Research master thesis | Political Science and Public Administration (research) (MSc)
open access
Since the end of the 1990s, the member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) have been increasingly divided over the organization’s longcherished code of conduct (known as...Show moreSince the end of the 1990s, the member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) have been increasingly divided over the organization’s longcherished code of conduct (known as the ASEAN-Way). For thirty years, a strict policy of respect for each other’s sovereignty, non-interference in domestic affairs of other member states and decision making by consensus characterized the organization. As of late however, a number of member states have been challenging and defying these rules, which are widely perceived to be of primary importance for the organization’s functioning. This thesis argues that a key determinant in explaining the changing ASEAN policies of a number of member states is alteration in, and a strong discrepancy between, the stability of the various ruling regimes of the ASEAN member states. These alterations in regime stability are strongly related to changes in the political legitimacy of a regime. This theory is tested by first examining developments in the regime stability of four ASEAN member states: Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia and Vietnam. Subsequently the policies of these states towards ASEAN’s pariah member Myanmar are analyzed – functioning as a proxy for state behavior with regard to the larger ASEAN-Way issue – in order to assess whether expected behavior on the basis of a state’s regime stability aligns with member state attempts to alter ASEAN’s status quo.Show less
Research master thesis | Political Science and Public Administration (research) (MSc)
open access
What drives the decision of members of the European Parliament (MEPs) to work together, are they working together because they agree on policy principles (ideology) or do they work together because...Show moreWhat drives the decision of members of the European Parliament (MEPs) to work together, are they working together because they agree on policy principles (ideology) or do they work together because they are from the member state or region (geography)? This question is at the core of this paper. By employing a sophisticated and specifically for this paper crafted computer program analysing EP resolutions, I find that ideology becomes less of a factor in the decision to cosponsor a proposal and nationhood becomes more important. This creates difficult questions for European integration.Show less
Research master thesis | Political Science and Public Administration (research) (MSc)
closed access
National parliaments are often labeled the ‘losers’ of European integration. However, most studies in the field of Europeanization focus only on parliamentary influence in the ex-ante decision...Show moreNational parliaments are often labeled the ‘losers’ of European integration. However, most studies in the field of Europeanization focus only on parliamentary influence in the ex-ante decision-making phase in Brussels. In principle national parliaments have, however also the potential to influence the final outcome of EU policy making in the ex-post phase when EU law is transposed into national law. This role of parliaments has received only limited scholarly attention. Nevertheless, how national parliaments use this opportunity has important practical implications in terms of the EU democratic deficit thesis and the effectiveness of EU law. This thesis tackles the question, to what extent and under what conditions do national parliaments and their committees use their legislative review power to influence the transposition of EU law? A cross-country and cross-directive study in the area of EU migration law is conducted to explore the explanatory power of a prominent coalition model of legislative review. Contrary to the model which assumes that different types of government and levels of coalition conflict determines the scope of parliamentary scrutiny, this analysis finds that other factors are more important determinants for parliamentary influence on the timeliness and correctness of transposition measures. Such factors relate to the overall salience of a directive, high issue linkage with politicized national policy projects and case specific factors. The case studies provide particularly challenging evidence concerning the minister autonomy model on which the coalition model is based. This has important implications for the study on conflict anticipation, as ministers seem to be relatively well prepared to foresee their coalition partner’s preferences and adapt their legal drafts to prevent public coalition conflict in parliament. Secondly in terms of institutional design the analysis shows that even parliaments under unfavorable institutional preconditions and singly party governments are not necessarily weaker in their EU scrutiny activities than those that are assumed to be institutionally strong in the national policy making process.Show less
