Search results
This book a study on the work of the Eurogroup—monthly informal meetings between euro area finance ministers, the Commission and the European Central Bank. It demonstrates how this small, secretive circle of senior decision-makers shapes European economic governance through a routinised informal policy dialogue. Although the role of the Eurogroup has been contested since before the group's creation, its actual operation has never been subject to systematic evaluation. This book opens the doors of the meeting room and shows how an understanding of the interplay of formal provisions and informal processes is pivotal to the analysis of euro area governance. The book advances the conceptual understanding of informal negotiations among senior European and national decision-makers, and provides an in-depth analysis of historical episodes of policy coordination. As other areas of European decision-making rely increasingly on informal, voluntary policy coordination amongst member states, the Eurogroup model can be seen as a template for other policy areas.
concerns that the creation of informal negotiation settings at the intergovernmental level contradicts basic democratic principles. Finally, the discussion points to the possible use of this governance mode in other policy areas than EMU. Deliberative intergovernmentalism: an alternative mode of governance The question of the contribution of informality as a working method for negotiations among euro area finance ministers is closely related to the more general question of the role of intergovernmental decision-making as the central source of political authority within
unanimously suggest that the open exchange of views is regarded as the core value-added aspect of the informal negotiation setting. The common analysis of the economic situation and the review of budgetary policy particularly benefit from the interactive form of communication. The case studies have provided clear evidence that the frank exchange of views among ministers leads to the generation of political commitment as regards the implementation of common policy objectives. The same is true for the periodic reflection exercises and the discussions on the further
lunch. During these informal negotiations, national representatives inform other colleagues about their positions, in particular ‘red lines’, or exchange other types of information that may help the decision-making process. They also undertake informal negotiations in order to achieve a compromise before the meeting. As a result of the increase of these communicative practices among national
literature in two ways. First, along a legal dimension, it moves beyond the interplay of formal law with informal negotiations of law by ordinary people to attend to higher levels of informality demonstrated in ad hoc state responses to forced migrations within a multilayered governance context. It refers to “illegal” practices as those that exist outside of or go against formal law. Here, the concept of “semi-legality” (Kubal, 2013 ), which denotes “legally ambiguous situations” of migrants existing within a “multidimensional space” between legal and illegal (Kubal
contrast to regulations, demand national legislative action in order to take effect. As argued in Chapter 2, however, the difference between directives and regulations is in reality much less distinct. Many regulations are worded relatively openly and thus must be legally substantiated at the national level in order to be enforced practically despite their immediate applicability. Note that these data are to be interpreted with caution. Implementation deficits are frequently clarified already in an earlier stage on the basis of informal negotiations between the
multilateral fora is the Council for Security Co-operation in the Asia-Pacific, which has been debating security issues and providing recommendations to the ASEAN Regional Forum for over twenty years. The track-two diplomacy mechanisms have become increasingly popular because their non-binding, consultative nature reflects the region’s culture of informal negotiation that the security experts consider as key to the Asian model of regional security building. The EU’s support to the Asian regional security partnership The building process of the Asia security partnership is
fieldwork conducted in Brussels, Istanbul and Ankara between 2005 and 2013, it sheds light on the conditions that led to TRexit from the everyday perspectives of diplomacy and lobbying. Diplomacy is the conduct of interstate politics to reach an agreement. Assembling information and knowledge, relaying influence and negotiation over interests are common practices for diplomats (Neumann 2012). If diplomacy is the art of formal negotiations of ‘different positions held by different polities’ (Neumann 2012: 7–8), lobbying refers to informal negotiations among public and
on the basis of the objectives of specific programmes. For example, while the examples provided thus far have been generically orientated towards HIV/AIDS, other NGOs specifically orientated to female health were invited to contribute to Go Sisters activities that were delivered by EduSport. Partnership working on specific activities was also largely based on informal negotiation and arrangements between representatives of the respective
the Schröder government persuaded the chancellor in 2005 to bring about an election a year ahead of schedule. Consequently, although the formal methods of exercising control over the government are rather restricted because of the need – at least by MdBs of the coalition parties – to avoid embarrassing the government or giving the opposition or the media reasons for criticising ministers, much informal negotiation goes on between ministers and the Fraktion leadership of parties, who, in turn, ensure that they are aware of any disquiet or criticism emanating from