The EU as an ‘Intergovernmental’ Actor in Foreign Affairs:Case Studies of the International Criminal Court & the Kyoto Protocol
This paper examines the relationship between the institutional set-up of the EU policy-making process and the international actorness of the EU in two cases: the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the negotiations in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) on the implementation details of the Kyoto Protocol. In both cases, the EU policy-making process is distinctly intergovernmental with a limited role for the supranational EU institutions (the European Parliament and the European Commission) and a large role for EU member states and the Council Presidency. Yet, in both cases, the EU operates with a high degree of international actorness. We argue that this is so not only because member states had similar preferences on the issue of climate change and international criminal justice, and because formal rules, legal competences and decision-making procedures had a mediating effect. The high degree of international actorness in both cases can also be explained by processes of social interaction amongst EU member states and between EU member states and non-EU and non-state actors through which preferences converged.
| Attachment | Size | Hits | Last download |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1256.pdf | 160.68 KB | 2549 | 8 hours 44 min ago |
This paper examines the relationship between the institutional set-up of the EU policy-making process and the international actorness of the EU in two cases: the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the negotiations in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) on the implementation details of the Kyoto Protocol. In both cases, the EU policy-making process is distinctly intergovernmental with a limited role for the supranational EU institutions (the European Parliament and the European Commission) and a large role for EU member states and the Council Presidency. Yet, in both cases, the EU operates with a high degree of international actorness. We argue that this is so not only because member states had similar preferences on the issue of climate change and international criminal justice, and because formal rules, legal competences and decision-making procedures had a mediating effect. The high degree of international actorness in both cases can also be explained by processes of social interaction amongst EU member states and between EU member states and non-EU and non-state actors through which preferences converged.
-en-1103
[list_price] => 0.00000 [cost] => 0.00000 [sell_price] => 12.00000 [weight] => 300 [weight_units] => g [length] => 0 [width] => 0 [height] => 0 [length_units] => cm [pkg_qty] => 0 [default_qty] => 1 [unique_hash] => 9ceadadbfbd9d163c2d8d1eab7351266 [ordering] => 0 [shippable] => 1 [tags] => Array ( ) [path] => book/eu-‘intergovernmental’-actor-foreign-affairscase-studies-international-criminal-court-kyoto-pro [field_book_isbn] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => [safe] => ) ) [field_price] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => 12 ) ) [field_book_series] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => 89 [safe] => 89 ) ) [field_book_number] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => 228 [safe] => 228 [view] => 228 ) ) [field_book_short_title] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => [safe] => [view] => ) ) [field_book_author_external] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => Martijn L.P. Groenleer and Louise G. van Schaik [safe] => Martijn L.P. Groenleer and Louise G. van Schaik ) ) [field_book_old_path] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => 1256 [safe] => 1256 ) ) [field_book_downloads] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => 2503 [safe] => 2503 ) ) [field_book_pages] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => [view] => ) ) [field_book_price_pdf] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => 0.00 ) ) [field_book_published] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => 2005-08-01 00:00:00 [timezone] => Europe/Brussels [timezone_db] => Europe/Brussels [date_type] => datetime ) ) [field_book_publication_date] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => 2005-08-01T00:00:00 [timezone] => Europe/Brussels [timezone_db] => Europe/Brussels [date_type] => date [view] => 01 August 2005 ) ) [field_book_author] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [nid] => [view] => ) ) [field_image_cache] => Array ( [0] => ) [field_type] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => BOOK [format] => [safe] =>BOOK
[view] => Printed book ) [1] => Array ( [value] => [format] => [safe] => [view] => ) [2] => Array ( [value] => [format] => [safe] => [view] => ) ) [print_display] => 1 [print_display_comment] => 0 [print_display_urllist] => 1 [signup] => 0 [uc_order_product_id] => [0] => [taxonomy] => Array ( [taxonomy_term_22] => Array ( [title] => Politics and Institutions [href] => taxonomy/term/22 [attributes] => Array ( [rel] => tag [title] => ) ) [taxonomy_term_89] => Array ( [title] => CEPS Working Documents [href] => catalog/89 [attributes] => Array ( [rel] => tag [title] => Give an indication of work being conducted within CEPS research programmes and are aimed at stimulating reactions from other experts in the field. ) ) ) [files] => Array ( [963] => stdClass Object ( [fid] => 963 [uid] => 1 [filename] => 1256.pdf [filepath] => files/book/1256.pdf [filemime] => application/pdf [filesize] => 164540 [status] => 1 [timestamp] => 2009-09-15 16:45:12 [nid] => 1103 [vid] => 1103 [description] => 1256.pdf [list] => 1 [weight] => 0 ) ) [flatrate] => Array ( ) [shipping_type] => small_package [shipping_address] => stdClass Object ( [first_name] => Radoslav [last_name] => Minkov [company] => CEPS [street1] => place du Congres 1 [street2] => [city] => Brussels [zone] => 94 [postal_code] => 1000 [country] => 56 [phone] => ) [usps] => [weightquote] => Array ( ) [build_mode] => 0 [readmore] => 1 [content] =>This paper examines the relationship between the institutional set-up of the EU policy-making process and the international actorness of the EU in two cases: the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the negotiations in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) on the implementation details of the Kyoto Protocol. In both cases, the EU policy-making process is distinctly intergovernmental with a limited role for the supranational EU institutions (the European Parliament and the European Commission) and a large role for EU member states and the Council Presidency. Yet, in both cases, the EU operates with a high degree of international actorness. We argue that this is so not only because member states had similar preferences on the issue of climate change and international criminal justice, and because formal rules, legal competences and decision-making procedures had a mediating effect. The high degree of international actorness in both cases can also be explained by processes of social interaction amongst EU member states and between EU member states and non-EU and non-state actors through which preferences converged.
| Attachment | Size | Hits | Last download |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1256.pdf | 160.68 KB | 2549 | 8 hours 44 min ago |
This paper examines the relationship between the institutional set-up of the EU policy-making process and the international actorness of the EU in two cases: the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the negotiations in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) on the implementation details of the Kyoto Protocol. In both cases, the EU policy-making process is distinctly intergovernmental with a limited role for the supranational EU institutions (the European Parliament and the European Commission) and a large role for EU member states and the Council Presidency. Yet, in both cases, the EU operates with a high degree of international actorness. We argue that this is so not only because member states had similar preferences on the issue of climate change and international criminal justice, and because formal rules, legal competences and decision-making procedures had a mediating effect. The high degree of international actorness in both cases can also be explained by processes of social interaction amongst EU member states and between EU member states and non-EU and non-state actors through which preferences converged.
-en-1103
[list_price] => 0.00000 [cost] => 0.00000 [sell_price] => 12.00000 [weight] => 300 [weight_units] => g [length] => 0 [width] => 0 [height] => 0 [length_units] => cm [pkg_qty] => 0 [default_qty] => 1 [unique_hash] => 9ceadadbfbd9d163c2d8d1eab7351266 [ordering] => 0 [shippable] => 1 [tags] => Array ( ) [path] => book/eu-‘intergovernmental’-actor-foreign-affairscase-studies-international-criminal-court-kyoto-pro [field_book_isbn] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => [safe] => ) ) [field_price] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => 12 ) ) [field_book_series] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => 89 [safe] => 89 ) ) [field_book_number] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => 228 [safe] => 228 [view] => 228 ) ) [field_book_short_title] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => [safe] => [view] => ) ) [field_book_author_external] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => Martijn L.P. Groenleer and Louise G. van Schaik [safe] => Martijn L.P. Groenleer and Louise G. van Schaik ) ) [field_book_old_path] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => 1256 [safe] => 1256 ) ) [field_book_downloads] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => 2503 [safe] => 2503 ) ) [field_book_pages] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => [view] => ) ) [field_book_price_pdf] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => 0.00 ) ) [field_book_published] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => 2005-08-01 00:00:00 [timezone] => Europe/Brussels [timezone_db] => Europe/Brussels [date_type] => datetime ) ) [field_book_publication_date] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => 2005-08-01T00:00:00 [timezone] => Europe/Brussels [timezone_db] => Europe/Brussels [date_type] => date [view] => 01 August 2005 ) ) [field_book_author] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [nid] => [view] => ) ) [field_image_cache] => Array ( [0] => ) [field_type] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => BOOK [format] => [safe] =>BOOK
[view] => Printed book ) [1] => Array ( [value] => [format] => [safe] => [view] => ) [2] => Array ( [value] => [format] => [safe] => [view] => ) ) [print_display] => 1 [print_display_comment] => 0 [print_display_urllist] => 1 [signup] => 0 [uc_order_product_id] => [0] => [taxonomy] => Array ( [22] => stdClass Object ( [tid] => 22 [vid] => 3 [name] => Politics and Institutions [description] => [weight] => 8 ) [89] => stdClass Object ( [tid] => 89 [vid] => 4 [name] => CEPS Working Documents [description] => Give an indication of work being conducted within CEPS research programmes and are aimed at stimulating reactions from other experts in the field. [weight] => 0 ) ) [files] => Array ( [963] => stdClass Object ( [fid] => 963 [uid] => 1 [filename] => 1256.pdf [filepath] => files/book/1256.pdf [filemime] => application/pdf [filesize] => 164540 [status] => 1 [timestamp] => 2009-09-15 16:45:12 [nid] => 1103 [vid] => 1103 [description] => 1256.pdf [list] => 1 [weight] => 0 ) ) [flatrate] => Array ( ) [shipping_type] => small_package [shipping_address] => stdClass Object ( [first_name] => Radoslav [last_name] => Minkov [company] => CEPS [street1] => place du Congres 1 [street2] => [city] => Brussels [zone] => 94 [postal_code] => 1000 [country] => 56 [phone] => ) [usps] => [weightquote] => Array ( ) [build_mode] => 0 [readmore] => 1 [content] => Array ( [print_links] => Array ( [#weight] => -101 [#value] => [#title] => [#description] => [#printed] => 1 ) [display_price] => Array ( [#weight] => -10 [#access] => 1 [#value] =>BOOK
[#delta] => 0 ) [#title] => [#description] => [#theme_used] => 1 [#printed] => 1 [#type] => [#value] => [#prefix] => [#suffix] => [#children] => Printed book ) [1] => Array ( [#formatter] => default [#node] => stdClass Object *RECURSION* [#type_name] => book [#field_name] => field_type [#weight] => 1 [#theme] => text_formatter_default [#item] => Array ( [value] => [format] => [safe] => [#delta] => 1 ) [#title] => [#description] => [#theme_used] => 1 [#printed] => 1 [#type] => [#value] => [#prefix] => [#suffix] => ) [2] => Array ( [#formatter] => default [#node] => stdClass Object *RECURSION* [#type_name] => book [#field_name] => field_type [#weight] => 2 [#theme] => text_formatter_default [#item] => Array ( [value] => [format] => [safe] => [#delta] => 2 ) [#title] => [#description] => [#theme_used] => 1 [#printed] => 1 [#type] => [#value] => [#prefix] => [#suffix] => ) [#title] => [#description] => [#children] => Printed book [#printed] => 1 ) [#single] => 1 [#attributes] => Array ( ) [#required] => [#parents] => Array ( ) [#tree] => [#context] => full [#page] => 1 [#field_name] => field_type [#title] => type [#access] => 1 [#label_display] => inline [#teaser] => [#node] => stdClass Object *RECURSION* [#type] => content_field [#children] => Printed book [#printed] => 1 ) [#title] => [#description] => [#children] =>| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| 1256.pdf | 160.68 KB |
This paper examines the relationship between the institutional set-up of the EU policy-making process and the international actorness of the EU in two cases: the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the negotiations in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) on the implementation details of the Kyoto Protocol. In both cases, the EU policy-making process is distinctly intergovernmental with a limited role for the supranational EU institutions (the European Parliament and the European Commission) and a large role for EU member states and the Council Presidency. Yet, in both cases, the EU operates with a high degree of international actorness. We argue that this is so not only because member states had similar preferences on the issue of climate change and international criminal justice, and because formal rules, legal competences and decision-making procedures had a mediating effect. The high degree of international actorness in both cases can also be explained by processes of social interaction amongst EU member states and between EU member states and non-EU and non-state actors through which preferences converged.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| 1256.pdf | 160.68 KB |
This paper examines the relationship between the institutional set-up of the EU policy-making process and the international actorness of the EU in two cases: the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the negotiations in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) on the implementation details of the Kyoto Protocol. In both cases, the EU policy-making process is distinctly intergovernmental with a limited role for the supranational EU institutions (the European Parliament and the European Commission) and a large role for EU member states and the Council Presidency. Yet, in both cases, the EU operates with a high degree of international actorness. We argue that this is so not only because member states had similar preferences on the issue of climate change and international criminal justice, and because formal rules, legal competences and decision-making procedures had a mediating effect. The high degree of international actorness in both cases can also be explained by processes of social interaction amongst EU member states and between EU member states and non-EU and non-state actors through which preferences converged.
Related Publications
- The European Citizens’ Initiative: A Proper Response from the Commission
- Fresh Opportunities from the Treaty of Lisbon
- Europe in the 21st century: Perspectives from the Lisbon Treaty
- Understanding Klaus: The Story of Czech Eurorealism
- Two new leaders in search of a job description
- Next time must be different
- The Treaty of Lisbon and the Czech Constitutional Court: Act II
- Staying in the Loop - The Commission’s role in first reading agreements
- Lessons from the Czech EU Presidency
- The New European Parliament: All change or business as usual?
Related Articles
- Europe as a global actor: Views from the Spanish Presidency
- Keynote speech by José Manuel Durão Barroso at the Opening Dinner of the CEPS Annual Conference 2008
- Just what is this absorption capacity of the European Union? - Launch of a CEPS Policy Brief
- The Period of Reflection: Which way forward for Europe?
- Enlargement of the Eurozone: Why and When?