*** OLIVIER COSTA, NATHALIE BRACK: Le fonctionnement de l'Union européenne. Editions de l'Université libre de Bruxelles (26 av. Paul Héger, CP 163, B-1000 Brussels. Tel: (32-2) 6503789 - fax: 6503794 - Email: editions@admin.ulb.ac.be - Internet: http://www.editions-universite-bruxelles.be ). Collection "UBLire", No. 13. 2011, 253 pp, €9. ISBN 978-2-8004-1492-8.
In this book, the two political scientists who wrote it sought to provide a concise analysis of the Union in all its dynamic component parts and focus particular attention on how it actually works in practice. In this way, they hoped to avoid two stumbling blocks, namely, “ producing another disenchanted observation of Union procrastination” or concocting another dose of abstract theory. In this book, they manage to achieve their objective in full because in this reader-friendly pocket size book they propose (as indicated on the jacket of the book), “a simple and didactic reading of how the Union works that does not skip over the complexity of the different aspects but does not over-dramatise them either”. Olivier Costa is a researcher at Sciences Po Bordeaux and a visiting lecturer in political science at the Université libre in Brussels, the College of Europe and Geneva University. He also founded and still heads the European studies section at the French Political Science Association. Nathalie Brack is an assistant in political science at the Université libre in Brussels, where her research particularly focuses on European Parliament Eurosceptic MEPs and the broader questions of parliamentary representation and political opposition at a supranational scale. Their book can be divided into three different stages. In the first part, they seek to demonstrate that the unprecedented regime of the European Union, as well as the different logical foundations for decision-making underpinning the European system, are largely the product of a tempestuous history and that this historical perspective is therefore crucial to understanding this whole question. They then provide a systematic examination of all the different institutional and non-institutional actors competing with each other within the operational field. Finally, in the third part of the book, they provide a very clear, lucid and accessible insight into European decision-making modalities for the non-specialist reader. They also focus on some of the more practical and informal aspects involved in the Union's legislative process.
It is obvious that it is a difficult task to describe a book that provides a huge wealth of scientific analysis, combined with precision and meticulous observations, in just a few lines. In this review, I will simply seek to concentrate on a few of the ideas developed by the authors. One of the basic observations is that European construction has been, “an undeniable success” because the modern European Union is the most advanced body among the approximately 200 different kinds of organisations promoting regional integration listed in the world. Nonetheless, this experience of integration is now confronting, “a crisis of confidence” because the indifference of citizens towards the Union has gradually been transformed into, “a variety of different forms of resistance to Europe”, which have even become, “stable components of political life” in the Union. This observation is perhaps a little too harsh and requires a degree of qualification, as does the other assertion made by the authors that the Lisbon Treaty, “marks out the boundaries of European integration” because with this treaty, “the most eager supporters of European integration have had to bid farewell to the federal model” because this treaty confirms the hybrid nature of the Union. Does this therefore mean farewell to developing a further constitutional basis to the Union? This treaty was the first attempt to achieve this aim and sought to meet the concerns expressed by citizens. These concerns had in fact grown among some of them with regard to European construction and “revealed the disaffection” with federalism, which had now fallen victim along the way. What a gloomy picture! Should we therefore be waving this prospect goodbye? Perhaps not, but why not? Because the authors highlight the fact that a certain number of fault lines in the way the European project has been built since the beginning of this millennium could possibly one day provide the response that will save the whole edifice from falling down. Are Costa and Brack right to attack the disturbing truth that, “the Union is still under threat from stagnation, regression and falling apart”? Certain wagging tongues even assert that the first of these threats is actually happening and the second is not far off …
Nevertheless, it still needs to be said that there is no blueprint for the future and it is up to Europeans themselves to write their own narrative. The problem, however, is that those currently holding the pen in their hands are failing to write down the right answers to the questions set them. This effectively means that the number of Eurosceptics who are allergic to the very principle of European supranational integration has now grown by default. Even the authors of this book appear to give into the temptation of accepting this interpretation. It is up to citizens and political actors to oppose the choices made by their leaders. Olivier Costa and Nathalie Brack therefore concur that, “the Union has been much more successful in deregulating - with all the ramifications that this has on Europeans, as workers, public service users and consumers - than it has been in regulating”. Whose fault is this, the Union's? No, it is the fault of the leaders of member states who make the treaties and who have for a long time been guilty of developing “divergent conceptions”, which are even hostile to European integration. Subsequently, if the heads of member states and governments stopped insisting on imposing a ceiling on the Union budget of 1% of member states' GNP and did what was done in a “normal” federal-state “(between 20 to 30%) or indeed between themselves (between 40 and 60%), the Union would ultimately have the resources that could help satisfy the expectations of its citizens and its legitimacy amongst the people would grow in parallel. The same would occur if it were allowed to take more action in the social arena. Is this impossible to achieve in the short term? Obviously. Nonetheless, European integration is a continuous process and is traversed by small and large-scale battles. The next battles to be fought will be in the fields of financial perspectives and own resources and no battle is lost before it has even been fought! Michel Theys
*** ANDREW DUFF: Post-national democracy and the reform of the European Parliament / La démocratie post-nationale et la réforme du Parlement européen. Notre Europe (19 rue de Milan, F-75009 Paris. Tel: (33-1) 44589797 - fax: 44589799 - Email: info@notre-europe.eu - Internet: http://www.notre-europe.eu ). “Policy Paper”, No. 42. 2010, 159 pp.
Notre Europe (Thinking a United Europe), Jacques Delors' favourite think-tank, is not resigned to the fact that citizens appear indifferent to the European Parliament and to Union itself. In an effort to prevent another election or referendum providing an all too late alarm bell regarding the solid foundations of the European project, Notre Europe has invited a rather unique and emblematic MEP (he is British but is president of the European Union of Federalists) to write an article in this publication. Andrew Duff has for a long time been part of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe and has been involved in all the different struggles to strengthen European integration and democracy. In this study published in English and French, he proposes an ambitious raft of measures to strengthen the legitimacy and efficiency of the European Parliament. In this article, he launches a powerful appeal to his colleagues to seize the major opportunity provided by the Lisbon Treaty and now commit themselves to a revision of the European treaties as well. To this end, he proposes that they organise a new Constitutional Convention specifically focusing on the cause of Parliamentary reform. Andrew Duff considers that one of the major objectives to attain, consists of strengthening the European political parties, so that they become genuine and indispensable vehicles of communication, representation and protest between citizens and the supranational authorities. The author insists that the objective must be one of raising the status and the function of the European level political parties so that instead of being the poor relations of the national political parties, they become powerful and complimentary partners to them. In order to ignite this dynamic, Andrew Duff proposes the practical completion of current election procedures through a pan-European election in which 25 additional MEPs would be elected on transnational lists. Obviously, this suggestion is not going to be to everybody's taste. (MT)
*** KATRIN AUEL, JULIO BAQUERO CRUZ: L'Europe de Karlsruhe. Notre Europe (see address attached). “Études & Recherches”, No. 78. 2010, 50 pp.
In this equally brief but compact study, a political scientist (Katrin Auel is a fellow of Mansfield College, Oxford University and guest researcher at the European Studies Centre at Sciences-Po Paris) and a legal expert (Julio Baquero Cruz works at the European Commission's legal service and is a guest lecturer at Sciences-Po Paris) provide a very critical analysis of the German Constitutional Court's ruling on the Lisbon Treaty, 30 June 2009. They particularly focus on the impact of this decision on the supremacy of European legislation and the role played by national parliaments. They point out that this ruling will have a lasting negative impact on Germany's European policy and those opposing European financial solidarity with Greece did indeed surge ahead to fill the breach and impose their points of view on the question. In the same sense, the two authors argue that the Karlsruhe Court's claim that the Union's democratic legitimacy is, “neither useful, nor coherent” delivered a terrible blow to the different initiatives taken to address the democratic deficit in the Union. They consider that the German judges had the wrong target in their sights and let their own national political classes off lightly because the real problem of European democracy can be identified within the absence of public debate, protest and political competition regarding Europe at both European and member state levels. The Karlsruhe judges refused to see that it is the same actors, namely, the national political parties who are responsible for this problem and who feel uncomfortable with European questions and see them in a negative light. Finally, someone has managed to identify this problem that has been handicapping European construction for too long - that the only political organisations which are really interested in the European Union are those that seek its destruction or, at the very least, will delighted once the European project becomes nothing but a simple marketplace. In this context, the authors argue that the politicisation of European affairs could possibly be the saving grace of the European project because it would provoke a real public debate on Europe, which citizens want. If this is not forthcoming, the populist parties will quickly fill the void. (MT)
*** MARCUS CARSON, TOM R. BURNS, DOLORES CALVO (Editors): Paradigms in Public Policy. Theory and Practice of Paradigm Shifts in the EU. Peter Lang (1 Moosstrasse, Postfach 350, CH-2542 Pieterlen. Tel: (41-32) 3761717 - fax: 3761727 - Email: info@peterlang.com - Internet: http://www.peterlang.net ). 2009, 444 pp, €46.50. ISBN 978-3-631-57905-3.
This is a book collectively written by different eminent scientific experts. It seeks to examine and explore the parameters of public policy and help provide a better understanding of the key ideas in political and institutional change. If we accept the claim by Rogers Hollingsworth from the University of Wisconsin, this objective has been attained in full because this book is the most important expression up until now of how ideas, cognitive frameworks, actors and institutions interact in order to produce policy. The different authors particularly focus on the changes and continuity in European Union policies. There are also contributions that look at the Union's food policy during the “mad cow” and dioxin infected poultry crises. There are also articles on the eradication of asbestos, the Reach “saga”, the emergence of the Union's energy policy and its climate policy equivalent. The authors also tackle the question of gender equality as a possible herald of a new social order. (PBo)
*** GÜNTHER FLECK, BARBARA SCHÖRNER (Editors): Ein Offizier als Philosoph. Schriften von Edwin Rüdiger Micewski. Peter Lang (1 Moosstrasse, Postfach 350, CH-2542 Pieterlen. Tel: (41-32) 3761717 - fax: 3761727 - Email: Info@peterlan.com - Internet: http://www.peterlang.com ). 2009, 503 pp, €74.60. ISBN 978-3-631-58839-0.
This book is a collection of articles written by contemporary Austrian philosopher, Brigadier General Edwin Rüdiger Micewski. This book contains his reflections on a number of different themes, such as ethics in the army, military strategy and political philosophy. The articles are based on commentaries and reflections by academic figures and are written in English and German. This anthology consists of three parts corresponding to the fields of study examined by Brigadier General Micewski and are also preceded by a description of the context in which he lives and writes, in addition to an exploration of the work that he has undertaken and experienced, as well as his values. The first domain examined focuses on politics and the author's view on ethics and philosophy. Some of the themes are certainly quite appropriate topics in today's world and can be interpreted, without too much effort of extrapolation, within the context of the wars we are currently witnessing. One of these themes includes the important ethical question involving the act of killing, in addition to terrorism and the ever-present gulf between idealism and realism. The following part of the book focuses on a much more down-to-earth subject, namely Micewski's writing on security policy and the relationship between policy and the military authorities. As opposed to a common practice among a number of other authors, this study does not exclusively focus on the relationship between the different powers but rather on the consequences impacting on the bureaucracy and society's aspirations. The culture of a specific country also plays an important role in political strategies, as well as in the social movements contained within this framework. The editors of this book have dared to stray off the beaten track by publishing an article focusing on a burning issue in the current global environment, that of the consequences of Islamic fundamentalism on political issues. Finally, the last chapter poses the question of the education and professionalism of soldiers in the modern world, in an effort to explain the causes of how these actors behave. In addition to the question of the public authorities responsibility in this domain, the articles, above all, look at the question of ethics in the current education and training of soldiers. One article focuses on a subject that is more to do with psychology than other factors and examines whether soldiers should be regarded as murderers. (JD)