Questo sito utilizza cookie di terze parti per inviarti pubblicità in linea con le tue preferenze. Se vuoi saperne di più clicca QUI 
Chiudendo questo banner, scorrendo questa pagina, cliccando su un link o proseguendo la navigazione in altra maniera, acconsenti all'uso dei cookie. OK

The Role of European Political Parties in the Convention on the Future of Europe

L'anteprima di questa tesi è scaricabile in PDF gratuitamente.
Per scaricare il file PDF è necessario essere iscritto a Tesionline.
L'iscrizione non comporta alcun costo. Mostra/Nascondi contenuto.

8 whether and how to proceed toward integration. Nevertheless, Hoffmann’s approach was far from being a backward looking state-centrism, since it aimed at emphasizing the importance of national interest in the post-war international politics of Europe (Rosamond, 2000: 76). European integration is seen as a limited bargaining away control over economic aspects of national sovereignty, in exchange of material benefits (Nelsen & Stubb, 1998: 157). Hoffmann opposes the logic of diversity to the logic of integration set up by Monnet and analyzed by Haas. The logic of diversity suggests that, “in areas of key importance to the national interest, nations prefer the self-controlled uncertainty of national self-reliance, to the uncontrolled uncertainty of the blending process” (Hoffmann, 1995: 84). Such an approach, by denying a causal, autonomous function to the supranational level of government in the process of integration, leaves no ground for a role played by the development of transnational party links in influencing the path of integration. Andrew Moravcsik, a former student of Stanley Hoffmann’s, later developed the intergovernmentalist approach by proposing his liberal intergovernmentalist alternative to the Sandholtz and Zysman’s explanation of the 1992 process (Nelsen and Stubb, 1998: 217). By considering the case of the negotiations of the Single European Act, Moravcsik constructs an alternative explanation of systemic change. This approach is based on three principles (Moravcsik, 1989: 10): 1. the main actors responsible for the conclusion of the SEA were the three largest states, whose negotiating positions, reflecting their international competitive advantage, allowed them to exercise a predominant influence 2. the three largest states enjoyed a veto power in the bargaining process over regime change, unless threatened of exclusion from a coalition between the other two 3. the final agreements will leave narrower possibilities for future transfers of sovereignty In assessing the application of neofunctionalism to the case of the SEA, Moravcsik explicitly denies any causal function to the supranational level of government. In his own words, “the evidence suggests that the SEA did not result from the pressure or momentum generated in Community institutions” (Moravcsik, 1989: 37). The European Parliament in particular, it is argued, had no say and was deliberately and systematically excluded from the preliminary phase of the negotiating process and from the IGC. The case of the SEA is taken by Moravcsik as a piece of evidence for

Anteprima della Tesi di Matteo Fumerio

Anteprima della tesi: The Role of European Political Parties in the Convention on the Future of Europe, Pagina 6

Tesi di Master

Autore: Matteo Fumerio Contatta »

Composta da 83 pagine.

 

Questa tesi ha raggiunto 457 click dal 20/03/2004.

 

Consultata integralmente 2 volte.

Disponibile in PDF, la consultazione è esclusivamente in formato digitale.