DOCSLIB.ORG

Andrew Moravcsik

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Andrew Moravcsik ANDREW MORAVCSIK Professor of Politics and International Affairs Director, European Union Program Department of Politics and Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University Robertson Hall, Princeton, NJ 08544 USA Tel: 609-258-1161 (Assistant: Helene Wood) E-mail: [email protected] Home Page: www.princeton.edu/~amoravcs V-Card Online: www.princeton.edu/~amoravcs/AndrewMoravcsik.vcf EMPLOYMENT 2004–present Professor of Politics and International Affairs, Princeton University Department of Politics and Woodrow Wilson School Primary Research Interests: European Union Politics, International Relations Theory, Qualitative and Historical Methods, Democratic Theory and International Organizations, International Power, International Negotiation, Law and Organization, Human Rights, Political Economy of National Security, Transatlantic Relations. Founding Director, European Union Program (2004-present) Founding Chair, International Relations Colloquium (2004-present) Acting Director, Liechtenstein Institute on Self-Determination (2019) Executive Committee, Niehaus Center for Globalization and Governance (2004-present) Executive Committee, Bobst Center for Peace and Justice (2004-2008) Member, Faculty Council, Woodrow Wilson School (2013-2015) Stanley Kelley Prize for Undergraduate Teaching, Department of Politics (2011) ` 1992 - 2004 Professor, Department of Government, Harvard University Professor (2000-2004) Associate Professor (1996-2000) Assistant Professor (1992-1996) - Founding Director, European Union Program at Harvard (2001-2004) - Various departmental, center and university positions. EDUCATION 1992 PhD and MA in Political Science, Department of Government, Harvard University Dissertation: "National Preference Formation and Interstate Bargaining in the European Community, 1957-1988" (Awarded William Sumner Dissertation Prize) Teaching Assistant, Department of Government, Harvard University 1988 Distinguished Teaching Fellow Award, Department of Government 1988 Certificate of Distinction in Teaching, Faculty of Arts and Sciences 1982-84 MA in International Relations Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), Washington, DC 1980-82 Fulbright Fellow, Universities of Hamburg, Bielefeld and Marburg, Federal Republic of Germany 1980 BA with Distinction, Department of History, Stanford University (cont.) MORAVCSIK / page 2 TEACHING: COURSES Core Undergraduate Courses – Introduction to International Relations Undergraduate Lecture Courses - International Political Economy, International Relations Theory Undergraduate Seminars - International Human Rights, European Integration, International Negotiation, Political Economy and National Security, Liberalism and World Politics Core Public Policy Courses (MA Level) - Introduction to Public Policy Analysis, European Union Politics Graduate Seminars – Democracy and Global Governance, Politics of the European Union, Democratic Accountability in the New Europe, International Political Economy, Theories of International Relations, Comparative European Foreign Policy, Dissertation Workshop on International and Comparative Political Economy, Qualitative Methods, International Law, Graduate Dissertation Workshop, Graduate Research Seminar TEACHING: DOCTORAL ADVISING Current Doctoral Students: Cassandra Emmons (Politics, Princeton) Heléne Benveniste (Public Policy, Princeton) Former Doctoral Students (Current or Last Academic Positions): Brian Burgoon (Political Science, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands) Mark Copelovitch (Political Science, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI) Jonathan Crystal (Political Science, Fordham University, New York, NY) Christopher Darnton (Political Science, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterrey, CA) Thomas Hale (Political Science, Blavatnik School, Oxford University, UK) Marina Henke (Political Science, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL) David Hsu (Political Science, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA) Chris Kendall (Politics and Government, University of Puget Sound, Tacoma, WA) Mareike Kleine (European Studies, London School of Economics, London, UK) Sieglinde Gstoehl (Political Science and Public Policy Collège d’Europe, Bruges, Belgium) Nikitas Konstantinidis (Political Economy, IE School of Public Affairs, Madrid, Spain) Jette Knudsen (Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, Medford, MA) Raymond Kuo (Political Science, Fordham University, New York, NY) Tommaso Pavone (Norwegian Academy of Political Science, Oslo, Norway) Saadia Mazhar Pekkanen (Political Science, Public Policy and Law, University of Washington, Seattle, WA) William Phelan (Political Science, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland) Daniel Philpott (Political Science, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN) Mark Pollack (Political Science, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA) Andrea Sangiovanni (Political Philosophy, European University Institute, Firenze/Fiesole, Italy) Mette Eilstrup Sangiovanni (Political Science, Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK) Anna Schrimpf (Postdoc/Executive Director-EU, Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab, Cambridge, MA) Justin Simeone (Associate, Freshfields, Bruckhaus, Deringer, Washington, DC) Oskar Timo Thoms (Post-doctoral Research Fellow, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, BC) Jeffrey Vanke (History, Independent Scholar, formerly at Guilford College, Greensboro, NC) Andreas von Staden (Political Science, Hamburg, Germany) Junnan Yang (Post-Doc, Science and Environmental Policy Studies, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ) (cont.) MORAVCSIK / page 3 VISITING POSITIONS, FELLOWSHIPS, GRANTS, AND AWARDS 2019-20 Distinguished Scholar in Residence, Perry World House, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 2015-16 Senior Transatlantic Fellow, Transatlantic Academy, German Marshall Fund, Washington, DC 2013-16 NSF Research Grant Renewal, National Science Foundation (Co-PI, with Colin Elman, David Collier, Michele Lamont & others) 2011-12 Visiting Fellow, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, NJ 2011 Stanley Kelley Teaching Award, Department of Politics, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 2011 Article named among “Best 5 of the Decade” in Journal of Common Market Studies 2008-12 National Science Foundation (SES-0838716) Research Grant (Co-PI, with Colin Elman, David Collier & others) 2007-08 Research Fellow, Shanghai Institute for International Affairs, Shanghai, China 2006-07 Mentorship Grant, Center for Cultural Policy Studies, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 2003-04 Research Fellow, Institute of International and Regional Studies, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 2002-04 Research Scholar, Department of Politics, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 2002-03 James DeWolfe Research Grant, Harvard Law School, Cambridge, MA 2001-02 Research Grant, Asia Center, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 2000-01 David Rockefeller Latin American Studies Research Grant, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 2000-01 University Committee on Human Rights Research Grant, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 1999 - 2000 Senior Research Fellow, Department of Politics and European Center, New York University, New York, NY 1999 - 2000 Senior Fellow, Italian Academy for Advanced Studies Fellowship, Columbia University, New York, NY 1998-09 Research Grant, Weatherhead Center for International Affairs, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 1993-96 Visiting Research Fellow, Robert Schuman Center, European University Institute, Fiesole, Italy 1990-04 Research Fellowship, Department of Political Science and PIPES Program, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 1993-04 Research Fellowship, German Marshall Fund of the United States 1989-91 Fellow, Olin Program in Economics and National Security 1989-91 Research Fellowship, Morris Abrams Fund, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 1989-91 Fellow, Institute for the Study of World Politics 1989-91 Fellow, Krupp Foundation 1988-89 Research Grant, Harvard Center for European Studies, Cambridge, MA 1988-89 European Research Grant, Ford Foundation 1988-89 Fellow, Centre d'Etudes et Recherches Internationales, Paris, France 1988-89 Fellow, Institut Français des Relations Internationales, Paris, France 1988-89 Fellow, International Institute for Strategic Studies, London, United Kingdom 1986-88 Fellow, Center for Science and International Affairs, Kennedy School of Government, Cambridge, MA 1982-84 Fellow, Gulf Oil Company/Jacob Blaustein, Johns Hopkins School of International Studies, Washington, DC 1981-82 Fulbright Fellow, Universities of Marburg, Hamburg and Bielefeld, Federal Republic of Germany (cont.) MORAVCSIK / page 4 NON-ACADEMIC ACTIVITY: GOVERNMENT SERVICE, POLICY ANALYSIS, JOURNALISM, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE CONSULTING, MEMBERSHIPS AND HONORS 2009 - Book Review Editor (Europe), Foreign Affairs Magazine (New York, NY) 2009 - Steering Committee, Global Governance Futures, Robert Bosch Foundation (Berlin, Germany) 2006 - Honorary Fellow, Foreign Policy Association (New York, NY) 1996 - Council on Foreign Relations (New York, NY) 2009 - Book Review Editor (Europe), Foreign Affairs (see above) 2005 Chair, National Conference Discussion Group (Europe) 2003 - 04 Member, Task Force on the Future of Transatlantic Relations Co-chairs: Henry Kissinger and Lawrence Summers 2002 - 05 Member, Nominating Committee, Arthur Ross Book Award 2002 - Member, Council on Foreign Relations 1996 - 98 Co-Director, Study Group on Transatlantic Relations (with B. Eichengreen and C. Kupchan) 1989 - Consultant, Executive Education Lecturer, General Lecturer. Private and Government Clients. Topics: EU and European affairs,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • UNU/CRIS E-Occasional Papers O-2003/5 Is There a Comparative
    UNU/CRIS e-Occasional Papers O-2003/5 Is There a Comparative Perspective between the European Union and NAFTA? Alejandro Chanona* * Director of the Center Of European Studies, National University of Mexico, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences ([email protected]) Is There a Comparative Perspective between the European Union and NAFTA? Introduction In 1991, a Conference was held in London regarding the launching of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). A member of the audience asked the speaker if he considered whether there was any chance for the NAFTA to be like the European Community; the answer was negative. The NAFTA was seen since its beginning as a simple Free Trade Agreement, maybe similar to an EFTA, rather than as a potential community. Time has proven that the respectable scholar was wrong; however, we cannot blame him for thinking like that. On the contrary, it was pretty ambitious to consider that NAFTA could take a step beyond what a FTA involves, theoretically speaking. There are currently several expectations around NAFTA that clearly foresee something beyond a simple FTA. Moreover, there are several analytical studies of a comparative nature, with the EU as the standard of comparison, that raise doubt over the idea of a North American Community1. If we agree that the NAFTA is a region in the making and its objectives tend to be overtaken by the dynamics of the region, we are in business. North America has become a real region for security reasons, for economic advantages and for political interests. The point is whether the NAFTA represents a distinctive model or its evolution reveals common features with the European experience.
    [Show full text]
  • "Democratic Deficit": Reassessing Legitimacy in the European Union
    JCMS 2002 Volume 40. Number 4. pp. 603–24 In Defence of the ‘Democratic Deficit’: Reassessing Legitimacy in the European Union* ANDREW MORAVCSIK Harvard University Abstract Concern about the EU’s ‘democratic deficit’ is misplaced. Judged against existing advanced industrial democracies, rather than an ideal plebiscitary or parliamentary democracy, the EU is legitimate. Its institutions are tightly constrained by constitu- tional checks and balances: narrow mandates, fiscal limits, super-majoritarian and concurrent voting requirements and separation of powers. The EU's appearance of exceptional insulation reflects the subset of functions it performs – central banking, constitutional adjudication, civil prosecution, economic diplomacy and technical administration. These are matters of low electoral salience commonly delegated in national systems, for normatively justifiable reasons. On balance, the EU redresses rather than creates biases in political representation, deliberation and output. Introduction Is the European Union democratically legitimate? It is an appropriate mo- ment to pose this question. The last decade has witnessed the emergence of a stable institutional equilibrium – let us call it the ‘European Constitutional Settlement’ – that serves as a de facto constitution for Europe. The Treaties of Amsterdam and Nice failed to alter its structure significantly. Deliberations now underway, despite being turbo-charged with constitutional rhetoric, are unlikely to achieve much more. The most ambitious proposals still under se- rious
    [Show full text]
  • Intergovernmentalism
    Intergovernmentalism MI CHELLE CINI Chapter Contents • Introduction • What is intergovernmentalism? • Hoffmann and his critics • Beyond classical intergovernmentalism • Liberal intergovernmentalism and its critics • Conclusion: the future af intergovernmentalism Reader's Guide This chapter provides an overview of intergovernmentalist integration theory, focusing ticularly on the works ofStanley Hoffmann and Andrew Moravcsik.ltfirst introduces tbe premises and assumptions of intergovernmentalism, identifying its realist underpinnin the state-centrism which provides the core ofthe approach, before examining in more the specific characteristics of Hoffmann's work. The subsequent section also examines ofthe ways in which intergovernmentalist thinking has contributed to different conce zations of European integration. The topics covered in this section are confederalis domestic politics approach; and institutional analyses that emphasize the 'locked-in' of nation states within the integration processoLast, but certainly not least, the chapter vides a brief review of Moravcsik's liberal intergovernmentalism, which since the mid 1 has become the main focal point for intergovernmentalist research. Intergovernmentalism 87 ntroduction m the mid 1960s to the present day, intergovern- intergovernmentalism?' This section outlines the ntalism-in one shape or another-has pro- general characteristics of the approach. The section ed students of the European Community/Union that follows introduces Hoffmann's early ideas; this a conceptual account of the European integra- section also addresses the main criticisms of his n processo For decades, students of European particular brand of intergovernmentalisrn, ation learnt about the two competing Hoffmann's groundbreaking insights into the phe- roaches which explained (and in some cases nomenon of European integration, together with icted) the course ofEuropean integration: neo- critiques of his work, led to new developments in ionalism (covered in Chapter 5) and intergov- European integration theory from the 1970s entalism.
    [Show full text]
  • On Systemic Paradigms and Domestic Politics on Systemic Kevin Narizny Paradigms and Domestic Politics a Critique of the Newest Realism
    On Systemic Paradigms and Domestic Politics On Systemic Kevin Narizny Paradigms and Domestic Politics A Critique of the Newest Realism The late 1990s was a fertile time for new thinking about how to incorporate domestic politics into international relations theory. First, in “Taking Preferences Seriously,” Andrew Moravcsik formulated a new paradigm to integrate diverse strands of existing scholarship on the topic.1 The result, which he called “liberalism,” made so- cietal preferences the analytic foundation of state behavior. Then, in “Neo- classical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy,” Gideon Rose argued that several recently published books had successfully synthesized structural real- ism with ªne-grained insights about the domestic factors that mediate sys- temic pressures.2 Rose dubbed this research program “neoclassical realism” and championed it as an alternative to established theories both within and outside the realist paradigm. In short, both Moravcsik and Rose sought to draw new conceptual boundaries for the study of international relations. Thus far, the ªeld’s response to these two works has been quite different. Most scholars have accepted Moravcsik’s characterization of liberalism as a paradigmatic alternative to realism, but few have described their own work as liberal, even when it qualiªes as such. Meanwhile, neoclassical realism has generated considerable enthusiasm. Rose has not developed it further, but others have written theoretical essays that expand on its logic. Even more im- portant, numerous individuals have identiªed their empirical research with it. As of 2017, more than forty published works have used the term “neoclassical realism” or “neoclassical realist” in their title, and countless others have aligned themselves with it.
    [Show full text]
  • Regional Integration and the Evolution of the European Polity: on the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Journal of Common
    JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 1 SESS: 16 OUTPUT: Thu Nov 17 21:19:10 2011 SUM: 7E087AC6 /v2451/blackwell/journals/JCMS_v50_is1/jcms_2224 JCMS 2012 Volume 50. Number S1. pp. 1–17 Regional Integration and the Evolution of the European Polity: On the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Journal of Common Market Studiesjcms_2224 1..18 WALTER MATTLI AND ALEC STONE SWEET Introduction This special issue commemorates the fiftieth anniversary of the Journal of Common Market Studies. Over five decades, the journal has charted the deep transformations wrought by integration in Europe: of markets and economic organization; law and courts; party systems and interest group politics; and of regulation, both public and private. Along the way, scholarship on the EC/EU gradually turned to the pervasive impact of integration and supranational governance on national structures; to how the various levels of decision making interact to produce and implement policy; and to public opinion, cultural identity and the deep normative questions concerning how to assess the political legitimacy of the EU. Once catering to a relatively small community of specialists, there is now virtually no important strain of social scientific, legal or historical research on contemporary Europe that falls outside the journal’s purview. Arguably, JCMS is the most important and successful interdisciplinary forum for the publication of research on any single polity – in this case, the European Union. Although much has changed, major themes developed in this special issue found expression in the early journal. The first twenty issues (1962–1967) contained articles on voting procedures (Sidjanski, 1962), the state of public opinion on the European Com- munity (Gallup, 1963); the concept and practice of ‘supranational’ authority (Rosenstiel, 1963; Deutsch, 1963); and supposed distinctions between the process of ‘functional integration’ and that of federalization (Mitrany 1965).
    [Show full text]
  • Reforming Multilateralism in Post-Covid Times
    ited for A NEW MULTILATERALISM EDITED BY MARIO TELÒ REFORMING MULTILATERALISM IN POST-COVID TIMES FOR A MORE REGIONALISED, BINDING AND LEGITIMATE UNITED NATIONS EDITED BY Mario Telò REFORMING MULTILATERALISM IN POST-COVID TIMES IN POST-COVID REFORMING MULTILATERALISM PUBLISHED IN DECEMBER 2020 BY Foundation for European Progressive Studies Avenue des Arts 46 B-1000 Brussels, Belgium +32 2 234 69 00 [email protected] www.feps-europe.eu @FEPS_Europe EDITOR AND PROJECT SCIENTIFIC DIRECTOR Mario Telò LEADER OF THE PROJECT Maria João Rodrigues, President, Foundation for European Progressive Studies FEPS COORDINATORS OF THE PROJECT Hedwig Giusto, Susanne Pfeil IAI COORDINATOR OF THE PROJECT Ettore Greco COPYRIGHT © 2020 Foundation for European Progressive Studies (FEPS) PROOFREADING AND COPY EDITING Nicky Robinson GRAPHIC DESIGN Triptyque.be COVER PHOTO Shutterstock PRINTED BY Oficyna Wydawnicza ASPRA-JR Published with the financial support of the European Parliament. The views expressed in this report are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Parliament. ISBN 978-2-930769-46-2 PROJECT PARTNERS FRIEDRICH-EBERT-STIFTUNG NEW YORK OFFICE 747 Third Avenue, Suite 34D, New York, NY 10017, United States +1 (212) 687-0208 [email protected] https://www.feps-europe.eu @fesnewyork FONDATION JEAN-JAURÈS 12 Cité Malesherbes, 75009 Paris, France +33 (0)1 40 23 24 00 https://jean-jaures.org [email protected] @j_jaures CENTRO STUDI DI POLITICA INTERNAZIONALE (CeSPI) Piazza Venezia 11, 00187 Roma, Italy +39
    [Show full text]
  • European Integration (Theory) in Times of Crisis a Comparison of the Euro and Schengen Crises
    European Integration (Theory) in Times of Crisis A comparison of the Euro and Schengen crises Frank Schimmelfennig, ETH Zürich, [email protected] Abstract The European Union has gone through major crises of its two flagship projects of the 1990s: the Euro and Schengen. Both crises had structurally similar causes and beginnings: exogenous shocks exposed the functional shortcomings of both integration projects and produced sharp distributional conflict among governments as well as an unprecedented politicization of European integration in member state societies. Yet they have resulted in significantly different outcomes: whereas the Euro crisis has brought about a major deepening of integration, the Schengen crisis has not. I put forward a neofunctionalist explanation of these different outcomes, which emphasizes variation in transnational interdependence and supranational capacity across the two policy areas. Acknowledgments For comments on previous versions of the paper, I thank audiences at an ACCESS EUROPE seminar at VU Amsterdam, the 2017 annual conference of the Swiss Political Science Association in St. Gallen, the 2017 EUSA Convention in Miami, and the Euro-CEFG workshop at the University of Rotterdam. Special thanks to Klaus Armingeon, Ben Crum, Madeleine Hosli, Matthias Mattijs, Thomas Spijkerboer, and Jonathan Zeitlin. Introduction The European Union (EU) has come to operate in crisis mode permanently. When the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force in December 2009, the EU finally appeared to have achieved institutional consolidation after the failure of the Constitutional Treaty. Around the same time, however, the mounting Greek balance-of-payment problem signaled the start of the Euro crisis. As soon as “Grexit” was averted in dramatic negotiations in July 2015, the migration flow across the Aegean Sea spiraled out of control, triggering a crisis of the Schengen regime of free movement across internal EU borders.
    [Show full text]
  • 2 Bringing Constructivist Integration Theory out of the Clouds: Has It Landed Yet? Andrew Moravcsik
    04 Forum (jr/d) 3/5/01 11:29 am Page 226 226 European Union Politics 2(2) my loosely positivist epistemology, the strong emphasis on agency, the neglect of recursive practices. Clearly, this middle way loses part of the constructivist train (Joergensen, 1997; Diez, 1999: 363–4). My micro-focus limits what can be said about collective identity formation in Europe (Marcussen et al., 1999), or about processes of state/international socialization (Adler and Barnett, 1998: chs 1, 2). Moreover, I am unable to capture fully the mutually constitu- tive dynamics between my persuading agents and broader social structures because of my epistemological stance. Thinking in terms of variables and causal process tracing requires something be held constant for the analysis to proceed. My response to such concerns is two-fold. Theoretically, the approach should be viewed as supplying much-needed micro-foundational building blocks for more sweeping—and often heuristic—constructivist arguments about collective identity formation or state learning (also Checkel, 2001b). Practically, my response is ‘so what?’ The concern here is to develop oper- ationalizeable social science theory (built on positivist or more interpretative epistemologies), and not social theory. My strong sense is that constructivism still has too much of the latter and not enough of the former. So, indeed, I have lost something. But I have gained the beginnings of a testable con- structivist research programme, which addresses an issue of central concern to Europeanists, and does so in a way that promotes dialogue with both rational choice and interpretative scholars (also Risse and Wiener, 1999: 775–7).
    [Show full text]
  • Theorizing Regionalism: Cooperation, Integration, and Governance by Tanja A
    Theorizing Regionalism: Cooperation, Integration, and Governance by Tanja A. Börzel Prepared for Tanja A. Börzel/Thomas Risse (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Comparative Regionalism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, in prep.) “[W]ith the exception of European institutions, regional institutions have occupied a small and insignificant part of the overall theoretical literature on international institutions” (Acharya and Johnston 2007a: 2). The end of the Cold War saw a surge in regionalism. While the number of preferential trading agreements (PTA) exploded (Mansfield and Pevehouse 2013), long-standing regional organizations, such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) or the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), experienced the delegation of more political authority and policy competencies in the past two decades (Börzel 2013). These two trends of more and deeper regionalism, respectively, are often attributed to processes of diffusion or interdependent decision-making. Regional cooperation and integration spread across time and space once the constraints of geopolitics had ceased to exist (Risse in this volume). This chapter explores how mainstream theories of regional cooperation and integration account for the changes in the quantity and quality of regionalism.1 Unlike diffusion, these theories implicitly or explicitly conceptualize regionalism as driven by independent decision- making of regional actors responding to causal factors located within or outside the region. The chapter starts by arguing that the dominant theories of regional cooperation and integration share a bias towards taking states as the main drivers of regionalism and 1 Critical theories to regionalism, such as the World Oder Approach, are dealt with by the chapters on new regionalism (Söderbaum in this volume) and non-Western approaches (Acharya in this volume) Börzel Theories of Cooperation, Integration and Governance focusing on processes of formal institution-building at the regional level.
    [Show full text]
  • Cross-Strait Relations and the Way Forward: Observations from a European Integration Perspective, In: Journal of Current Chinese Affairs, 41, 3, 117–142
    Journal of Current Chinese Affairs China aktuell Fleischauer, Stefan (2012), Cross-Strait Relations and the Way Forward: Observations from a European Integration Perspective, in: Journal of Current Chinese Affairs, 41, 3, 117–142. ISSN: 1868-4874 (online), ISSN: 1868-1026 (print) The online version of this article and the other articles can be found at: <www.CurrentChineseAffairs.org> Published by GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies, Institute of Asian Studies in cooperation with the National Institute of Chinese Studies, White Rose East Asia Centre at the Universities of Leeds and Sheffield and Hamburg University Press. The Journal of Current Chinese Affairs is an Open Access publication. It may be read, copied and distributed free of charge according to the conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 License. To subscribe to the print edition: <[email protected]> For an e-mail alert please register at: <www.CurrentChineseAffairs.org> The Journal of Current Chinese Affairs is part of the GIGA Journal Family which includes: Africa Spectrum ●● Journal of Current Chinese Affairs Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs ●● Journal of Politics in Latin America <www.giga-journal-family.org> This Taiwan edition has been published and edited in cooperation with the European Research Center on Contemporary Taiwan (ERCCT) at Eberhard Karls University of Tübingen. Journal of Current Chinese Affairs 3/2012: 117142 Cross-Strait Relations and the Way Forward: Observations from a European Integration Perspective Stefan FLEISCHAUER Abstract: The new policy platform in Taiwan of economic liberalization toward the Chinese mainland which was inaugurated by President Ma Ying-jeou (Ma Yingjiu) in 2008 has been the source of both expectation and anxiety.
    [Show full text]
  • Tommaso Pavone
    Tommaso Pavone Postdoctoral Fellow • PluriCourts Centre, University of Oslo Kristian Augusts gate 17, Oslo, Norway 0164 [email protected] • https://www.tommasopavone.com/ Academic Appointments PluriCourts Centre, University of Oslo, 2019 - present Postdoctoral Fellow in Political Science Education Princeton University, 2013 - 2019 Ph.D., Politics • Thesis: “The Ghostwriters: Lawyers & the Politics Behind the Judicial Construction of Europe” • Advisors: Kim Scheppele (chair), Andrew Moravcsik, R. Daniel Kelemen, & Paul Frymer M.A., Politics (2015) University of Chicago, 2011 - 2012 M.A., Social Sciences, concentrations in political science & public law University of Michigan - Ann Arbor, 2007 - 2010 B.A., Public Policy, Political Science Minor (with distinction, Phi Beta Kappa) Professional History • Graduate Fellow, Princeton Institute for International & Regional Studies (PIIRS), 2018 - 2019 • Graduate Associate, Princeton European Union Program, 2014 - 2019 • Graduate Associate, Princeton Program in Law and Public Affairs (LAPA), 2013 - 2019 • Editorial Assistant, World Politics, 2015 - 2016 • Consultant, World Bank, May 2016 • Research Tech. Senior, Inter-univ. Consortium for Pol. & Social Research (ICPSR), 2010 - 2013 Book Project 1. Pavone, Tommaso. In progress. The Ghostwriters: Lawyers and the Politics Behind the Judicial Con- struction of Europe. Draft manuscript available upon request. Peer-Reviewed Articles 1. Pavone, Tommaso and R. Daniel Kelemen. 2019. “The Evolving Judicial Politics of European Integration: The European Court of Justice and National Courts Revisited.” European Law Journal 25 (4): 352-373. https://doi.org/10.1111/eulj.12321 2. Pavone, Tommaso. 2019. “From Marx to Market: Lawyers, European Law, and the Contentious Transformation of the Port of Genoa.” Law & Society Review 53 (3): 851-888. https://doi.org/10.
    [Show full text]
  • The European Constitutional Compromise and the Neofunctionalist Legacy Andrew Moravcsik1
    Journal of European Public Policy 12:2 April 2005: 349–386 The European Constitutional Compromise and the neofunctionalist legacy Andrew Moravcsik1 ABSTRACT Neofunctionalism, a framework rather than a theory, has long played an important role in EU scholarship. Yet initial versions were overly comprehensive, incompletely specified and, as a result, non-falsifiable. Once concrete claims about the history of the EU are specified more precisely, they tend to be invalid: national preferences rarely result from unintended spillover, supranational entrepreneurs are rarely decisive – findings often disguised by poor theoretical specification and selection bias in EU scholarship. For the study of the EU today, the most important weakness of neofunctionalism is that its focus on ‘ever closer union’ obscures the emergence over the past decade of a stable constitutional equilibrium – a European Constitutional Compromise. This compromise is unlikely to be undermined by sub- stantive, institutional, or ideological developments over the medium term – because current constitutional arrangements are substantively effective, institutionally pro- tected, and democratically legitimate. The EU has reached constitutional maturity. KEY WORDS Compromise; constitution; democratic; legitimate; stable. Over the past half-century the European Union (EU) has evolved until its pol- icies and institutions are of a scope and significance without parallel among international organizations. Within Europe, tariffs, quotas, and most customs barriers have been all but eliminated. In regulatory areas such as environmental policy, competition, agricultural and industrial standardization policy, the EU is a dominant regional and global force. Similarly the EU is a bone fide superpower in the area of global trade. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has established the supremacy of EU law, the right of individuals to file suits, and constitutional review for consistency with the Treaty of Rome, which is binding through the near-uniform acceptance of its decisions by domestic courts.
    [Show full text]