The European Union, multilateralism and the global governance of the Internet

Christou, George; Simpson, Seamus

doi:10.1080/13501763.2011.544505

Cited by 13 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To address the diversity of the actors participating and gain a perspective into the different types of organizations' distribution, we employ our relative openness measurement tool. In assessing hearings' relative openness, we note the contrast between the overall mean of different types of organizations invited and their distribution within each committee ( (Christou & Simpson 2006, 2011; underscored by the dominant presence of associations, and public interests in consumer affairs. For the validity of the analysis, due to the number of observations per category we grouped interest group types under three broader categories business, public interests, and research organizations.…”

Section: 1| Case Selection and Data Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Between cheap talk and epistocracy: The logic of interest group access in the European Parliament's committee hearings

Coen

Katsaitis

2018

Public Administration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In its White Paper on European governance reform, the Commission made interest group participation in policy deliberation a central objective under its aim for ''Better involvement, more openness" (Commission 2001 p. 5). Increasing distrust towards politics in Brussels led the EU to adopt a series of measures to boost its democratic credentials and improve its decision making procedures. Over the past 10 years the EU expanded its use of policy deliberation mechanisms as a standard practice, and provided financial support for civil society mobilization. Beyond its inputs and outputs these actions are targeted at increasing its throughput legitimacy, the quality of governance processes; addressing concerns over issues such as biased interest group access, institutional capture by insiders, and lack of transparency (Schmidt 2013). Despite its popularity within institutional circles the remedy has been contested. Conceptually, scholars question whether such procedures can expand participation beyond established insiders (Broscheid and Coen 2003). Significantly, notwithstanding work on the Commission (Pollack 2003; Joerges & Neyer 1997; Bunea 2017) the literature misses systematic analyses normatively testing such mechanisms in other EU institutions (however, see Fasone & Lupo 2015). In particular, the European Parliament (EP) faces growing alarms over business access to such procedures, giving it an upper hand to impact legislative proposals in areas of public interest (Euractiv 2017). By concentrating discussions on Brussels' procedural (il-) legitimacy to the usual suspect in Berlaymont we treat such mechanisms in other institutions as a black box and limit the scope of the debate. In this paper, we aim to assess which interest groups access the EP's deliberative processes focusing on its hearings as an understudied area of European governance. Committee hearings are one of the few forums where the parliament invites organizations to provide information and deliberate on policy issues. Two connected questions come up: How open are hearings to interest groups? Do they include some interest groups more than others? We answer these questions by arguing that hearings can serve three ideal-type purposes which in turn impact the interest group participants. First, hearings can be used as a coordinative procedure that allows policy stakeholders and policy-makers to frame the broader discussion over an issue, in line with information-exchange models and pluralist approaches to EU lobbying (Farrel & Rabin

show abstract

Section: 1| Case Selection and Data Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Between cheap talk and epistocracy: The logic of interest group access in the European Parliament's committee hearings

Coen

Katsaitis

2018

Public Administration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, authors have identified the EU's influence in uploading social aspects of its acquis commuataire into International Labor Organization (ILO) standards (Kissack 2011: 657). Others have identified EU influence in a wide range of other international regulatory arenas including the internet (Christou and Simpson 2011) and banking (Quaglia 2013). In addition, there has been considerable attention to the EU's performance in the Codex Alimentarius Commission, but, as I shall explore, the assessments of the EU's influence here are less favorable Hristova 2013;van Schaik 2013a: 111).…”

Section: Evidence Of Influence and Different Forms Of Regulatory Intementioning

confidence: 98%

Europe as a global regulator? The limits of EU influence in international food safety standards

Young¹

2014

Journal of European Public Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The EU is placed within the context of a contested field; given the prominence of US‐based NGOs in the global governance regime of the internet (for instance, ICANN), the EU must negotiate with other global actors, most notably the USA. In some cases, stated EU aims and objectives have not been met, as EU agents have been rebuffed by their American counterparts (Christou and Simpson, 2011). This narrative, of a regional organization that is proactive in the politics of cyberspace is a common theme through the literature, notwithstanding some critiques (Guitton, 2013; Fahey, 2014; Sliwinski, 2014; Carrapiço and Barrinha, 2017; Christou, 2018).…”

Section: Literature Review: the Eu As An Emerging Cyber‐security And ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding the European Union's Perception of the Threat of Cyberterrorism: A Discursive Analysis

Baker-Beall

Mott

2021

J of Common Market Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article analyses the European Union's (EU) construction of the threat of cyberterrorism. Through the application of interpretive discourse analysis, the article identifies several key strands that underpin the construction of the cyberterrorist threat within the political and security institutions of the EU. Locating the analysis within the literature pertaining both to the EU as a security actor and to cyber-security, the article identifies the emergence of the perceived threat of cyberterrorism within the EU discourse on emerging security threats. The article scrutinizes the meaning(s) ascribed to this threat, arguing that although cyberterrorism has not been conclusively defined by the EU, the threat has been invoked as a means of legitimizing existing and future security practices. In particular, the threat of cyberterrorism has been ascribed significance with respect to the need to implement harmonized, high standards for the securing of critical infrastructure across the EU and its member states.

show abstract

The European Union, multilateralism and the global governance of the Internet

Cited by 13 publications

References 8 publications

Between cheap talk and epistocracy: The logic of interest group access in the European Parliament's committee hearings

Between cheap talk and epistocracy: The logic of interest group access in the European Parliament's committee hearings

Europe as a global regulator? The limits of EU influence in international food safety standards

Understanding the European Union's Perception of the Threat of Cyberterrorism: A Discursive Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About