Trick and treat: how the Commission and the European Parliament exert influence in EU foreign and security policies<sup>*</sup>

Riddervold, Marianne; Rosén, Guri

doi:10.1080/07036337.2016.1178737

Cited by 33 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The second type, bargaining influence, suggests that supranational actors draw on their institutional bargaining power to make sure that policy initiatives at the security-development interface increase their own competences. While the Commission may offer or threaten to withhold important implementing capacities for CFSP/ CSDP initiatives (such as the external financing instruments legally rooted in development policy), both the Commission and the EP could potentially block or delay EU policies, for example, by conferring matters to the EU Court of Justice (Blauberger and Weiss 2013;Riddervold and Rosén 2016).…”

Section: Cultivated Spillovermentioning

confidence: 99%

Neofunctionalism and EU external policy integration: the case of capacity building in support of security and development (CBSD)

Bergmann

2018

Journal of European Public Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Under the umbrella of Capacity Building in Support of Security and Development (CBSD), the EU provides equipment and infrastructure to the armed forces of partner countries. The 2017 reform of the Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace (IcSP) to implement CBSD represents a remarkable integrative step at the interface of EU security and development policy. This article explains the IcSP reform through a neofunctionalist lens. It argues that the extension of the Commission's competences in EU security affairs can be explained by the interaction of functional and cultivated spillover pressures. Functional discrepancies between the CSDP framework and EU development policy created strong pressures for further integrative steps. Moreover, the Commission exerted strong pressures for adopting its proposal for implementing CBSD through the IcSP by drawing on a combination of strategic coalition-building, bargaining tactics and community framing. The case illustrates neofunctionalism's potential to explain external policy integration.

show abstract

Section: Cultivated Spillovermentioning

confidence: 99%

Neofunctionalism and EU external policy integration: the case of capacity building in support of security and development (CBSD)

Bergmann

2018

Journal of European Public Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For some, this new convention implies that 'Parliament now decides when Britain goes to war' (Strong, 2015b) although its exact shape remains contested (Mello, 2017a). 4 Moreover, Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) have proven especially skilled in eliciting additional powers as the European Parliament (EP) has gained most of its competences (not only in the security realm) by stubbornly insisting that it is entitled to them and by making strategic use of its position in the policy process continuously to expand its own role (Riddervold and Rosén, 2016). However, where parliamentarians lack the will or ability to assert their preferences or make their voices heard, even strong constitutional powers will not lead to parliamentary involvement and influence.…”

Section: Informal Sources Of Parliamentary Influence On Governmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Parliaments in security policy: Involvement, politicisation, and influence

Mello

Peters

2018

The British Journal of Politics and International Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While parliaments have long been neglected actors in the analysis of security policy, a research literature on the subject is growing. Current research is focused primarily on how parliaments, relying on formal legal competences, can constrain governmental policies. However, this research needs expansion in three areas. First, informal sources of parliamentary influence on security policy deserve more systematic attention as the significance of parliaments often hinges on contextual factors and individual decision-makers. Second, we still lack a systematic understanding of the effects of parliamentary involvement on security policy. Finally, the role of parliaments for the politics of security is almost completely uncharted territory. When parliaments become involved in security policy, does it foster transparency and contribute to the politicisation of security policy so that security policy becomes a 'normal' political issue? The article reviews current research, derives findings from the contributions to this Special Issue, and spells out their wider implications.

show abstract

“…During the implementation and evaluation stages, MPs may scrutinise implementation, 'name and shame' shortcomings, and frame the lessons learned from current and previous policies, thereby putting pressure on future decisions. MPs can also gain influence by circumventing the executive and working directly with other actors, for instance through parliamentary diplomacy (Stavridis and Jančić 2016), or by presenting arguments that are considered legitimate and valid by executive actors (Riddervold and Rosén 2016).…”

Section: Parliamentary Means and Motives For Challenging Foreign Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

Human rights, domestic politics, and informal agreements: parliamentary challenges to international cooperation on migration management

Reslow

2019

Australian Journal of International Affairs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Trick and treat: how the Commission and the European Parliament exert influence in EU foreign and security policies^*

Cited by 33 publications

References 29 publications

Neofunctionalism and EU external policy integration: the case of capacity building in support of security and development (CBSD)

Neofunctionalism and EU external policy integration: the case of capacity building in support of security and development (CBSD)

Parliaments in security policy: Involvement, politicisation, and influence

Human rights, domestic politics, and informal agreements: parliamentary challenges to international cooperation on migration management

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Trick and treat: how the Commission and the European Parliament exert influence in EU foreign and security policies*

Cited by 33 publications

References 29 publications

Neofunctionalism and EU external policy integration: the case of capacity building in support of security and development (CBSD)

Neofunctionalism and EU external policy integration: the case of capacity building in support of security and development (CBSD)

Parliaments in security policy: Involvement, politicisation, and influence

Human rights, domestic politics, and informal agreements: parliamentary challenges to international cooperation on migration management

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Trick and treat: how the Commission and the European Parliament exert influence in EU foreign and security policies^*