal scope, by them, all people can be protected
everywhere
2. They are high-priority norms, it is from severe abuses that they help to protect
people
3. They are, as legal norms, benefitting from a legal protection.

Generations of human rights:

I. Liberty: Security and Process rights; Political Rights and Freedoms. (freedom of
speech, religion, etc)
II. Equality: Social or Welfare Rights (Economic and Cultural included), Equality
rights. (healthcare, education, social security)
III. Fraternity: Minority rights (Collective or Group Rights). Rights of future
generations (Solidarity Rights, Global Rights). – self-determination.

Sources of human rights in law:

- National: constitution.
- International: conventions, declarations.
- Common law: general principles and jurisprudence.

The evolution of human rights theories has been influenced by historical events, philosophical
developments, and the recognition of the inherent dignity and worth of every individual. Here
is a broad overview of the major stages and key contributions in the evolution of human rights
theories:
1. Natural Law and Enlightenment:
 Natural Law Tradition: The concept of natural law, rooted in ancient Greek and
Roman philosophy, posited the existence of inherent and universal human
rights. Thinkers like Thomas Aquinas and Hugo Grotius contributed to the
development of natural law theories, emphasizing the idea that certain rights
are inherent to human beings.
 Enlightenment Period: The Enlightenment philosophers, including John Locke,
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Immanuel Kant, expanded on the concept of
natural rights. They argued that individuals possess fundamental rights by
virtue of their humanity, such as the rights to life, liberty, and property. These
thinkers laid the foundation for the modern understanding of human rights.
2. Emergence of Human Rights Documents:
 American and French Revolutions: The American Declaration of Independence
64
 (1776) and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen
(1789) proclaimed fundamental rights and freedoms for individuals. These
documents codified the principles of equality, liberty, and human dignity and
set the stage for the recognition of human rights in modern society.
 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR): Adopted by the United
Nations General Assembly in 1948, the UDHR became a landmark
international document that outlined a comprehensive set of human rights. It
affirmed the principles of dignity, equality, and universality, and laid the
foundation for subsequent human rights treaties and conventions.
3. Expansion of Human Rights Frameworks:
 Post-World War II: The atrocities of World War II and the Holocaust led to a
global recognition of the need for international human rights protection. The
creation of the United Nations and the subsequent development of international
human rights treaties, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and
Cultural Rights (ICESCR), expanded the scope and legal framework of human
rights.
 Intersectionality and Group Rights: The understanding of human rights
expanded beyond individual rights to recognize the rights of marginalized
groups, including women, racial and ethnic minorities, indigenous peoples,
LGBTQ+ communities, and persons with disabilities. This acknowledgment of
intersectionality and group rights contributed to a more comprehensive and
inclusive approach to human rights.
4. Contemporary Debates and Emerging Issues:
 Focus on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights: There has been a growing
recognition of the indivisibility of human rights, encompassing civil, political,
economic, social, and cultural rights. The emphasis on economic, social, and
cultural rights highlights the importance of access to education, healthcare,
housing, and other essential resources.
 Technology and Digital Rights: The rapid advancement of technology has
raised new human rights challenges, such as privacy, freedom of expression,
and access to information. The evolving nature of technology continues to
shape the discourse on human rights.
 Environmental Rights: The recognition of environmental rights has gained
prominence as the impact of human activities on the environment has become
more evident. The connection between a healthy environment and the
enjoyment of human rights has led to the development of theories and
frameworks emphasizing environmental protection and sustainability.

6. Multilevel Protection of Human Rights in Europe: national, European and international

competences, sources and regimes of protection. Interconnection of the different levels.
Competing ‘Actors’ in Human Rights Protection
• National constitutional protection
• Resulting from a long evolution
• Requiring a general protection
• Regional, European protection
• External control of the respect of Human Rights by the national level
• Requiring a minimum protection with European standards
• EU protection
• Resulting from national requirements
65
 • Accepting the protection in the framework of the Union’s law

The three levels of protection

• National constitutional level
• Regional, European level
• EU level

National European
EU level
constitutional level

constitutional Charter of
European
sources: fundamental
Convention on
constitutions, Rights and
Human Rights
declarations Genaral Principles

constitutional Court of Justice of

European Court of
and/or ordinary the European
Human RIghts
judges Union

National level:
1) National constitution;
2) liberal revolution. The prevalence of liberal values in PHR either were the
results of a more organic development such as in the case of the United Kingdom, or of
a successful revolutionary turn based on preceding philosophical development, as in
France.
3) theory of constitutionalism:
Effective PHR can be guaranteed:
- by a decentralized protection ensured by the ordinary courts such as in the Anglo-
Saxon model,
- by a centralized protection for which a special, constitutional court is competent as in
continental European countries.

European Level:
The idea of PHR outside of the national constitutional framework appeared with the concept
of integration breaking the legal monopoly of the State to regulate such issues.

After World War II, in Europe, two systems of integration were established:
- political integration: Council of Europe
- economic integration: European Communities

These two Europes take part, in a very different way, in PHR.

The Council of Europe:

 For the protection of liberal democracy:
o democracy
o rule of law
o Human Rights

 In a bipolar international context, demonstrating the difference between the West

66
 and the East.
 Establishes the ECHR and the ECtHR.

The European Union:

 For the establishment of a common market:

o sui generis legal system
 direct effect
 primacy
o fundamental freedoms

However, as public power is exercised in accordance with the system of competences outside
of the Member States, national constitutional requirements have made clear the need for an
effective protection of Human Rights on this level as well

As for the national protection: liberal revolutions; theory of constitutionalism; constitutional

protection.

As for the Council of Europe: protection of liberal democracy, European Convention,

European Court.

As for the EU: sui generis legal system; constitutional requirements; Lisbon structure.

With the three levels of protection, having not only their own history, basis and development,
but also their proper catalog of rights and their own forums to protect them, it is to be
understood what the relations between those levels are, as
 The same persons are protected. Independently of the level of protection, the citizens
of the State (be it natural or legal persons) are the subject to the protection.
 The same rights are guaranteed. Even though the catalogs of rights are not exactly
the same in national constitutions, in the ECHR and in the Charter of Fundamental
Rights of the EU (this last one being complemented with general principles inspired by
common constitutional traditions and the European Convention with the case-law of
the European Court), the rights are similar albeit they can be interpreted differently.
 The same exercise of public power is limited. For national and regional, European
PHR, the idea of protection always goes against the exercise of public power by the
State. Of course, for the European Union, exercising public power is a question of
competences, but the EU’s action is also based on public power, and Member States
often exercise their public power because of the EU when participating in the adoption,
application or control of the application of EU legal norms.

7. The European Convention of Human Rights: political background, historical evolution, nature of
rights and tools of protection
The European Convention on Human Rights is an international convention to protect
human rights and political freedoms in Europe. Drafted in 1950 by the then newly formed
Council of Europe, the convention entered into force on 3 September 1953.

The convention established the European Court of Human Rights (generally referred to by
the initials ECtHR). Any person who feels their rights have been violated under the convention
by a state party can take a case to the court. Judgments finding violations are binding on the
states concerned and they are obliged to execute them. The Committee of Ministers of the
Council of Europe monitors the execution of judgments, particularly to ensure payments
awarded by the court appropriately compensate applicants for the damage they have sustained.
67
After the traumas of the second world war, the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights
of 1948 was the first global expression of rights to which all human beings are inherently
entitled. It was a turning point in history, and was a written text promoting peace and
diplomacy.

The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) has a significant political background
and has evolved over time to become a crucial instrument for the protection of human rights in
Europe. Let's delve into its political background, historical evolution, the nature of rights it
encompasses, and the tools of protection it provides:
1. Political Background: The ECHR was developed in the aftermath of World War II,
during a period when Europe was rebuilding and seeking to prevent the recurrence of
human rights abuses. The Council of Europe, established in 1949, played a pivotal role
in creating the ECHR as a means to protect fundamental rights and promote democratic
principles among its member states.
2. Historical Evolution: The ECHR was opened for signature in 1950 and initially had ten
signatory states. Over time, it has expanded its reach, and as of today, it has been
ratified by all 47 member states of the Council of Europe. The ECHR has undergone
several revisions, including the addition of protocols that further strengthened human
rights protections and expanded the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human
Rights (ECtHR).
3. Nature of Rights: The ECHR enshrines a broad range of civil, political, economic, and
social rights. These rights include the right to life, liberty, and security; freedom of
expression, assembly, and religion; the right to a fair trial; and protection against
torture, discrimination, and slavery, among others. The ECHR recognizes inherent
human dignity and seeks to safeguard the fundamental rights and freedoms of
individuals.
4. Tools of Protection: The primary tool for protecting rights under the ECHR is the
European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Individuals, non-governmental
organizations (NGOs), and member states can bring cases before the court alleging
violations of rights protected by the ECHR. The ECtHR examines these cases and
issues binding judgments, which determine whether there has been a violation of
rights.

The ECtHR also plays a crucial role in interpreting the ECHR and developing human rights
jurisprudence. Its judgments have significant legal and political implications, guiding member
states in aligning their legislation and policies with human rights standards. The court's
decisions contribute to the ongoing evolution and development of human rights protection in
Europe.

In addition to the ECtHR, the ECHR also establishes other mechanisms for protecting rights.
These include the European Committee of Social Rights, which monitors the
implementation of economic and social rights, and the Commissioner for Human Rights,
who promotes human rights education and awareness.

As of January 2010, fifteen protocols to the convention have been opened for signature. These
can be divided into two main groups: those amending the framework of the convention
system, and those expanding the rights that can be protected. The former require unanimous
ratification by member states before coming into force, while the latter require a certain
number of states to sign before coming into force.

68
8. Institutional framework of Human Rights protection (Council of Europe and European Court of
Human Rights)
The Council of Europe is an international organization founded in 1949 and consists of 47
member states, including countries both within and outside the European Union. Its primary
aim is to promote and protect human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. (Treaty of
London)

The Council of Europe adopts conventions and treaties that member states are expected to
ratify and implement. The most notable of these is the European Convention on Human Rights
(ECHR - 1950), which sets out a comprehensive range of civil, political, economic, and social
rights. Member states are bound by the ECHR and its protocols, and they are required to
ensure that their domestic legislation is compatible with these human rights standards.
The convention secures in particular:
- the right to life;
- the right to a fair hearing;
- the right to respect for private and family life;
- freedom of expression;
- freedom of thought, conscience and religion;
- the protection of property.

The Committee of Ministers (CM) is the most important decision-making and executive
body of the organization. Based on the principle of intergovernmentalism, each Member State
may delegate one representative (generally the ministers for Foreign Affairs, who – in case of
another engagement – might be substituted by an alternate designated and sent by the
Government of the MS, preferably from among the members of the Government). The
principle “one state – one vote” determines decision-making.

The Parliamentary Assembly (PACE) is a parliamentary body based on the representation of

national parliaments, i.e. the deliberative organ of the Council of Europe (designated as the
Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe under the London Statute). The PACE has no
strong decision-making power, it has the right to comment on CM decisions. It shall debate
matters within its competence and present its conclusions, in the form of recommendations, to
the CM. The PACE representatives are delegated from MS national parliaments or appointed
from among national MPs based on a specific procedure. Representatives must be citizens of
the MS they represent. Substitutes can also be appointed, who speak and vote on behalf of the
absent member. Within the PACE, MPs are organized into political groups, there are currently
six such groups. The PACE shall meet in ordinary session once a year (for a maximum of one
month), the date and duration of which shall be determined so as not to overlap with national
parliamentary sessions of MS.

The institution of the Commissioner for Human Rights was established in 1999, as elected
by the PACE, for terms of 6 years. (From April 2018 Dunja Mijatović holds the office.) The
Commissioner’s duties are fundamentally different from the functions of the ECtHR, as they
are explicitly preventive. It can assist the MS with advice on how to overcome their legislative
deficiencies and make suggestions on the prevention of human rights violations. Thus, the
duties of the Commissioner are carried out through suggestions, advice and analysis. The
Commissioner has issued several reports and recommendations on a number of occasions
following a country visit. In its recommendations, the Commissioner calls the attention of the
MS and the Council of Europe to the most pressing human rights issues.

The Venice Commission (i.e. the European Commission for Democracy through Law or
CDL) is an independent consultative body working together with CoE MS, with interested
69
states that are not CoE members, and with international organizations. The activities of the
Commission are carried out in the service of democracy. It currently has 61 MS, but several
observers and associate members assist in its operation. Cooperating international
organizations are provided a special status. Its main areas of activity are democratic
institutions and fundamental rights, elections, referendums and political parties, and
constitutional justice. Its primary task is to provide ‘constitutional assistance’, i.e. to comment
on the draft legislative proposals or the already adopted legal standards. The Commission also
prepares studies and reports on current human rights issues.

The European Court of Human Rights is a supranational judicial institution established

under the auspices of the Council of Europe. It is based in Strasbourg, France, and serves as
the highest court for the interpretation and application of the ECHR. The European Court of
Human Rights is an international court set up in 1959. It rules on individual or State
applications alleging violations of the civil and political rights set out in the European
Convention on Human Rights.
Since 1998 it has sat as a full-time court and individuals can apply to it directly. The Court
monitors respect for the human rights of 700 million Europeans in the 46 Council of Europe
member States that have ratified the Convention.

The European Court of Human Rights, established under the auspices of the Council of
Europe, is the highest court responsible for interpreting and applying the ECHR. It receives
individual and state applications alleging human rights violations and issues binding
judgments that guide member states in upholding human rights obligations.

These institutions work collaboratively to protect and enforce human rights across Europe.
The Council of Europe sets the standards, monitors compliance, and provides a platform for
dialogue and cooperation, while the European Court of Human Rights ensures the
implementation and interpretation of the ECHR through its judicial functions.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has a structured composition and operates
through several key components. Here is an overview of the structure of the ECtHR:
1. Judges: The ECtHR is composed of judges, each representing one of the 47 member
states of the Council of Europe. The number of judges is equal to the number of
member states. Each judge serves a non-renewable term of nine years. They are elected
by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, based on a list of three
candidates nominated by each member state.
2. Chambers: The ECtHR operates primarily through chambers. The court's judges are
divided into smaller panels known as chambers. Chambers consist of either seven
judges or a single judge (in the case of simplified procedures). Chambers are
responsible for examining and deciding on the admissibility and merits of individual
applications.
3. Grand Chamber: The Grand Chamber is composed of 17 judges, including the
President of the Court, the Vice-President, and the Section Presidents. It hears cases
that have been referred to it or are deemed necessary by the Court. The Grand
Chamber is responsible for addressing significant legal questions or cases that may
have a substantial impact on the interpretation and application of the European
Convention on Human Rights.
4. Sections: The judges of the ECtHR are organized into five Sections, each consisting of
a President and a number of judges. The Sections are responsible for examining
applications for admissibility and, if necessary, deciding on the merits of cases
assigned to them.
5. Registrar: The Registrar of the ECtHR is a senior official responsible for the
70
 administration and functioning of the Court. The Registrar supports the judges in their
work, manages the Court's registry, coordinates the processing of cases, and assists
with the execution of judgments.
6. Committees: The ECtHR has several committees that assist in the efficient handling of
cases and administrative matters. These committees include the Committee of the
President, the Rules Committee, and the Committee on the Admissibility of
Applications.
7. Legal Research and Library Division: The Legal Research and Library Division
provides legal research support to the judges, maintains an extensive library, and
assists in the preparation of legal materials and publications related to the work of the
Court.

Legal Structures of European Construction

9. Institutions of EU integration in light of the principles of democracy, supranationalism, and
intergovernmentalism
The institutions of the European Union (EU) play a crucial role in promoting and advancing the
principles of democracy, supranationalism, and intergovernmentalism within the European
integration process. These principles guide the functioning and decision-making processes of the
EU, ensuring a balance between national sovereignty and collective decision-making. Let's
examine each principle in more detail and how the EU institutions relate to them:
1. Democracy: Democracy is a fundamental principle in the EU, and its institutions are
designed to uphold democratic values. The most prominent democratic institution is the
European Parliament (EP), directly elected by EU citizens. The EP represents the interests
of the people and acts as a forum for debates, legislative decision-making, and oversight
of the EU's activities. Through elections held every five years, EU citizens have the
opportunity to shape EU policies and choose their representatives.
Additionally, the principle of democracy is also reflected in the Council of the European Union.
While not directly elected, the Council consists of government ministers from member states who
represent the interests of their respective countries. They engage in decision-making processes
that require the approval of member states, ensuring a democratic input at the intergovernmental
level.
2. Supranationalism: Supranationalism refers to the transfer of powers from national
governments to common institutions that act on behalf of the collective interests of
member states. The EU institutions that embody supranationalism include the European
Commission and the European Court of Justice (ECJ).
The European Commission is the executive body of the EU, responsible for proposing legislation,
implementing policies, and overseeing the compliance of member states. It operates
independently from national governments and represents the general interest of the EU as a
whole. Commissioners are appointed by member states, but they are expected to act
independently and in the interest of the EU as a whole.
The European Court of Justice plays a crucial role in upholding EU law and ensuring its uniform
interpretation and application across member states. It has the authority to settle legal disputes
between member states, EU institutions, and individuals, thereby promoting the supranational
nature of the EU legal system.
3. Intergovernmentalism: Intergovernmentalism recognizes the importance of national
governments and their cooperation in decision-making processes within the EU. The
Council of the European Union represents the intergovernmental aspect of the EU. It
brings together government ministers from member states to negotiate and adopt
legislation, coordinate policies, and make strategic decisions.
In certain policy areas, intergovernmentalism remains prominent, such as common foreign and
security policy, justice, and home affairs. Decisions in these areas require unanimous agreement
among member states, emphasizing the intergovernmental nature of cooperation.
71
In conclusion, the institutions of the EU strive to balance the principles of democracy,
supranationalism, and intergovernmentalism. While the European Parliament and the European
Commission represent the supranational and democratic aspects, the Council of the European
Union ensures intergovernmental cooperation. This blend of principles helps foster collective
decision-making, while respecting the sovereignty and democratic input of member states.

Development of democratic legitimacy and transparency

Over time, a number of constitutional changes have been introduced to increase democratic
legitimacy:
 The Maastricht Treaty introduced
 the status of EU citizenship, granting EU citizens the right to vote and stand in elections
to the European Parliament and municipal elections in their country of residence,
irrespective of their nationality (subject to age and residency qualifications)
 the legislative procedure known as the "co-decision procedure", giving the directly
elected European Parliament the right of "co-deciding" legislation on an equal footing
with the Council of the European Union.
The Treaty of Lisbon, which came into force on 1 December 2009 introduced
 a separate treaty title confirming that the functioning of the EU shall be founded on
representative democracy and giving EU citizens both direct representation through the
European Parliament and indirect representation via national governments through the
Council of the European Union
 the establishment of the co-decision procedure as the standard ("ordinary") legislative
procedure
 a significant increase in the powers of the European Parliament
 the right of any EU citizen or resident to petition the European Parliament "on any matter
which comes within the Union's field of activity and which affects him, her, or it
directly".[Article 227 TFEU].
 making meetings of the Council public when there is a general debate and when a
proposal for a legislative act is voted on. These debates can be viewed in real time on the
Internet.
 enhancing the role of national parliaments in EU legislation.
 giving full legal effect to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,
which was solemnly proclaimed by the European Parliament, the Council of the
European Union and the European Commission in the year 2000.

European Parliament
One assertion of democratic illegitimacy focuses on the alleged weakness of the European
Parliament.This has been countered by a number of political scientists, who have compared the
systems of governance in the European Union with that of the United States, and stated that the
alleged powerless or dysfunctional nature of the European Parliament is now a "myth".It is
argued that there are important differences from national European parliaments, such as the role
of committees, bipartisan voting, decentralized political parties, executive-legislative divide and
absence of Government-opposition divide. All these traits are considered as signs of weakness or
unaccountability, but as these very same traits are found in the US House of Representatives to a
lesser or greater degree, the European Parliament is more appropriately compared with the US
House of Representatives. In that sense, it is now a powerful parliament, as it is not controlled by
a "governing majority": Majorities have to be built afresh for each item of legislation by
explanation, persuasion and negotiation.

Legislative initiative in the EU rests almost entirely with the Commission, while in member states
it is shared between parliament and executive. However, in national parliaments less than 15% of
72
legislative initiatives from individual members of parliament become law in any form when they
do not have the backing of the executive, while most proposals by the executive are passed
without major amendments in parliament. The European Parliament, on the other hand, can only
propose amendments, but these proposals are successful in more than 80% of cases, and even in
controversial proposals, the success rate is almost 30%

The European Parliament, directly elected since 1979, has for many years been the focus of
arguments about the EU’s democratic legitimacy. The premise was that if the EP were given
more substantive legislative power to carry out the tasks of a real legislative assembly, the EU as
a whole would become more accountable and the democratic deficit would be reduced. The EP
has gained substantial power since the 1970s, with reform of the rules for adopting the EU’s
annual budget, which gave it a power of veto over “non-compulsory expenditure” (economic and
social spending) and with direct elections and co-decision (now the Ordinary Legislative
Procedure – OLP
Since 1986 the Member States have agreed through Treaty changes to give the EP more
legislative power:
• The Single European Act of 1986 helped redress the institutional balance by giving the EP a
second reading. Under the ‘cooperation procedure’, the Council could only approve a previously
rejected proposal by a unanimous vote rather than by a qualified majority. Also, the EP received
the right to veto the accession of new Member States and assent with the Council to international
agreements
. • The Maastricht Treaty introduced co-decision and gave the EP an ultimate right to veto a
legislative proposal by an absolute majority after two readings of the Council and EP.
• The Amsterdam and Nice Treaties extended the use of co-decision, giving the EP a say in a
wider range of matters. The Nice Treaty gave the EP the right to institute proceedings before the
ECJ seeking to review acts of the institutions
• The Lisbon Treaty made co-decision (renamed the Ordinary Legislative Procedure - OLP) the
EU’s default decision-making procedure and extended it to justice and home affairs areas such as
immigration, offences and penalties, police cooperation and aspects of trade and agriculture
policy. The EP gained almost equal rights with the Council in the adoption of legislation
. • Lisbon abolished the distinction between ‘compulsory’ and ‘non-compulsory’ expenditure, so
that now the EP and Council determine all EU expenditure together.
The EP has also ‘democratised’ through soft powers, such as its right, by a two-thirds majority,
to pass a motion of censure against the Commission, to question the Commission and Council at
a regular question time and establish committees of inquiry to investigate cases of poor
administration by the EU institutions. In spite of these gains, the EP’s relative weakness
compared with the Council and Commission, and the repeatedly low turnout for EP elections,
tend to support assertions that the directly elected and more powerful EP does not remedy the
EU’s democratic deficit

Council of the European Union

The intergovernmental Council of the EU comprises government ministers from all EU Member
States and meets in sectoral formations to discuss and adopt legislation. The Council is the link
between Member States and the EU.
A 1992 Maastricht Treaty Declaration stated that “transparency of the decision-making process
strengthens the democratic nature of the institutions and the public’s confidence in the
administration”, and there were subsequent pledges from the Institutions in support of more
openness and transparency in the Council.
Critics believe that since Council decision-making by Qualified Majority Voting (QMV) was
extended by the 1986 Single European Act in order to quickly adopt a large amount of internal
market legislation, the EU has ‘accumulated’ a democratic deficit.
The default voting procedure is now 'co-decision’ with a qualified majority (around 74%) of the
73
total number of votes required to adopt legislation. Analyses of voting behaviour in the Council
tend to conclude that even where QMV is required, the Council prefers to reach a consensus. It
does not vote formally in many cases where QMV is required, and much of the decision-making
is believed to be done before proposals even reach the Council in the Committee of Permanent
Representatives (COREPER) and Council working groups. Other factors may influence the
outcome of a QMV decision, such as the preference of the Presidency, coalition forming, the
‘shadow of the vote’, informal bilateral contacts and ‘horse-trading’.
Voting in the Council (of relevant Ministers) is usually by qualified majority voting, and
sometimes unanimity is required. This means that, for the vast majority of EU legislation, the
corresponding national government has usually voted in favour in the Council.
In the view of its critics the Council has always been secretive and its procedures opaque. Before
the adoption in 2001 of a Regulation on transparency and access to documents, most Council
documents were not publicly available and the Council’s rules on confidentiality were
incompatible with democratic standards. In October 1993 the Council started to publish press
releases detailing topics discussed and measures and common positions adopted, indicating which
Member States voted against or had reservations. Later came the publication of timetables and
agendas, a monthly summary of Council Acts, Council Minutes and the outcome of voting on
legislative acts at Public Votes. There has been a Public Register of Council documents since
January 1999. Article 15 TFEU provides for public access to the documents of the EU institutions
and openness in the decision-making process for draft legislative acts. The Council sits in public
when it is discussing and voting on a proposal for a legislative act or when there is a general
debate. Council minutes concerning the adoption of legal acts are published on the Council’s
Consilium website; access to other Council minutes can be requested. There are also live
webcasts of public meetings on Consilium.
Critics maintain that although new rules of procedure have increased the Council’s transparency,
its processes are still opaque, which in turn affects the ability of national parliaments to
effectively scrutinise its work. EU and national civil servants do much of the negotiating before
government ministers formally adopt a measure. Government ministers may eventually accept a
compromise agreement which might not be popular with their parliament or the public. In such
cases, ministers might exploit the lack of transparency to avoid taking responsibility for
unpopular EU decisions. The EU Council does not often vote formally on matters where QMV is
required. It prefers to continue negotiating until there is consensus in the Council. The QMV
rules are still important because they help States to determine the likely outcome if a vote were
held, but the lack of a formal vote makes it difficult to evaluate outcomes or to ascertain which
States lined up where in the decisionmaking procedure. A lack of accountability is thus inherent
in the Council’s working procedures.

European Comission
The Commission, the EU’s ‘executive’, is a collegiate body composed of one Commissioner per
Member State, “chosen on the ground of their general competence and European commitment
from persons whose independence is beyond doubt” (Article 17(3) TEU).
The Commission proposes and initiates legislation and monitors Member States’ compliance with
EU law and the Treaties. It represents the EU externally, promotes the general interests of the EU
and mediates in its internal affairs. It also plays a major role in the allocation of large amounts of
funding from the EU budget, such as agricultural subsidies and structural funds.
Commissioners are nominated by Member States and are usually former politicians of high
standing (e.g. former government ministers, even prime ministers). They are appointed by the
Council by a qualified majority vote and with the consent of the EP. The Commission President
is proposed by the European Council by QMV and elected by the EP by a majority of its
members.

The Commission is widely seen as the most undemocratic of the EU’s institutions. Its members
74
 cannot be put in place or removed directly by the ballot box. The Commission’s executive powers
of initiative and implementation also raise concerns. Since 1986 single market legislation has
broadened the Commission’s powers to propose legislation and to develop implementing rules,
usually in the form of EU regulations. The Commission is not a ‘party government’ like a
national government, and as no party holds power in the EU, no party is responsible for its
policies.

In 2013 the Commission President, José Manuel Barroso maintained that democratic
accountability can only be ensured at the level at which the executive decision is taken, while
taking due account of the level at which the decision has an impact. He called for greater
involvement by national parliaments and the EP where there is further deepening of economic
and monetary union, better EP and national scrutiny and greater inter-parliamentary cooperation
between national parliaments and the EP. The Commission has also initiated an EU-wide debate
on the future of Europe by means of events, ‘citizens’ dialogues’, internet polls and contributions
to discussions.

Intergovernmentalism and supranationalism in the EU

The concepts of intergovernmentalism and supranationalism are fundamental to understanding
discussions surrounding sovereignty in the European Union and thus essential so as to be able to
obtain a thorough grasp of EU integration theory.
intergovernmentalism refers to arrangements whereby nation states, in situations and conditions
they can control, cooperate with one another on matters of common interest. Under such
circumstances states are free to cooperate (or not) and are able to the set the level or cooperation.
Normally, this is ensured through a veto, where a state, when so choosing, can block any proposal
presented by any other parties. Such circumstances involve no loss (or pooling) of sovereignty.
States cooperate when they want and don’t cooperate when they don’t want to. However,
supranationalism refers to governance arrangements where states decide to delegate some
responsibility for decision making to a body or decision-making forum that stands above the
nation state. Here states lose the right to veto and agree to be bound by majority decisions of
cooperating states and thus lose some control (but they still have to agree to do this, i.e. to pool
sovereignty, in the first place). In these circumstances states may have to go along with a policy
that contravenes their particular preferences in a given instance.
Supranationalism and intergovernmentalism are different ends of a continuum. No structure in
the EU is perfectly intergovernmental or supranational and different institutions can be more or
less intergovernmental/supranational at different times. The Commission, for example, (normally
thought of as a supranational entity) sometimes follows the lead of member states (in some
external matters for example) while at other times the Commission is the driver of European
policy, taking the lead ahead of national capitals.

10. Legal system of the EU: competences, sources of law, legislative process, general principles

The Treaty of Lisbon clarifies the division of competences between the EU and its member
countries. Alongside the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, sits the principle of
conferral (Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union). This principle means that the EU can
only act within the limits of the competences that have been conferred upon it by the EU
treaties. These competences are defined in Articles 2-6 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the
EU (TFEU).
Article 5 of the TEU
1. The limits of Union competences are governed by the principle of conferral. The use of
Union competences is governed by the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.
2. Under the principle of conferral, the Union shall act only within the limits of the
75
competences conferred upon it by the Member States in the Treaties to attain the objectives set
out therein. Competences not conferred upon the Union in the Treaties remain with the
Member States.
3. Under the principle of subsidiarity, in areas which do not fall within its exclusive
competence, the Union shall act only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action
cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, either at central level or at regional and
local level, but can rather, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better
achieved at Union level.
The institutions of the Union shall apply the principle of subsidiarity as laid down in the
Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. National
Parliaments ensure compliance with the principle of subsidiarity in accordance with the
procedure set out in that Protocol.
4. Under the principle of proportionality, the content and form of Union action shall not
exceed what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the Treaties.
The institutions of the Union shall apply the principle of proportionality as laid down in the
Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.

There are 4 types of competences:

I. exclusive = only the EU can act in these areas
Article 3 of the TFEU
1. The Union shall have exclusive competence in the following areas:
(a) customs union;
(b) the establishing of the competition rules necessary for the functioning of the internal
market;
(c) monetary policy for the Member States whose currency is the euro;
(d) the conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy;
(e) common commercial policy.
2. The Union shall also have exclusive competence for the conclusion of an international
agreement when its conclusion is provided for in a legislative act of the Union or is necessary
to enable the Union to exercise its internal competence, or in so far as its conclusion may
affect common rules or alter their scope.

II. shared between the EU and EU countries =EU countries can act only if the EU has
chosen not to, e.g. cohesion policy, energy & environment. EU countries may ask the
Commission to repeal an adopted legislative act in one of the shared areas so as to better
ensure compliance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality (Declaration No 18
annexed to the Treaty of Lisbon);
Article 4 of the TFEU
1. The Union shall share competence with the Member States where the Treaties confer on it a
competence which does not relate to the areas referred to in Articles 3 and 6.
2. Shared competence between the Union and the Member States applies in the following
principal areas:
(a) internal market;
(b) social policy, for the aspects defined in this Treaty;
(c) economic, social and territorial cohesion;
(d) agriculture and fisheries, excluding the conservation of marine biological resources;
(e) environment;
(f) consumer protection;
(g) transport;
(h) trans-European networks;
(i) energy;
(j) area of freedom, security and justice;
76
(k) common safety concerns in public health matters, for the aspects defined in this Treaty.
3. In the areas of research, technological development and space, the Union shall have
competence to carry out activities, in particular to define and implement programs; however,
the exercise of that competence shall not result in Member States being prevented from
exercising theirs.
4. In the areas of development cooperation and humanitarian aid, the Union shall have
competence to carry out activities and conduct a common policy; however, the exercise of that
competence shall not result in Member States being prevented from exercising theirs.

III. EU sets up arrangements within which EU countries must coordinate policy

Article of the 5 TFEU
1. The Member States shall coordinate their economic policies within the Union. To this end,
the Council shall adopt measures, in particular broad guidelines for these policies.
Specific provisions shall apply to those Member States whose currency is the euro.
2. The Union shall take measures to ensure coordination of the employment policies of the
Member States, in particular by defining guidelines for these policies.
3. The Union may take initiatives to ensure coordination of Member States' social policies.

IV. EU can support, coordinate or supplement EU countries' actions

Article 6 of the TFEU
The Union shall have competence to carry out actions to support, coordinate or supplement the
actions of the Member States. The areas of such action shall, at European level, be:
(a) protection and improvement of human health;
(b) industry;
(c) culture;
(d) tourism;
(e) education, vocational training, youth and sport;
(f) civil protection;
(g) administrative cooperation.

Sources of the EU law:

1. Primary law:
Primary law, also known as primary sources, is derived from the EU’s:
1. founding treaties
2. amending treaties
3. accession treaties
4. protocols annexed to those treaties
5. supplementary agreements amending specific sections of the founding treaties.
2. Secondary law:
= comprises so-called unilateral acts and agreements.
• Unilateral acts are mainly those listed in Article 288 of the TFEU
Article 288 of the TFEU
To exercise the Union's competences, the institutions shall adopt regulations, directives,
decisions, recommendations and opinions.
A regulation shall have general application. It shall be binding in its entirety and directly
applicable in all Member States.
A directive shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member State to which
it is addressed, but shall leave to the national authorities the choice of form and methods.
A decision shall be binding in its entirety. A decision which specifies those to whom it is
addressed shall be binding only on them.
Recommendations and opinions shall have no binding force.
• Agreements comprise: international agreements or conventions, signed by the
77
 Community or the European Union and a country or organisation outside the EU,
agreements between Member States and interinstitutional agreements concluded by
different EU institutions.
3. Supplementary sources:
Preliminary ruling: a ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union in reply to a
question from a national court on the interpretation or validity of EU law, thereby contributing
to the uniform application of that law.
Case-law: the law as established by the outcome of former cases.

• The case-law of the CJEU

• International law
= including international agreements concluded by the EU and EU countries, is used by the
CJEU when developing its case-law, in so far as its rules apply to the EU and they are not
incompatible with the specific structure of the EU.
• The general principles of law
Developed by the case-law of the CJEU, general principles have allowed the Court to
implement rules in different domains of which the treaties make no mention. General
principles of EU law may be common to all the national legal systems of the EU countries and
compatible with EU objectives, or specific to the EU, even if inspired from principles
enshrined in certain national legal systems only.
• Fundamental rights (Article 6 of the TEU) are a special category of source of law:
- partly primary — Article 6(1) of the TEU recognises the Charter of
Fundamental Rights of the European Union as having the same legal value as
the Treaties;
- partly supplementary — Article 6(3) of the TEU explicitly recognises as
general principles of EU law ‘fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
and as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the Member
States'.

Accepted general principles of European Union Law include fundamental rights,

proportionality, legal certainty, equality before the law and subsidiarity, precautionary
principle.

Harmonisation, also known as standardisation or approximation, refers to the determination

of EU-wide legally binding standards to be met in all Member States.

Direct effect: The judgment states that EU law not only engenders obligations for
EU Member States, but also rights for individuals. Individuals may therefore take
advantage of these rights and directly invoke EU law before national and European courts,
independently of whether the national law test exists (that is, where there is no judicial remedy
under national law).
The ability of a piece of European Union (EU) legislation to be enforced by an individual
in a court of a member state. A provision of EU law may be capable of direct effect if it is
clear and precise, unconditional and does not give the member states substantial discretion in
its application.
Principle: you can’t use a Directive against the state if it hasn’t been implemented yet.
You have to wait until the Member State has implemented the Directive to reply on/use
it.

Direct applicability: The ability of a piece of EU legislation to become part of a member

state's national law without the need for any domestic implementing legislation. EU treaties
78
and EU regulations are directly applicable.

The direct effect of European law

The principle of direct effect enables individuals to immediately invoke a European
provision before a national or European court. This principle only relates to certain
European acts. Furthermore, it is subject to several conditions.
Van Gend en Loos (1963)
Van Duyn (41/74)
Direct applicability
• Direct applicability talks about whether an EU law needs a national parliament to
enact legislation to make it law in a member state.
• EU treaties and EU regulations are directly applicable. EU directives are not directly
applicable.
Legislative process

79
The Ordinary Legislative Procedure, also known as the Co-decision Procedure or the

80
"codecision," is a legislative process used by the European Union (EU). It involves the
European Parliament and the Council of the European Union collaborating on the adoption of
most EU laws and policies. The Ordinary Legislative Procedure is the primary legislative
process within the EU and ensures a democratic decision-making process. Here's how it
works:
1. Proposal: The European Commission, the executive body of the EU, presents
legislative proposals. These proposals can cover various policy areas and aim to
address specific issues or harmonize laws across member states.
2. First Reading: The proposal is simultaneously sent to the European Parliament and the
Council of the European Union for their consideration. Both institutions examine the
proposal, propose amendments, and express their opinions. The first reading is
completed when the European Parliament adopts its position.
3. Negotiation: The European Parliament and the Council enter into negotiations to
reconcile their differing positions. The objective is to reach a compromise that takes
into account the concerns and interests of both institutions.
4. Second Reading: Once the negotiation process is complete, the amended proposal is
returned to both the European Parliament and the Council for a second reading. They
review and vote on the proposed amendments, taking into account the compromises
made during the negotiation phase.
5. Conciliation: If the European Parliament and the Council cannot reach an agreement
on the proposed amendments, a Conciliation Committee is formed. This committee
comprises an equal number of representatives from the European Parliament and the
Council. They work together to find a mutually acceptable compromise.
6. Third Reading: After the Conciliation Committee reaches an agreement, both the
European Parliament and the Council review and vote on the final text. If they approve
the text, it becomes law.
During the Ordinary Legislative Procedure, the European Parliament and the Council have
equal decision-making powers, aiming to ensure democratic legitimacy and balanced
representation. The process allows for the involvement of multiple stakeholders and fosters
transparency in the EU legislative process.

Special legislative procedures

I.
Legislator: The Council is, in practice, the sole legislator. The European Parliament is
required to give its consent to a legislative proposal or be consulted on it.
Right of legislative initiative: The European Commission
Types of procedures:
• Consent: the European Parliament has the power to accept or reject a legislative
proposal by an absolute majority vote, but cannot amend it
• Consultation: the European Parliament may approve, reject or propose amendments to
a legislative proposal
Legal base: Article 289(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

II. The budgetary procedure

Implementing and delegating acts:

Delegated acts
• = are defined by the Treaties as non-legislative acts of general application. They can
only be adopted if there is a delegation of powers contained in a legislative act. They
may supplement or amend certain non-essential elements of that legislative act.

- procedure for delegated acts

81
 Implementing acts
• the implementation of Union law is primarily a task of the member states. However,
when uniform conditions for the implementation of legally binding Union acts
have to be ensured, implementing powers need to be conferred on the Commission, or
in duly justified specific cases and in the cases provided for in Articles 24 and 26 TEU,
on the Council.
• Comitology is the procedure governing the adoption of a significant part of the
implementing acts by the Commission. It does not apply to the implementing acts
adopted by the Council.
EU laws sometimes authorise the European Commission to adopt implementing acts, which
set conditions that ensure a given law is applied uniformly. Comitology refers to a set of
procedures, including meetings of representative committees, that give EU countries a say in
the implementing acts.
• procedure for implementing acts

General principles of the EU law

• General principles of law are unwritten sources of law developed by the case law
of the Court of Justice.
• These principles have allowed it to implement rules in different domains of which the
treaties make no mention, concerning the non-contractual liability of the EU, for
example.
• The general principles of law may be:
• common to national laws: the Court of Justice identified those principles common to
all the national legal systems and which are compatible with EU objectives. For
example, this is the case with legal certainty and legitimate expectation which protects
an individual from unforeseeable amendments to the law;
• derived from particular national laws: the Court of Justice took inspiration from the
principles enshrined in certain national legal systems only. This is also the case when
the Court must name the institution responsible for harm caused by the EU and it must
determine the extent of the harm;
• specific to the EU: the Court of Justice identified the principles specific to the EU even
if the source of their inspiration was from a national legislation. This is the case with
the solidarity between Member States, institutional balance and Community
preference.

Fundamental principles established by case-law:

- the direct effect of European law (Van Duyn);
- direct applicability;
- Primacy of European law (costa v. enel);
- Harmonization of eu law (cassis de Dijon);

11. Court of Justice of the European Union: competences, structure, functions, proceedings
Court of Justice of the European Union (1952)
The Court ensures that EU law is followed, and that the Treaties are correctly interpreted and
applied: it reviews the legality of the acts of the EU institutions, ensures that EU countries
comply with their obligations under the Treaties, and interprets EU law at the request of
national courts. The Court of Justice is composed of 27 Judges and 11 Advocates General.
Role: Ensuring EU law is interpreted and applied the same in every EU country; ensuring
countries and EU institutions abide by EU law.
Members:
Court of Justice: 1 judge from each EU country, plus 11 advocates general
General Court: 2 judges from each EU country
82
The CJEU gives rulings on cases brought before it. The most common types of case are:
- interpreting the law (preliminary rulings) – national courts of EU countries are
required to ensure EU law is properly applied, but courts in different countries might
interpret it differently. If a national court is in doubt about the interpretation or validity
of an EU law, it can ask the Court for clarification. The same mechanism can be used
to determine whether a national law or practice is compatible with EU law.
- enforcing the law (infringement proceedings) – this type of case is taken against a
national government for failing to comply with EU law. Can be started by the
European Commission or another EU country. If the country is found to be at fault, it
must put things right at once, or risk a second case being brought, which may result in
a fine.
- annulling EU legal acts (actions for annulment) – if an EU act is believed to violate
EU treaties or fundamental rights, the Court can be asked to annul it – by an EU
government, the Council of the EU, the European Commission or (in some cases) the
European Parliament. Private individuals can also ask the Court to annul an EU act that
directly concerns them.
- ensuring the EU takes action (actions for failure to act) – the Parliament, Council and
Commission must make certain decisions under certain circumstances. If they don't,
EU governments, other EU institutions or (under certain conditions) individuals or
companies can complain to the Court.
- sanctioning EU institutions (actions for damages) – any person or company who has
had their interests harmed as a result of the action or inaction of the EU or its staff can
take action against them through the Court.
The CJEU is divided into 2 courts:
- Court of Justice – deals with requests for preliminary rulings from national courts,
certain actions for annulment and appeals.
- General Court – rules on actions for annulment (=declare invalid (an official
agreement, decision, or result) brought by individuals, companies and, in some cases,
EU governments. In practice, this means that this court deals mainly with competition
law, State aid, trade, agriculture, trade marks.
In the Court of Justice, each case is assigned 1 judge (the "judge-rapporteur") and 1 advocate
general. Cases are processed in 2 stages:
Written stage
o The parties give written statements to the Court - and observations can also be
submitted by national authorities, EU institutions and sometimes private individuals.
o All of this is summarised by the judge-rapporteur and then discussed at the Court's
general meeting, which decides:
 How many judges will deal with the case: 3, 5 or 15 judges (the whole Court),
depending on the importance and complexity of the case. Most cases are dealt
with by 5 judges, and it is very rare for the whole Court to hear the case.
 Whether a hearing (oral stage) needs to be held and whether an official opinion
from the advocate general is necessary.
Oral stage – a public hearing
o Lawyers from both sides can put their case to the judges and advocate general, who
can question them.
o If the Court has decided an Opinion of the advocate general is necessary, this is given
some weeks after the hearing.
o The judges then deliberate and give their verdict.
General Court procedure is similar, except that most cases are heard by 3 judges and there
are no advocates general.

83
 Each judge and advocate general is appointed for a renewable 6-year term, jointly by national
governments. In each Court, the judges select a President who serves a renewable term of 3
years.

12. Cooperation of Member States and EU: subsidiarity, proportionality, national identity,
participation in decision-making, execution, enforcement of decisions
The cooperation between Member States and the European Union (EU) involves several
principles and mechanisms that ensure the effective functioning of the EU and the involvement of
Member States in decision-making processes. Here are the key principles and mechanisms:
1. Subsidiarity: Subsidiarity is a fundamental principle of the EU that ensures that decisions
are taken at the appropriate level, with the EU acting only when it can achieve results that
Member States cannot achieve individually. According to the principle of subsidiarity, the
EU should intervene only if the objectives of an action cannot be sufficiently achieved by
Member States and can be better achieved at the EU level. (Art. 5 of the TEU)
2. Proportionality: The principle of proportionality requires that the actions taken by the EU
be proportionate to the objectives pursued. This means that the EU should not go beyond
what is necessary to achieve its goals, and the level of intervention should be limited to
what is essential to address the identified problem. (Art. 5 of the TEU)
3. National Identity: The EU recognizes and respects the national identities of its Member
States. National identity is protected under EU law, and the EU respects the cultural,
linguistic, and historical diversity of its Member States. National identities are an integral
part of the European Union's shared values. (Art. 3 of the TEU)
4. Participation in Decision-Making: Member States participate in the decision-making
processes of the EU through various mechanisms. The primary decision-making bodies of
the EU are the European Council, the Council of the European Union, the European
Parliament, and the European Commission. Member States are represented in these
institutions, and decisions are made through consultation, negotiation, and voting
processes that involve the participation of Member States.
5. Execution of Decisions: Once decisions are made at the EU level, it is the responsibility
of Member States to implement and execute those decisions within their national legal
systems. Member States have an obligation to adopt the necessary measures to ensure
compliance with EU law and to fulfill their obligations under EU treaties and regulations.
6. Enforcement of Decisions: The enforcement of EU decisions and the monitoring of
compliance with EU law are facilitated through various mechanisms. The European
Commission plays a key role in overseeing the enforcement of EU law and can initiate
infringement procedures against Member States that fail to fulfill their obligations. The
Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is responsible for interpreting EU law and
resolving disputes between Member States and the EU institutions

The cooperation between the Member States and the European Union (EU) is a fundamental
aspect of the EU's functioning. The EU is an economic and political union comprised of 27
Member States, and cooperation is essential for the EU to achieve its objectives and ensure the
smooth functioning of its institutions and policies. Here are some key aspects of cooperation
between the Member States and the EU:
1. Decision-Making: The EU operates on a system of shared decision-making, where
Member States participate in the decision-making process through various EU
institutions. The European Council, composed of the heads of state or government of the
Member States, sets the strategic direction and priorities of the EU. The Council of the
European Union, representing national governments, adopts EU laws and coordinates
policies. The European Parliament, elected by EU citizens, co-legislates and scrutinizes
the EU's work. The cooperation between Member States and these institutions is crucial
for effective decision-making.
84
 2. Policy Development and Implementation: Member States cooperate with the EU in
developing and implementing policies in various areas, such as trade, agriculture,
environment, justice, and security. The European Commission, the EU's executive body,
proposes legislation and ensures the implementation of EU policies. Member States
provide input, expertise, and implement these policies at the national level, working
closely with the EU institutions.
3. Financial Contributions: Member States contribute financially to the EU budget, which is
used to fund various programs and policies. The budget is agreed upon through
negotiations between Member States and the European Parliament. Cooperation among
Member States is necessary to ensure a fair distribution of financial resources and to
support the EU's objectives and priorities.
4. Common Foreign and Security Policy: Member States collaborate closely within the
framework of the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). They coordinate
their positions, exchange information, and work together to address global challenges,
promote peace, and protect EU interests. The High Representative of the Union for
Foreign Affairs and Security Policy represents the EU in international affairs, with the
support of the Member States.
5. Solidarity and Cohesion: Cooperation between Member States also emphasizes the
principles of solidarity and cohesion. The EU provides support to less developed regions
and countries through various funding programs to reduce disparities and promote
economic and social cohesion. Member States cooperate to ensure that the benefits and
opportunities offered by the EU are shared equitably among all Member States.
6. Compliance with EU Law: Member States have the obligation to comply with EU law and
ensure its effective implementation at the national level. The European Commission
monitors the application of EU law and can take legal action against Member States that
fail to fulfill their obligations. Cooperation between Member States and the EU is vital to
ensure the consistent application and enforcement of EU rules and regulations.

International Economic Relations and Economic Relations

13. Sources of private international law and their connection (scope of private international law,
elements of the conflict rule, characterization, renvoi, nonapplication of foreign law)
Private International Law is the body of law that governs private relationships that cross
national borders. In the United States, we often refer to it as "Conflict of Laws" or "Choice of
Law," because the central concern is the determination of which nation's laws will govern a
transnational matter.

I. When it comes to the sources of private international law, 6 different legal areas are needed
to be mentioned, namely,
a) national law,
b) international treaties,
c) case law,
d) European law
e) multilateral treaties,
f) bilateral treaties.

The key concepts in private international law:

1. Scope of Private International Law: Private international law addresses various issues,
such as determining the jurisdiction of courts, choice of applicable law, recognition
and enforcement of foreign judgments, and the effect of foreign laws on domestic legal
matters. Its scope is broad and encompasses areas such as contracts, torts, family law,
property law, and commercial law.
85
 2. Conflict Rules: Conflict rules, also known as choice of law rules, are the rules used to
determine which jurisdiction's law should apply to a particular legal issue. These rules
may be based on the nationality or domicile of the parties, the place of contract
performance, or other connecting factors depending on the specific area of law
involved.
3. Characterization: Characterization refers to the process of determining the legal nature
or category of a particular issue in private international law. For example, if a dispute
involves a contract, the court needs to determine whether it falls under the category of
a sales contract, service contract, or another type of contract. The characterization of an
issue is important because different conflict rules may apply to different legal
categories.
4. Renvoi: Renvoi is a concept that arises when a court must refer to the conflict of laws
rules of another jurisdiction. It occurs when a foreign court's choice of law rules direct
the application of the law of the forum, which in turn refers the matter back to the
foreign court's own law. Renvoi can create a circular or inconclusive situation and is
sometimes accepted, rejected, or modified by different legal systems.
5. Nonapplication of Foreign Law: In some cases, a court may refuse to apply the foreign
law that would normally be applicable under conflict of laws rules. This may occur if
the application of the foreign law would violate fundamental public policy or
principles of the forum state. The concept of public policy allows a court to override
the general choice of law principles in exceptional cases to protect its own fundamental
values.

14. Liberalization of the global market – institutional frameworks (GATT, WTO)

The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) is a legal agreement between many
countries, whose overall purpose was to promote international trade by reducing or eliminating
trade barriers such as tariffs or quotas. According to its preamble, its purpose was the
"substantial reduction of tariffs and other trade barriers and the elimination of preferences, on
a reciprocal and mutually advantageous basis."

It was signed by 23 nations in Geneva on 30 October 1947, and was applied on a provisional
basis 1 January 1948. It remained in effect until 1 January 1995, when the World Trade
Organization (WTO) was established after agreement by 123 nations in Marrakesh on 15 April
1994, as part of the Uruguay Round Agreements. The WTO is the successor to the GATT, and
the original GATT text (GATT 1947) is still in effect under the WTO framework, subject to
the modifications of GATT 1994. Nations that were not party in 1995 to the GATT need to
meet the minimum conditions spelled out in specific documents before they can accede.

The GATT was first conceived at the 1947 United Nations Conference on Trade and
Employment (UNCTE), at which the International Trade Organization (ITO) was one of the
ideas proposed. It was hoped that the ITO would be run alongside the World Bank and the
International Monetary Fund (IMF). More than 50 nations negotiated ITO and organising its
founding charter, but after the withdrawal of the United States these negotiations collapsed.

The World Trade Organization (WTO) is an intergovernmental organization that regulates and
facilitates international trade. With effective cooperation in the United Nations System,
governments use the organization to establish, revise, and enforce the rules that govern
international trade.

The WTO facilitates trade in goods, services and intellectual property among participating
countries by providing a framework for negotiating trade agreements, which usually aim to
86
 reduce or eliminate tariffs, quotas, and other restrictions; these agreements are signed by
representatives of member governments and ratified by their legislatures.
Headquarter: Geneva, Switzerland.

Top decision making body: Ministerial Conference.

Day to day functions handed by the General Council, made up representatives from all
members.

A Secretariat of over 600 personnel, led by the Director-General and four deputies, provides
administrative, professional, and technical services.

Five principles are of particular importance in understanding both the pre-1994 GATT and the
WTO:
1. Non-discrimination (Most Favored Nation rule and National
Treatment Policy)
2. Reciprocity (desire to limit the scope of free-riding)
3. Binding and enforceable commitments
4. Transparency
5. Safety values.

The highest authority of the WTO is the Ministerial Conference, which must meet at least
every two years. The Ministerial Conference met most recently in June 2022 in Geneva.

In between each Ministerial Conference, the daily work is handled by three bodies whose
membership is the same; they only differ by the terms of reference under which each body is
constituted.
The General Council
The Dispute Settlement Body
The Trade Policy Review Body

Accession and membership: average 5 years (the shortest Kyrgyzstan / the longest Russia)

Any country aspiring to become a part of the global trading system must fulfill specific
criteria, including meeting social clauses or international labor standards. Some of these
standards ensure that employees enjoy certain rights and benefits, such as the right to strike,
protection for women and children, and adherence to environmental standards.

Any state that joins the WTO has to fulfill certain commitments and obligations, such as
opening up their markets and adhering to the WTO rules.

Trade liberalization under the GATT paralleled a process of increasing economic integration
among contracting parties. The provisions of GATT shall not prevent the formation of
customs union or free-trade area general exception to the rule of MFN treatment for customs
unions and free-trade areas.

15. International commercial transactions (Vienna Convention)

The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG),
sometimes known as the Vienna Convention, is a multilateral treaty that establishes a uniform
framework for international commerce.

Type: multilateral uniform international sales treaty;

87
 Signed: 11 April 1980
Effective: 1 January 1988
95+ parties

The CISG facilitates international trade by removing legal barriers among state parties (known
as "Contracting States") and providing uniform rules that govern most aspects of a commercial
transaction, such as contract formation, the means of delivery, parties' obligations, and
remedies for breach of contract. Unless expressly excluded by the contract (article 6), the
convention is automatically incorporated into the domestic laws of Contracting States and
applies directly to a transaction of goods between their nationals.

The CISG is divided into four parts:

Part I: Sphere of Application and General Provisions (Articles 1–13)
Part II: Formation of the Contract (Articles 14–24)
Part III: Sale of Goods (Articles 25–88)
Part IV: Final Provisions (Articles 89–101)

Scope of application
- Material scope: Material scope (art. 1, 2) reflects that the contract is about sale of
goods
because of the nature of the transaction are excluded: goods bought for personal, household
use; goods bought on auction; goods bought on execution
because of the nature of the object of the transaction the following is excluded: negotiable
instruments, stock, shares, money, ship, aircraft, electricity, other movables fall under the
material scope of the Convention.
- Personal scope (art. 1, 10) reflects that it is about international sale of goods (between
parties whose places of business are in different states)
parties should know about this when concluding the contract
- Territorial scope (art. 1) means that either their places of business are in contracting
states or rules of private international law lead to the application of the law of a
contracting state

Interpretation of the Convention (art. 7)

when interpreting the provisions of the Convention, the following principles should be
respected:
- the international character of the Convention,
- the need to promote uniformity in its application,
- and the principle of good faith
Interpretation of the statements of the parties (art. 8)
- "subjective" approach: statements should be interpreted based on the intent of the party
making the statement, but only "where the other party knew or could not have been
unaware" of the speaker’s intent, if cannot be established:
- objective approach: statements made by a party are to be interpreted according to the
understanding that a reasonable person of the same kind as the other party would have
had in the same circumstances

16. Securities in international trade

Securities in international trade
Types of securities:
• securities representing goods
– bill of lading
– warehouse warrant
88
 • securities representing money
– bill of exchange (promissory note)
– check
– insurance policy
• securities representing membership rights
– shares (stocks)

A security is a tradable financial asset. The term commonly refers to any form of financial
instrument, but its legal definition varies by jurisdiction. In some countries and languages
people commonly use the term "security" to refer to any form of financial instrument, even
though the underlying legal and regulatory regime may not have such a broad definition. In
some jurisdictions the term specifically excludes financial instruments other than equities and
fixed income instruments. In some jurisdictions it includes some instruments that are close to
equities and fixed income, e.g., equity warrants.

A bill of lading is a legal document between the shipper of goods and the carrier detailing the
type, quantity and destination of the goods being carried. The bill of lading also serves as a
receipt of shipment when the goods are delivered at the predetermined destination. This
document must accompany the shipped goods, no matter the form of transportation, and must
be signed by an authorized representative from the carrier, shipper and receiver.

Securities are traditionally divided into debt securities and equities.

Debt securities may be called debentures, bonds, deposits, notes or commercial paper
depending on their maturity, collateral and other characteristics. The holder of a debt security
is typically entitled to the payment of principal and interest, together with other contractual
rights under the terms of the issue, such as the right to receive certain information.

An equity security is a share of equity interest in an entity such as the capital stock of a
company, trust or partnership. The most common form of equity interest is common stock,
although preferred equity is also a form of capital stock. The holder of an equity is a
shareholder, owning a share, or fractional part of the issuer.

Securities in international trade refer to financial instruments that are used to secure payment
and reduce risks associated with cross-border transactions. These securities are designed to
protect the interests of the parties involved and ensure smooth and reliable trade operations.
Here are some common types of securities used in international trade:
- Letters of Credit (LC): A letter of credit is a widely used payment instrument in
international trade. It is issued by a bank on behalf of the buyer and guarantees
payment to the seller upon fulfillment of specified conditions. Letters of credit provide
security to both parties by ensuring that payment will be made once the agreed-upon
terms are met.
- Bank Guarantees: Bank guarantees are a form of assurance provided by a bank on
behalf of a buyer or seller in a trade transaction. They serve as a promise to make
payment or perform an obligation if the party fails to do so. Bank guarantees can be
used to secure payment, performance, or bid bonds, among other things.
- Bills of Exchange: A bill of exchange is a written order issued by the seller (drawer) to
the buyer (drawee) requiring the drawee to pay a specified amount of money at a
predetermined future date. It serves as a negotiable instrument and can be used to
secure payment in international trade transactions.
- Export Credit Insurance: Export credit insurance provides protection to exporters
against the risk of non-payment by foreign buyers. It is typically offered by
government agencies or private insurers and covers political and commercial risks
89
 associated with international trade. Export credit insurance helps exporters mitigate the
risk of non-payment and promotes trade by providing them with the confidence to
extend credit terms to buyers.
- Trade Finance Instruments: Trade finance instruments, such as documentary
collections and factoring, are used to facilitate payment and provide security in
international trade. Documentary collections involve the use of banks to handle
payment and documents, reducing payment risks. Factoring involves the sale of
accounts receivable to a third party (factor) who assumes the credit risk and provides
immediate cash flow to the exporter.
- Trade Credit Insurance: Trade credit insurance protects businesses against the risk of
non-payment by their buyers, whether domestic or international. It covers losses
resulting from insolvency, protracted default, political events, and other specified risks.
Trade credit insurance helps exporters protect their cash flow and manage credit risks
associated with international trade.

The regulation of securities in international trade involves a combination of international laws

and organizations. Here are some key international laws and organizations that play a role in
regulating international trade and the associated securities:
- United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG):
The CISG is a widely recognized international treaty that governs contracts for the sale
of goods between parties from different countries. It provides a set of uniform rules for
the formation, interpretation, and performance of international sales contracts,
including issues related to securities.
- International Chamber of Commerce (ICC): The ICC is an influential global business
organization that provides rules, standards, and guidelines for international trade,
including the use of securities. The ICC has developed widely used sets of rules, such
as the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (UCP 600) for letters of
credit and the Uniform Rules for Demand Guarantees (URDG 758) for bank
guarantees.
- International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT): UNIDROIT is
an intergovernmental organization that aims to harmonize and coordinate private
international law. It has developed important conventions and model laws relevant to
international trade, such as the UNIDROIT Convention on International Factoring and
the Cape Town Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment.
- World Trade Organization (WTO): The WTO is an international organization that
deals with the global rules of trade between nations. While the WTO primarily focuses
on trade in goods, it also addresses trade in services and intellectual property. The
WTO establishes principles, rules, and agreements that shape international trade,
including aspects related to trade finance and securities.
- International Trade Law: International trade law consists of a body of rules and
principles developed through treaties, customs, and case law. It encompasses various
aspects of international trade, including the regulation of contracts, payment
mechanisms, and dispute resolution. The practices and standards established by
international trade law impact the use and regulation of securities in international trade.

1. EU’s rule of law mechanism?

The rule of law mechanism is a procedure whereby the Commission can take financial measures if
it finds that EU funds are not being used for their intended purpose, because the rule of law, or
European values, are being violated

The European Rule of Law Mechanism provides a process for an annual dialogue between the
Commission, the Council and the European Parliament together with Member States as well as
90
national parliaments, civil society and other stakeholders on the rule of law. The Rule of Law
Report is the foundation of this new process.

A core objective of the European Rule of Law Mechanism is to stimulate inter-institutional

cooperation and encourage all EU institutions to contribute in accordance with their respective
institutional roles. This aim reflects a long-standing interest from both the European Parliament
and the Council. The Commission also invites national parliaments and national authorities to
discuss the report, and encourages other stakeholders at the national and EU level to be involved.

2. Who decides for new members?

The European Commission and the European Council.

The Council first decides whether or not to accept the application.

●The Member States decides, on the basis of an opinion from the European Commission, whether
to grant candidate status to the applicant as well as to open accession negotiations
●After the negotiations, accession treaty should be signed by the Member States and the candidate.
The European Parliament also has to give its consent. The treaty then has to be ratified by all the
Member States and the acceding country.
●The EU also needs to be able to integrate new members. This is called institutional arrangements.
The EU had to adapt its institutions and decision-making processes to the arrival of new Member
States and ensure that enlargement would not come at the expense of efficient, accountable
policymaking.
Accession Treaty contains the detailed terms and conditions of membership, all transitional
arrangements and deadlines, as well as details of financial arrangements and any safeguard clauses.
●It is not final and binding until it:
- wins the support of the EU Council, the Commission, and the European Parliament
- is signed by the candidate country and representatives of all existing EU countries
- is ratified by the candidate country and every individual EU country, according to their
constitutional rules (parliamentary vote, referendum, etc.).

3. Treaties

(i) The Treaty of European Union (TEU) sets out the European Union's purpose, democratic
principles, institutions and governance framework, as well as provisions on enhanced co-
operation, external action and the EU's common foreign and security policy.
(Maastricht Treaty 1992, effective 1993)

(ii) The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) is one of two treaties
forming the constitutional basis of the European Union (EU), the other being the Treaty on
European Union (TEU; also referred to as the Treaty of Maastricht). It was previously known as
Treaty Establishing the European Community (TEC).

The Treaty originated as the Treaty of Rome (fully the Treaty establishing the European Economic
Community), which brought about the creation of the European Economic Community (EEC), the
best-known of the European Communities (EC). It was signed on 25 March 1957 by Belgium,
France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and West Germany and came into force on 1 January
1958. It remains one of the two most important treaties in the modern-day European Union (EU).

Its name has been amended twice since 1957. The Maastricht Treaty of 1992 removed the word
"economic" from the Treaty of Rome's official title and, in 2009, the Treaty of Lisbon renamed it
the "Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union".
The TFEU provides the organisational and functional details
91
The Treaty of Amsterdam, officially the Treaty of Amsterdam amending the Treaty on European
Union, the Treaties establishing the European Communities and certain related acts, was signed on
2 October 1997, and entered into force on 1 May 1999; it made substantial changes to the Treaty
of Maastricht, which had been signed in 1992. Under the Treaty of Amsterdam, member states
agreed to transfer certain powers from national governments to the European Parliament
across diverse areas, including legislating on immigration, adopting civil and criminal laws,
and enacting common foreign and security policy (CFSP), as well as implementing
institutional changes for expansion as new member nations join the EU.

The Treaty of Lisbon (initially known as the Reform Treaty) is an international agreement that
amends the two treaties which form the constitutional basis of the European Union (EU). The
Treaty of Lisbon, which was signed by the EU member states on 13 December 2007, entered into
force on 1 December 2009. The stated aim of the treaty was to "complete the process started by the
Treaty of Amsterdam [1997] and by the Treaty of Nice [2001] with a view to enhancing the
efficiency and democratic legitimacy of the Union and to improving the coherence of its action" .
The Treaty of Lisbon gives the EU full legal personality. Therefore, the Union obtains the ability
to sign international treaties in the areas of its attributed powers or to join an international
organisation. Member States may only sign international agreements that are compatible with EU
law. The Treaty for the first time provides for a formal procedure to be followed by Member States
wishing to withdraw from the European Union in accordance with their constitutional requirements,
namely Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU).

4. 1950 - Robert Schuman?

The Schuman Declaration was presented by French foreign minister Robert Schuman on 9 May
1950. It proposed the creation of a European Coal and Steel Community, whose members would
pool coal and steel production.
The ECSC (founding members: France, West Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and
Luxembourg) was the first of a series of supranational European institutions that would ultimately
become today's "European Union".
5. Treaty of Rome
The Treaty of Rome, or EEC Treaty (officially the Treaty establishing the European Economic
Community), brought about the creation of the European Economic Community (EEC), the best
known of the European Communities (EC). The treaty was signed on 25 March 1957 by Belgium,
France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and West Germany, and it came into force on 1 January
1958. Originally the "Treaty establishing the European Economic Community", and now continuing
under the name "Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union", it remains one of the two most
important treaties in what is now the European Union (EU).
6. Merger Treaty?
The Merger Treaty, also known as the Treaty of Brussels,[1] was a European treaty which unified
the executive institutions of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), European Atomic
Energy Community (Euratom) and the European Economic Community (EEC). The treaty was
signed in Brussels on 8 April 1965 and came into force on 1 July 1967. It set out that the
Commission of the European Communities should replace the High Authority of the ECSC, the
Commission of the EEC and the Commission of Euratom, and that the Council of the European
Communities should replace the Special Council of Ministers of the ECSC, the Council of the EEC
and the Council of Euratom.
7. Treaty of Nice?
92
The Treaty of Nice was signed on 26 February 2001 and entered into force on 1 February 2003. It
aimed to prepare the EU for its biggest enlargement - with 10 new member states in 2004 and with
two more in 2007.
The treaty reformed the EU institutions to make them more efficient in an enlarged EU of 27
member states. The rules for qualified majority voting in the Council of the European Union were
modified. There were changes in the European Commission, the European Parliament and the
Court of Justice. The Treaty also introduced new rules on enhanced cooperation.

8. Founding fathers of the EU: Jean Monnet, Robert Schuman, Konrad Adenauer, Alcide De
Gasperi, Paul-Henri Spaak.

93