VOLUME 1 NUMBER 1 2015 EUROPEAN POLICY REVIEW Published by the European Student Tink Tank EUROPEAN POLICY REVIEW Volume 1, Number 1 Tis is the frst edition of the European Policy Review. Te European Policy Review was founded in 2014 by the European Student Tink Tank. Te journal aims to publish academic papers by undergraduate and postgraduate students on topics related to European Union policy. All papers are submitted to an anonymous peer-review pro- cess by graduate and doctoral students. Te journal is to be published annually. EDITORIAL POLICIES ANONYMITY We ask reviewers not to identity themselves to authors, in THE REVIEW PROCESS order to maintain referee confdentiality and to preserve the In order to determine the submitted papers’ suitability for anonymity of the review process. publication, the journal applies the requirements of a pro- cess of peer review. LICENSE TO PUBLISH Tis journal is published under the Creative Commons All submitted papers are read by the editorial team. Only License Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 those papers that seem most likely to meet the quality crite- International (CCBY-NC-ND 4.0). Please cite and use ac- ria and are judged to be of potential interest to our intended cordingly. audience are sent for formal review, typically two reviewers. Reviewers are expected to identify faws or weaknesses, as- sess the work’s novelty and ofer suggestions for improve- DISCLAIMER ment. On the basis of their evaluation, reviewers give ad- Te editorial board cannot be held responsible for errors in vice to the editorial team by choosing from among several information contained in this journal or any consequences possibilities: arising from the use of it; the views and opinions expressed do not necessarily refect those of the editorial board. • Accept unconditionally • Accept conditionally on minor changes • Revise and resubmit EDITORIAL BOARD • Reject Mieke Molthof Editor in Chief Te reviewers each return a peer review form to the edito- Katrien Volleman Editor in Chief rial team. Te editorial team evaluates the reviewers’ com- David Grodzki Editor ments before passing a judgement back to the authors. Next Sander IJmker Editor to providing feedback to the authors, the editorial team ed- Isabelle Langerak Editor its the papers’ content and checks the papers on grammar, Dimitri Michail Perdikoulis Editor spelling and style. Te authors of the papers modify their Remco Zwetsloot Design submission in line with the editors’ comments and send a revised version back to the editor; this process is repeated until the editor is satisfed and the paper is accepted. CONTACT SELECTING PEER REVIEWERS [email protected] Te peer reviewers are selected by the editorial board on the basis of their level of expertise and their ability to perform European Student Tink Tank an impartial review. Reviewers need to be Master’s or PhD Nieuwe Achtergracht 170 (Room 3.18) students with knowledge about the EU and/or the paper 1018 WV Amsterdam, Te Netherlands subject. www.studentthinktank.eu TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 EDITOR’S NOTE MIEKE MOLTHOF 3 NORTH-RHINE WESTPHALIA AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS: Talking shop or channel of infuence? The case of a single region inside the Committee of the Regions CHRISTINA FANENBRUCK 17 CREATING A TEMPLATE FOR THE FUTURE: A potential data protection regime between the EU and the US AILEEN BYRNE and LEA PFEFFERLE 24 THE EEAS AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: How formal and informal accountability mechanisms are symbiotic ANTHONY DE BONDT 37 INSTITUTIONALIZED APATHY: The internal European response to the Syrian refugee crisis and the perpetual curse of the Dublin Regulation JULIAN SCHOLTES 49 MANAGEMENT OF DEEP DIVERSITY WITHIN THE EUROPEAN UNION: The views from European think tanks LUCA BARANI 63 EUROPEANIZING LOBBYING STRATEGIES: Access seeking and agenda setting of domestic interest groups in the EU ANNELOES HOFF 77 THE EFFECTS OF DIRECT EUROPEANIZATION ON SWITZERLAND JOREN SELLESLAGHS European Policy Review (2015), volume 1, number 1, pp. 1 - 2 EDITOR’S NOTE By MIEKE MOLTHOF Te European Student Tink Tank is proud to present the very frst edition of the European Pol- icy Review. Te European Policy Review is a peer-reviewed journal that publishes academic, stu- dent-written papers on a wide range of topics related to European Union policy. In line with the ob- jective of the European Student Tink Tank to provide a platform for discussion amongst students that share an interest in the EU, this journal seeks to involve students in the central and controver- sial debates in European politics. Tis journal therefore not only seeks to bring to the fore students’ perspectives on EU policy, but also aims to target a wide young academic readership. Te European Policy Review has an international and multi-disciplinary character. Te contribu- tors to, and makers of, this journal are students from various countries, with diferent backgrounds and perspectives. Te journal consciously chooses to cover a broad spectrum of topics and to in- corporate multiple disciplines, thereby refecting the numerous angles from which EU policy can be studied and discussed. A team of qualifed editors and peer reviewers has examined all the submitted papers and has made a careful selection on the basis of academic quality and potential contribution to the journal. Te editors and peer reviewers have provided the authors of the selected papers with extensive feed- back. On the basis of those comments, the authors have been able to revise their paper and produce an improved result. Christina Fanenbruck analyzes the signifcance of the Committee of the Regions (CoR) and in- vestigates the infuence of a single region inside the CoR by looking at the case of North Rhine Westphalia. Aileen Byrne and Lea Pfeferle explore data protection regulations within the EU and formulate a new template for the exchange of practices with the United States. Anthony De Bondt explains the various ways of how the European External Action Service (EEAS) is held to account by the European Parliament, and suggests that formal and informal mechanisms complement each other in providing for true accountability. Julian Scholtes analyzes the EU’s response to the Syrian refugee crisis and argues that Europe’s apathy is not the expression of a singular event but rather a refection of a general apathy towards refugees, institutionalized through the Dublin Regulation. Luca Barani presents his research on the views and perceptions of experts working within European think tanks, and highlights what these experts think of the way in which the EU seeks to manage societal diversity. Anneloes Hof writes about the lobbying strategies of domestic interest groups, and seeks to demonstrate that interest groups are becoming increasingly engaged with the Union’s decision-making process because of the ever-growing legislative output the EU generates. Finally, Joren Selleslaghs analyzes the efects of the so-called ‘Europeanisation’ phenomenon on Switzer- land, and refects on the question of whether the approach of seeking bilateral agreements with the EU instead of becoming a full-fedged member is a benefcial strategy. We very much appreciate the time and efort that reviewers and editors have devoted to assessing the papers we sent them. We also thank all authors who have taken the courage to submit their pa- per to the peer review process and deal with others’ criticisms. Finally, special praise must also be 1 Editor’s Note given to those who provided their expertise and energy to the formatting process. By publishing the frst edition of the European Policy Review, we hope to set the tone of a new tradition with many more volumes to come. As we have experienced during the process that pre- ceded the publication of this journal, launching a journal can be challenging and takes a lot of time. Nevertheless, we have also learned from the mistakes we made and the obstacles we had to face. We therefore expect that the publishing process will be continually improved with each subsequent edition of the European Policy Review. We hope you will enjoy reading this journal, and we warmly welcome your comments and suggestions for future editions. 2 European Policy Review (2015), volume 1, number 1, pp. 3 - 16 NORTH RHINE-WESTPHALIA AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Talking shop or channel of infuence? The case of a single region inside the Committee of the Regions By CHRISTINA FANENBRUCK Ever since the creation of the European Union, European-wide legisla- Christina Fanen- bruck is a second tion has had an effect on regional concerns. With the Maastricht Trea- year Master stu- ty, the Committee of the Regions was established in order to provide a dent at Freie Uni- meaningful channel for regional ambassadors. Provided with a consul- versität Berlin. After tative character, the Committee of the Regions was intended as an ad- her Bachelor in Eu- ditional option for regions to take part in the policy-shaping and legis- ropean Studies at Maastricht Universi- lation-making process. This paper demonstrates in two parts that the ty, she now stud- Committee of the Regions arguably has been a success story; especially ies International compared to its older sibling the European Economic and Social Com- Relations in a joint mittee. The first part recaps the institutional history of the Committee Master Programme of the Regions, evaluates the state of the academic debate and argues of three universities in Berlin, Germany. why it is an influential channel for regional concerns. The second part She has a special then turns to the precise influence of one specific region; namely North interest in lobbying Rhine-Westphalia inside the Committee of the Regions. Based on inter- and the effect of views that were conducted with representatives of North Rhine-West- interest representa- phalia, the paper finds that the Committee has been underestimated in tion within legisla- tive processes.