The Language Issue Within the European Institutions 2 Contents
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The language issue within the European institutions Astrid Wauben-291533 Erasmus University Rotterdam Public Administration Master International Public Management and Policy Dr. J.L.M. Hakvoort Dr. F.K.M. van Nispen November 2006 “If again, I would face the challenge to integrate Europe, I would probably start with culture.” (Jean Monnet) The language issue within the European institutions 2 Contents SUMMARY 5 PREFACE 6 1. INTRODUCTION TO THE LANGUAGE ISSUE IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 7 1.1. PROBLEM ANALYSIS 7 1.2 CENTRAL RESEARCH QUESTION 7 1.3 SUB-QUESTIONS 8 1.4 RELEVANCE 9 1.5 METHODS OF INQUIRY 10 1.6 VARIABLES 12 1.7 CONCLUSION 14 2. THE EUROPEAN UNION, ITS INSTITUTIONS, ITS PROCEDURES 16 2.1 INTRODUCTION 16 2.2 THE EUROPEAN UNION IN BRIEF 16 2.3 THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION 17 2.4 THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 19 2.5 DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES 22 2.6 CONCLUSION 27 3. THE LANGUAGE REGIME IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 28 3.1 INTRODUCTION 28 3.2 ESTABLISHING A SOUND SYSTEM ON LANGUAGE DIVERSITY 28 3.3 THE LANGUAGE REGIME IN THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS 29 3.3.1 THE DIRECTORATE GENERAL (DG) INTERPRETATION 30 3.3.2 THE DIRECTORATE GENERAL (DG) TRANSLATION 31 3.4 THE LANGUAGE REGIME IN THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 31 3.5 SUB-CONCLUSION 33 3.6 THE FRENCH AND THE DUTCH LANGUAGE 33 3.6.1 THE FRENCH LANGUAGE 35 3.6.2 THE DUTCH LANGUAGE 36 4. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 38 4.1 INTRODUCTION 38 4.2 THEORIES ON INSTITUTIONS, CULTURE AND LANGUAGE 38 4.2.1 INSTITUTIONS 38 4.2.2 CULTURE 41 4.2.3 LANGUAGE 44 4.3 THEORY ON INFLUENCE 46 4.4 CONCLUSION 47 The language issue within the European institutions 3 5. EMPIRICAL RESEARCH I: CULTURE IN THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS TOWARDS ERASMUS MUNDUS (2004-2008) 49 5.1 INTRODUCTION 49 5.2 SUMMARY OF THE DECISION 49 5.3 ERASMUS MUNDUS (2004-2008) ANALYSED BY THE CO-DECISION PROCEDURE 51 5.4 ERASMUS MUNDUS (2004-2008) ANALYSED BY RATIONAL CHOICE INSTITUTIONALISM 53 5.5 ERASMUS MUNDUS (2004-2008) ANALYSED BY THEORIES OF EUROPEAN INTEGRATION 54 5.6 ERASMUS MUNDUS (2004-2008) ANALYSED AND COMPARED BY CULTURE 56 5.6.1 POWER DISTANCE INDEX 56 5.6.2 INDIVIDUALISM VERSUS COLLECTIVISM 57 5.6.3 FEMININITY VERSUS MASCULINITY 58 5.6.4 UNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE 59 5.7 CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS 60 5.8 CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 62 5.9 LANGUAGE THEORIES AND THE CO-DECISION PROCESS TOWARDS ERASMUS MUNDUS (2004- 2008) 63 5.10 CONCLUSION 65 6. EMPIRICAL RESEARCH II: THE DG INTERPRETATION 67 6.1 INTRODUCTION 67 6.2 A CLOSER LOOK WITHIN THE DG INTERPRETATION 67 6.3 THE ROLE OF THE INTERPRETER DURING THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS 69 6.4 INTERPRETING AND CULTURAL DIFFERENCES 69 6.5 THE ROLE OF LANGUAGE DURING THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS 70 6.6 AFTER THE ENLARGEMENT 74 6.7 CONCLUSION 75 7. FINAL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 77 7.1 INTRODUCTION 77 7.2 COURSE OF THE RESEARCH PROJECT 77 7.3 HOW CAN THE INFLUENCE OF LANGUAGE, AS PART OF THE CULTURE OF A COUNTRY, ON THE DECICSION-MAKING PROCESS WITHIN THE EUROPEAN UNION BE EXPLAINED? 78 7.4 HYPOTHESES 81 7.5 RECOMMENDATIONS 82 LITERATURE LIST 84 APPENDIX 1: DECISION ERASMUS MUNDUS (2004-2008) 89 APPENDIX 2: LIST OF RESPONDENTS 102 APPENDIX 3: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS 103 APPENDIX 4: SUMMARY IN FRENCH 108 APPENDIX 5: SUMMARY IN DUTCH 110 The language issue within the European institutions 4 Summary The European Union is unique. It has been founded on ‘unity in diversity’, which means that the European Union is a unity of member states that presents an immense diversity in cultures, customs, believes and languages. The European Union counts 25 member states and 20 different languages (Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hungarian, Italian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Portuguese, Slovak, Slovenian, Spanish and Swedish), 21 languages as from January 2007. All the different languages and cultures of the member states have a certain impact on the decision-making processes within the European institutions. All 20 languages are official languages. Every member state is allowed to select one language as official. Regulation No. 1 of the Council of Ministers has defined the languages to be practised by the European Economic Community. This regulation states that all 20 languages are the official languages and the working languages of the institutions. Nonetheless, the regulation also proclaims that the European institutions are allowed to fulfil rules and procedures concerning languages in specific cases. At the level of the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament all 20 are utilized, since representatives of the member states settle here. The European Commission and the Coreper only work in French, English and German. The Court of Justice determines the languages utilized depending on the parties involved. And at Council Working Group level, language use is different as well. An explanation will follow later. Languages should have a latent value during the decision-making process. Languages do not play an overt role, because of the interpreters of the European institutions. The Directorate General (DG) Interpretation has the biggest interpretation service of the world and most of the work they do is on behalf of the Council of Ministers. The DG has faced lots of enlargements, but the biggest shock to their internal structure was the enlargement of May 2004, where 10 new member and consequently 9 new languages states joined the European Union. It was and still is problematic to find interpreters for every language combination. At the level of the Council Working Groups, the request and pay system has been introduced. Delegates from member states have to request for interpretation, but are limited to a certain budget per language. Accordingly, this means that interpretation is not always present for several languages. Not only because delegates do not request for interpretation, but also because there is a lack of interpreters. If a delegate is not able to speak in the mother tongue, difficulties occur for the interpreters. The interpreters might not understand the, other than mother tongue language of the delegates. On behalf of the decision-making process, this means that misunderstandings arise and delays take plays. A shift towards English within the European institutions is noticeable. The delegates of the new member states tend to speak better English than another foreign language. Since for several new languages, there is a lack of interpreters, English is more often used during the decision-making process. Even the French speak more English, whose government policy it is to defend the French language. Once more, misunderstandings and delays occur. Written draft texts are also more often drawn up in English. Initially, a certain text can show English influences, but because of the intervention of linguists and jurists, that influence is hardly recognizable in the decision when it is published in the Official Journal. With 25 member states it is very complicated to reach one similar decision, the role that cultures and languages play during the process towards the decision makes it even more complicated. The language issue within the European institutions 5 Preface One of the first remarks made to students before starting to look for a subject for their final thesis was to find a subject that really interests them. I happen to be very interested in cultural differences and especially language. By choosing this subject I was also able to combine my former studies of French in some manner with my master on international public management and policy. And by doing so taking the subject of language to a higher level, the European level. To me it seemed very clear that deliberating with 25 member states and reaching one common decision is extremely difficult. Deliberating in 20 languages seemed even more complicated. What has been done in order to manage and organize the decision-making processes in the European institutions, dealing with 20 different cultures and languages? I considered that language must play a considerable role during the decision-making process. But, how to prove and examine that issue? The first chapters of this project are introductory chapters. Chapter 1 explains and sets out the language issue within the European Union. In chapters 2, 3 and 4 the procedures, language regulations and the theoretical framework produce a starting point for the empirical chapters 5 and 6. In the conclusion can be read if language indeed plays a role during the decision-making process, how it influences the process and how that influence can be explained. I consider this subject very interesting, including the process towards the final conclusions, which was difficult and challenging from time to time. Fortunately, with the help of my first co-reader, Dr. Hakvoort, I managed to produce this project. I did not have to convince him about how interesting and topical this issue is. He was supportive from the beginning. Thanks to his advice and profound reading I was able to write the project as it is at present. My second co-reader Dr. van Nispen has given his assistance already at the first stage of this final project, when I was still struggling with the initial outline. He convinced that is was absolutely worth to research the topic. In order to obtain empirical data, I have visited the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in The Hague and the European Commission in Brussels. I am very grateful for the assistance, openness and enthusiasm of all the people spoken to. They have given me a very profound look in the decision-making processes and how is dealt with the number of 20 different languages.