DOCSLIB.ORG

The High Representative of the Union the Constrained Agent of Europe’S Foreign Policy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The High Representative of the Union the Constrained Agent of Europe’S Foreign Policy The High Representative of the Union The constrained agent of Europe’s foreign policy Dissertation zur Erlangung des Doktorgrades der Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftlichen Fakultät der Universität zu Köln 2014 vorgelegt von Dipl.-Volksw. Niklas Helwig aus Schwalmstadt Referent: Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Wessels, Universität zu Köln Korreferent: Dr. Juliet Kaarbo, University of Edinburgh Tag der Promotion: 8. September 2014 Fr Oma Acknowledgements It would not have been possible to write this doctoral thesis without the help and support of the kind people around me, to only some of whom it is possible to give particular mention here. I would like to thank the EXACT Marie Curie ITN on EU external action funded by the European Commission for their generous financial, intellectual and administrative support. The extremely well-organised project director Wulf Reiners deserves a special mention. Without his cool-headed management, the ambitious endeavour of a European-wide PhD school would hardly have been as successful as it was. EXACT provided a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for me and the other early-stage re- searchers to connect, learn and grow. I would like to thank my supervisors. I am grateful for the ideas and encouragement of John Peterson over the past four years. Especially during the period that the EXACT fellows were based in Edinburgh, he took great care of us, making sure we felt at home and as a part of the scientific community of the Politics and International Relations de- partment. I know for sure that my academic progress so far would not have been possible without my second supervisor and mentor, Wolf- gang Wessels. For almost ten years I have been able to count on his help as my professor and ‘boss’ at the Jean-Monnet-Chair for European Politics in Cologne. I am grateful for his incisive academic advice and his loyal support. The study benefitted considerably from the input of peers and fellow academics at conferences and workshops around Europe. While it is impossible to name all individuals that shared their thoughts with me, I want to acknowledge the help and comments that I received from Geoffrey Edwards, Brigid Laffan, Robert Kissack, Chad Damro, Elfriede Regelsberger, Anne Faber, Ramses Wessel, Cristina Gallach, Julia Lieb, Gianni Bonvicini and Hanna Ojanen. Given the ever- evolving nature of my research topic, authoritative advice from people who know their way around the academic literature and the practical side of EU politics was indispensable. I very much enjoyed the inter- views with the over fifty officials and diplomats that I met in the ‘Brus- sels-bubble’ and in the foreign ministries in Helsinki and Berlin. I am II The constrained agent of Europe’s foreign policy grateful for their willingness to take their time and share their invaluable insights and views with me. In all the years that I worked and studied at the Jean-Monnet-Chair in Cologne I enjoyed (and continue to enjoy) the friendship and enlighten- ing support of my colleagues. Thank you Nicole Ahler, Aline Barten- stein, Udo Diedrichs, Cyril Gläser, Andreas Hofman, Oliver Höing, Nadia Klein, Tobias Kunstein, Jonas Kranz, Alice Anna Oeter, Mirja Schröder, Funda Tekin, Thomas Traguth and Gaby Umbach. The research stays at the think tanks in Brussels and Helsinki were the highlights of my years as a doctoral student. Not only did I benefit from being part of these dynamic and well-connected research envi- ronments, but I also had a great time with the new friends I made. From CEPS, I will remember the stimulating conversations with Piotr Kaczyński, Paul Ivan and Hrant Kostanyan on our common research topic, but also the fun we had with the folks from the big shared office space in the attic (aka ‘the library’). The table tennis and charades ses- sions with Giovanni Faleg, Marjolein van den Broek, Nafisa Hasanova and Alessandro Giovannini provided legendary as well as necessary breaks from our daily routine. I received an overwhelmingly friendly and warm welcome when I ar- rived in ice-cold Helsinki in November 2011 to work at FIIA. I am grateful for the support and advice of Teija Tiilikainen, Juha Jokela and Kristi Raik who introduced me to the Finnish-style thinking on aca- demic research and European politics. I soon learnt that Finns not only know how to do good research, but also how to make the most out of the long winter nights, especially thanks to the help of Timo Behr, An- na-Kaisa Hiltunen, Juho Hynynen, Eeva Innola, Julia Jansson, Kaisa Korhonen and Harri Mikkola. The University of Edinburgh proved an ideal location to write my manuscript, as the rainy weather provided no excuse to leave my desk and Scottish whisky enhanced my creativity. I made wonderful friends and learnt many interesting things. I would specifically like to thank: Rosalind Cavaghan, Friedrich Eierdanz, Barbara Gaweda, Juliet Kaar- bo, Victoria Loughlan, Cera Murtagh, Ines Sofia de Oliveira, Nina Perkowski, Mason Robbins, Mor Sobol and Aydin Yildirim. Acknowledgements III I was extremely lucky to be in very good company in the EXACT pro- gramme during the past years and not having to go through the hard- ship of writing a PhD alone. Not only through the experiences we shared during legendary research(!) trips to Ghana, Iceland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Scotland, Finland, Estonia, Israel, Sardinia, Berlin, Cyprus and Ireland, we became close friends. Thank you for the good times Vanessa, Andrew, Leonhard, Dana, Marlene, Miguel, Nicole, James, Tatjana, Andreas, Anita, Marco, Simon and Peter. Though I was moving around Europe quite a lot in the last years, I could always count on my friends to stay in contact and visit me. It is good to have friends like Malte, Hucke, Jan, Line, Raphael, Hauke, Jan M. and Robin. It is extremely important to know that my family is always there for me and just a telephone call or a short flight away. I would not want to miss the extensive weekly telephone session with my mother. She made this thesis possible, as my interest in political science started with the discussions on politics that I had with her as a child. I would have nev- er gotten as far without Ute, Jochen, Lukas, Daniel, Carina, Lenja, An- ton, Oskar, Julia, Sven, Mattis, Rosi, Alec and Merja. To Annina: Rakastan sinua! You helped me through the ups and downs of these often challenging times and always knew how to make me smile. Without your moral and also your practical support, this would hardly have been possible. Abstract This study argues that the High Representative of the Union for For- eign Affairs and Security Policy is a constrained agent of Europe’s for- eign policy. The 2009 Lisbon Treaty reform created the remodelled version of the High Representative of the Union as a potentially power- ful agent to represent and coordinate Europe’s foreign policy. Howev- er, the analysis shows how and why the member states granted only limited discretion to the new foreign policy actor during the first years of the post’s existence. The aim of the study is to reveal the conditions of discretion of the High Representative. With the use of a principal- agent (PA) approach, the study shows that conflicting preferences of the member states, tight control mechanisms, as well as inadequate cooperation with the European Commission limited the High Repre- sentative’s room for manoeuvre. The findings suggest that the PA ap- proach can be developed further in the future in order to better explain limited discretion of agents in matters of foreign policy. Based on the findings, the study also puts forward a number of characteristics of a ‘constrained agent’. It is suggested that the post of High Representative has the potential to emancipate from its status of a constrained agent over time, and to gain credibility as a foreign policy actor. Word count: 72,906 (main text, including footnotes) Deutsche Zusammenfassung: Der Hohe Vertreter der EU: der eingeschrnkte Agent der Europischen Auenpolitik Die vorliegende Studie setzt sich mit dem Posten des Hohen Vertreters der EU für Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik auseinander, welcher mit dem Lissabonner Vertrag in 2009 geschaffen wurde. Mithilfe der Prin- zipal-Agent Theorie wird argumentiert, dass es sich bei dem Hohen Vertreter um einen eingeschränkten Agenten der Mitgliedstaaten han- delt. Die Ergebnisse der Untersuchung weisen darauf hin, dass die In- novationen des Lissaboner Vertrages nur einen geringen positiven Ef- fekt auf den Handlungsspielraum des Hohen Vertreters hatten. Der Hohe Vertreter wurde von den Mitgliedstaaten geschaffen, um die Ef- fizienz der Europäischen Außenpolitik zu erhöhen, jedoch erhielt er zum Zeitpunkt der Studie entweder keine Handlungsmandate oder, in anderen Fällen, nur einen geringen Spielraum in seinem Amt. Das Grundproblem zeigt sich in der optionalen und intergouvernemen- talen Gestalt der Europäischen Außenpolitik, welche auch weiterhin nach dem Lissaboner Vertrag fortbesteht. In diesem Bereich wurden keine Kompetenzen nach Brüssel verlagert und außenpolitische Ent- scheidungen werden nach wie vor von den Mitgliedstaaten einstimmig getroffen. Zugleich unterbrach der zügige Aufbau neuer außenpoliti- scher Strukturen in Brüssel zeitweise die Verbindung zwischen mit- gliedstaatlichen Verwaltungen und dem neuen Außenbeauftragten. Der Hohe Vertreter zeigte sich weder in der Lage die Autorität seines Am- tes zu konsolidieren, noch die institutionelle Kooperation mit der Eu- ropäischen Kommission voranzutreiben. Die Studie beschäftigt sich mit den Voraussetzungen für einen Hand- lungsspielraum des Hohen Vertreters. Der Handlungsspielraum ist eine Entscheidende Voraussetzung für den Hohen Vertreter um sein Amt effizient zu führen und mehr als nur Kompromisslösungen im Klub der 28 Mitgliedstaaten zu erzielen. Jedoch haben die Mitgliedstaaten Be- denken über einen möglichen Verlust ihrer Souveränität und sind daran gelegen den Handlungsspielraum supranationaler Akteure einzuschrän- ken. Dieses Spannungsverhältnis, zwischen den Vorteilen eines hand- VIII The constrained agent of Europe’s foreign policy lungsfähigen Außenbeauftragten und den Souveränitätsbedenken der Mitgliedsstaaten, ist der Hintergrund dieser Analyse.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Nordic Countries and the European Security and Defence Policy
    bailes_hb.qxd 21/3/06 2:14 pm Page 1 Alyson J. K. Bailes (United Kingdom) is A special feature of Europe’s Nordic region the Director of SIPRI. She has served in the is that only one of its states has joined both British Diplomatic Service, most recently as the European Union and NATO. Nordic British Ambassador to Finland. She spent countries also share a certain distrust of several periods on detachment outside the B Recent and forthcoming SIPRI books from Oxford University Press A approaches to security that rely too much service, including two academic sabbaticals, A N on force or that may disrupt the logic and I a two-year period with the British Ministry of D SIPRI Yearbook 2005: L liberties of civil society. Impacting on this Defence, and assignments to the European E Armaments, Disarmament and International Security S environment, the EU’s decision in 1999 to S Union and the Western European Union. U THE NORDIC develop its own military capacities for crisis , She has published extensively in international N Budgeting for the Military Sector in Africa: H management—taken together with other journals on politico-military affairs, European D The Processes and Mechanisms of Control E integration and Central European affairs as E ongoing shifts in Western security agendas Edited by Wuyi Omitoogun and Eboe Hutchful R L and in USA–Europe relations—has created well as on Chinese foreign policy. Her most O I COUNTRIES AND U complex challenges for Nordic policy recent SIPRI publication is The European Europe and Iran: Perspectives on Non-proliferation L S Security Strategy: An Evolutionary History, Edited by Shannon N.
    [Show full text]
  • The New Eu Foreign Policy Architecture
    THE NEW EU FOREIGN POLICY ARCHITECTURE REVIEWING THE FIRST TWO YEARS OF THE EEAS NIKLAS HELWIG PAUL IVAN HRANT KOSTANYAN CENTRE FOR EUROPEAN POLICY STUDIES (CEPS) BRUSSELS The Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) is an independent policy research institute in Brussels. Its mission is to produce sound policy research leading to constructive solutions to the challenges facing Europe. The views expressed in this book are entirely those of the authors and should not be attributed to CEPS or any other institution with which they are associated or to the European Union. Niklas Helwig is a Marie Curie Researcher of the EXACT network at the University of Edinburgh and Cologne and focuses on the institutional development of EU foreign policy. He worked for the Centre for European Policy Studies and the Finnish Institute of International Affairs. Paul Ivan is a Romanian diplomat. Previously, he worked as a researcher for the Centre for European Policy Studies, where he focused on EU political and institutional issues and the European External Action Service. Hrant Kostanyan is an associate research fellow at CEPS and a PhD candidate at the Centre for EU Studies at Ghent University. He worked as an external expert for International Alert, based in London, in the Eastern Europe and South Caucasus research project. He also worked as an expert on a European Commission-funded project on the EU’s relations with Russia and the Eastern Partnership at the EU Neighbourhood Info Centre. The authors thank Piotr Maciej Kaczyński for his comments on an earlier draft. ISBN 978-94-6138-262-7 © Copyright 2013, Centre for European Policy Studies and the authors.
    [Show full text]
  • The Negotiation of the European External Action Service: Theoretical and Policy Implications
    The Negotiation of the European External Action Service: Theoretical and Policy Implications MPP Professional Paper In Partial Fulfillment of the Master of Public Policy Degree Requirements The Hubert H. Humphrey School of Public Affairs The University of Minnesota Matthew Stenberg May 6, 2011 Signature below of Paper Supervisor certifies successful completion of oral presentation and completion of final written version: _______________________________ ____________________ ___________________ Robert Kudrle, Paper Supervisor Date, presentation Date, paper completion Orville and Jane Freeman Professor of International Trade and Investment Policy ________________________________________ ___________________ Sherry Gray, Coordinator and Lecturer, Global Policy ` Date Signature of Second Committee Member, certifying successful completion of professional paper ________________________________________ ___________________ Steve Andreasen, Lecturer ` Date Signature of Third Committee Member, certifying successful completion of professional paper Stenberg 1 Abstract Supranationalist and intergovernmentalist scholars have long debated the driving forces behind European integration. The creation of the European External Action Service (EEAS) forces an examination of this debate in a different way. Many of those countries pushing for the EEAS foresaw it as an intergovernmentalist institution during the Lisbon Treaty Negotiations. Indeed, its provisions upon implementation look strikingly intergovernmental. Despite its current form, the negotiating process between the European Commission and European Parliament during 2010 was sweepingly supranational in nature, as the EP asserted its influence as a democratically elected, pan- European body to demand changes to the final form of the EEAS as well as a greater oversight role. Though the present form of the EEAS is intergovernmental, the negotiating process has indicated that a more assertive Parliament may result in greater long-term, supranational developments.
    [Show full text]
  • Facilitating Peaceful Protests
    ACADEMY BRIEFING No. 5 Facilitating Peaceful Protests January 2014 Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Geneva Académie de droit international humanitaire et de droits humains à Genève Academ The Academy, a joint centre of ISBN: 978-2-9700866-3-5 © Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights, January 2014. Acknowledgements This Academy Briefing was written by Milena Costas Trascasas, Research Fellow, and Stuart Casey-Maslen, Head of Research, at the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights (Geneva Academy). The Academy would like to thank all those who commented on an earlier draft of this briefing, in particular Anja Bienart and Brian Wood of Amnesty International, and Neil Corney of Omega Research Foundation. The Geneva Academy would also like to thank the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (DFAE) for its support to the Academy’s work on facilitating peaceful protests, especially the Human Security Division for its funding of the publication of this Briefing. Editing, design, and layout by Plain Sense, Geneva. Disclaimer This Academy Briefing is the work of the authors. The views expressed in it do not necessarily reflect those of the project’s supporters or of anyone who provided input to, or commented on, a draft of this Briefing. The designation of states or territories does not imply any judgement by the Geneva Academy, the DFAE, or any other body or individual, regarding the legal status of such states or territories, or their authorities and institutions, or the delimitation of their boundaries, or the status of any states or territories that border them.
    [Show full text]
  • Department for Constitutional Affairs Resource Accounts for the Year
    Resource Accounts for the year ended 31 March 2006 Department for Constitutional Affairs Resource Accounts for the year ended 31 March 2006 Presented pursuant to the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000, Chapter 20, Section 6 Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 12th October 2006 HC 1605 LONDON: The Stationery Office £13.85 © Crown Copyright 2006 The text in this document (excluding the Royal Arms and departmental logos) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium providing that it is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and the title of the document specified. Any enquiries relating to the copyright in this document should be addressed to The Licensing Division, HMSO, St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich, NR3 1BQ. Fax: 01603 723000 or e-mail: [email protected] Department for Constitutional Affairs Resource Accounts 2005-06 Contents Annual Report 1 Management Commentary 5 Remuneration Report 13 Statement of Accounting Officers’ Responsibilities 24 Statement on Internal Control 25 Certificate and Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General to the House of Commons 31 The Accounting Schedules: Statement of Parliamentary Supply 33 Operating Cost Statement 34 Balance Sheet 36 Cash Flow Statement 37 Consolidated Statement of Operating Costs by Departmental Aims and Objectives 37 Notes to the Accounts 40 Department for Constitutional Affairs Resource Accounts 2005-06 Annual Report The Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA) For purposes of the Department’s Resource is the Government department responsible for Accounts, the ‘Consolidated’ accounts upholding justice, rights and democracy.
    [Show full text]
  • Profile Catherine Ashton
    profile Catherine Ashton European Commissioner for Trade Catherine Ashton was born in Upholland in Lancashire, from where she takes her title, Baroness Ashton of Upholland. From 1983-89 she was Director of Business in the Community, and established the Employers' Forum on Disability, Opportunity Now, and the Windsor Fellowship. Catherine Ashton chaired the Health Authority in Hertfordshire from 1998 to 2001, and became a Vice President of the National Council for One Parent Families. In 1999 Catherine Ashton became a life peer. She was made Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Department for Education and Skills in 2001, and then Parliamentary Under-Secretary in the Department for Constitutional Affairs and subsequently Ministry of Justice with responsibilities for human rights, freedom of information and equalities. She became a Privy Councillor in May 2006. Catherine Ashton was appointed Leader of the House of Lords and Lord President of the Council in Gordon Brown’s first Cabinet in June 2007. As well as Leader of the Lords, she took responsibility in the House of Lords for equalities issues. In 2005 Catherine Ashton was voted House Magazine Minister of the Year and Channel 4 Peer of the Year. In 2006, she was voted Stonewall Politician of the Year. Catherine Ashton brings with her significant European experience, including steering the Lisbon Treaty through the UK's upper chamber and dealing with EU justice and home affairs issues in her previous positions. During her time as Director of Business in the Community, Catherine Ashton worked together with companies and communities on creating effective business strategies, while ensuring equality and diversity in the workforce.
    [Show full text]
  • Report on the Foreign Policy of the Czech Republic 2007
    CONTENTS INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................6 I. MULTILATERAL COOPERATION ................................................................................. 14 1. The Czech Republic and the European Union ........................................................ 14 The Czech Republic and the EU Common Foreign and Security Policy ............. 33 The Czech Republic and European Security and Defence Policy ........................ 42 2. The Czech Republic and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) ............ 48 3. The Czech Republic and Regional Cooperation ..................................................... 74 Visegrad cooperation ............................................................................................. 74 Central European Initiative (CEI) .......................................................................... 78 Regional Partnership .............................................................................................. 80 Stability Pact for South East Europe ..................................................................... 82 4. The Czech Republic and other European international organisations and forums .. 84 The Czech Republic and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)................................................................................................................... 84 Council of Europe .................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • P R E S S EN EU High Representative Catherine Ashton Chairs Middle
    EUROPEAN UNION Brussels, 4 February 2011 A 044/11 EU High Representative Catherine Ashton chairs Middle East Quartet Ministerial meeting in Munich Catherine Ashton, European Union High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, will chair the first meeting of the Middle East Quartet principles of 2011 on Saturday, February 5. She will be joined in the meeting -- which takes place in the margins of the Munich Security Conference -- by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Quartet Envoy Tony Blair. Catherine Ashton said ahead of the meeting: "This meeting comes at a crucial time when we are witnessing significant events in the Middle East region. It is therefore extremely important that we stay the course in the Middle East Peace Process. We must remain focused on making progress on a negotiated peace agreement between Israel and Palestine -- a key component in bringing about peace and stability in the wider region." During her time in Munich, Catherine Ashton will also hold a number of bilateral discussions, including with Secretary of State Clinton on EU-US relations, Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai and Ban Ki-moon ahead of her upcoming trip to New York (Feb 6-9). Catherine Ashton will hold a press conference at approximately 1600 hours, following the Quartet meeting. This will be followed by remarks to the Munich Security Council on the wider Middle East. Video footage will be provided by EBS. ____________________ P R E S S FOR FURTHER DETAILS: Maja Kocijancic +32 498 984 425 - +32 2 298 65 70 - [email protected] Darren Ennis +32 498 963 293 - +32 2 296 32 93 - [email protected] [email protected] www.eeas.europa.eu EN .
    [Show full text]
  • First President of the European Council European Union Center of North Carolina EU Briefings, March 2010
    Policy Area: First President of the European Council European Union Center of North Carolina EU Briefings, March 2010 The First President of the European Council Years of soul-searching and institutional introspection preceded the Lisbon Treaty’s coming into force. The new EU structure was expected to resolve the decade-long question: “who do you call when you want to speak with Europe?” For candidates who could pick up that imaginary EU phone, Lisbon created two new top jobs: a High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, and a President of the European Council. While another brief in this series (www.unc.edu/depts/europe/business_media/busbrief1004-high-rep.htm) focuses on Europe's first High Representative, this paper zeros in on the first EU Council President. The election by the EU Heads of State and Government of the little-known Belgian Herman van Rompuy for that post generated surprise and skepticism. But when taking into account the lingering practical institutional challenges that have to be addressed, or when aiming for coordination rather than initiative, Van Rompuy could be considered a successful pick. This brief assesses how the EU came to his election and touches upon what is to be expected of the new EU Council President. On December 1, 2009, the long-awaited Lisbon Treaty came into force. For the EU Council – the EU Heads of State and Government – this means that it has become an official EU institution. And while the rotating six-month country-presidency remains in existence, the Council will now also have a permanent president.
    [Show full text]
  • Foundation Stage Profile Handbook 1 Introduction Recording Children’S Development
    Early years Investing in our future Early years Foundation Stage Profile practitioners Handbook Settings in receipt of government funding to provide early years education and schools with nursery and reception aged children Date of issue: 01/03 Ref: QCA/03/1006 First published in 2003. © Qualifications and Curriculum Authority 2003. Reproduction, storage, adaptation or translation, in any form or by any means, of this publication is prohibited without the prior written permission of the publisher, unless within the terms of licences issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency. Excerpts may be reproduced for the purpose of research, private study, criticism or review, or by educational institutions solely for educational purposes, without permission, providing full acknowledgement is given. Printed in Great Britain. The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority is an exempt charity under Schedule 2 of the Charities Act 1993. Qualifications and Curriculum Authority 83 Piccadilly London W1J 8QA www.qca.org.uk Foreword by Baroness Catherine Ashton Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Sure Start, Early Years and Childcare The introduction of the foundation stage in September 2000 was widely welcomed by early years practitioners. It gave this very important stage of education a distinct identity. The early learning goals set high expectations for the end of the foundation stage, but expectations that are achievable for most children who have followed a relevant curriculum. We published Curriculum guidance for the foundation stage to help practitioners understand what the goals mean for children aged three to five throughout the foundation stage. The guidance shows what practitioners need to do to help children make good progress towards, and where appropriate beyond, the goals.
    [Show full text]
  • Strasbourg, January 2017 Revised Information Document Overview Of
    Strasbourg, January 2017 Revised Information Document Overview of follow-up on progress in implementing the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Goal 5: “Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls” – A summary of relevant processes and related documents in 2016 2 Official list of Sustainable Development Goals Indicators The indicator framework for the follow-up of the progress achieved in relation to the UN Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) was conceived and developed by the Inter-Agency and Expert Group on Sustainable Development Goals (IAEG-SDGs), specifically created on 6 March 2015 by the United Nations Statistical Commission (UNSC) and composed by Member States and regional/international observers. The list of indicators was included as Annex IV to the IAEG-SDGs Report (E/CN.3/2016/2/Rev.1) presented at the 47th session of the UN Statistical Commission held in March 2016 and then taken note of by the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) at its 70th session in June 2016. A general agreement has been reached on all indicators, even though the list is considered as a starting point towards a definitive indicator framework. According to ECOSOC Resolution 2006/6, the estimates used to redefine the list of indicators must be collected in cooperation with national statistical authorities, since individual countries’ situations may notably vary from regional averages. The 4th meeting of the IAEG-SDGs was held from 15 to 18 November 2016 in Geneva, hosted by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). It consisted of a Members meeting and a plenary session with the participation of national representatives, several international organisations and NGOs.
    [Show full text]
  • Downloaded from Manchesterhive.Com at 09/26/2021 02:07:14PM Via Free Access 2444Ch5 3/12/02 2:02 Pm Page 116
    2444Ch5 3/12/02 2:02 pm Page 115 5 Andreas Maurer1 Germany: fragmented structures in a complex system Introduction: preferences of a tamed power2 Germany’s political class is marked by a positive and constructive attitude towards European integration. The main objective of European policy was and still is to achieve effective and democratic European co-operation and integration.3 All governments and the vast majority of political parties contrive their general European policy agenda around the funda- mental aim of far-reaching integration towards some kind of political union. Although the diplomatic class does not follow any kind of altruis- tic or ‘naive’ European policy geared to achieve a European federation, the majority of political actors are reluctant to explicitly play a leading role within the evolving European Union. That is not to say that they are immune from searching ways to influence the European agenda. But German initiatives regarding ‘great bargain’ decisions (IGCs, CAP reforms, decisions on the Union’s financial resources)4 are generally pre- arranged jointly with other Member State governments. Until 1989, this ‘leadership avoidance reflex’5 was a typical feature of Germany acting under the paradigm of a ‘semi-sovereign’ state.6 ‘Deutschlands Interessen liegen in Europa’ (Germany’s interests lie in Europe) – this paradigm reflects the political elites’ view of Germany’s potential leadership in Europe, the mediation of its power within the EC and its institutional arrangements.7 With its large industrial sector and dependence on foreign trade, Germany is largely linked to the Common Market. Establishing close economic links within the EC is therefore politically advantageous as it demonstrates the FRG’s commitment to economic and political integration.8 Time is another country: the impact of the Maastricht Treaty and German re-unification The end of the Cold War decisively changed the fundamental parameters for the European Union and its Member States.
    [Show full text]