The European Union’s representation to multilateral organisations is a vital element in its external action framework. The Union promotes an efficient multilateral system to advocate universal...Show moreThe European Union’s representation to multilateral organisations is a vital element in its external action framework. The Union promotes an efficient multilateral system to advocate universal rights and to respond to worldwide crises, with support of the international community. Global dynamics and power relations are changing. New threats to security and peace are altering and financial pressures confine the future development of peace and security capabilities. In the contemporary global order, the EU is called upon to assume greater international responsibilities. To achieve a more unified and continued representation in the multilateral system, EU coordination and representation are essential. To analyse the way in which EU representation operates in the multilateral system and whether the Treaty of Lisbon provides the appropriate improvements, two research questions are formulated: 1) how does the EU function in the multilateral system of the UN, and 2) does the Lisbon Treaty provide the EU with the means necessary to project a more coherent and effective multilateral representative framework? Using case studies on the UN Security Council and the UN General Assembly, the analysis examines the notion of European foreign policies versus European foreign policy. It will argue that though rhetorical support is strong, effective implementation is yet to be realised. The declared intention of unified external representation is not always persuasive, especially when the EU-28 fails to consolidate interests within the Union itself. However, throughout the development of the EU-UN partnership, multilateral representation of the Union has been greatly enhanced. In general, EU-UNSC representation is less coherent, mostly due to ‘high’ politics. Moreover, the seats of France and UK do not reflect the contemporary global order, nor do they specifically benefit the EU’s multilateral representation. In the UNGA, EU representation is more coherent. This is caused primarily by greater coordination, a weaker political agenda, and the Union’s enhanced observer status. The thesis will address why EU representation in the two most important UN bodies is dissimilar, and will provide an analysis of how the Lisbon Treaty has aided the Union’s ambitions in the multilateral system.Show less
Shale gas offers both big opportunities and big risks. This has resulted in a fierce debate in the EU over the past years which placed research in a central role. This thesis investigates whether...Show moreShale gas offers both big opportunities and big risks. This has resulted in a fierce debate in the EU over the past years which placed research in a central role. This thesis investigates whether oil and gas producers (OGPs) use research to manipulate the debate. Between June 2013 to March 2014 all public available research has been collected in a database for the use of this thesis. The reports are ranked in tiers, distinguishing between primary, secondary, quantitative and qualitative research. Consequently the current level of knowledge on shale gas is assessed and linked to the research coverage of the different topics. This analysis shows the nascent state of research and the general lack of consensus on virtually all issues. Furthermore, it is establishes that economic research offers the biggest potential for manipulation. This economic research will be analyzed based on the organizational features and the content of three primary reports in order to establish whether OGPs manipulated the outcome of the research. Using the theory of Value Sensitive Design it will be established how this manipulation could influence the decision making process on shale gas.Show less
The paper below is devoted to recent reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), its process, main actors and main policy issues. The negotiation process and its outcome is analysed in view at...Show moreThe paper below is devoted to recent reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), its process, main actors and main policy issues. The negotiation process and its outcome is analysed in view at the agricultural sector and government positions of two Member States (MS). Further the paper follows governments' positions before and during the negotiations as well as the inter-institutional negotiation process. Chapter 1 and part of Chapter 4 are devoted to the comparison of the Dutch and Polish agricultural sector and government policy positions. Chapter 2 presents the evolution of the CAP and state of play at the time of the negotiation start and refers to chronological method. Chapter 3 describes the institutional setting, in which the reform was negotiated and as such it applies institutional method. Chapters 2 and 3 present also the theories of the EU agricultural policy making process as well as the positions and usual stakes of the institutions, which are the main actors of the negotiation process. Chapter 4 is devoted to the comparison of the negotiation position of the institutions and both MS. In the conclusions, the presented negotiation process will be put in the theoretical basis provided in Chapter 2 and 3. Moreover, preliminary assumptions on the potential of the reform for both MS is gathered. When we compare the outcome of the reform and national policy papers we come to the conclusion that the reform has certain overlap with the content of Dutch policy documents analysed in this paper. Polish policy positions revolved mainly around the issue of creating more level playing field between the MS and this was realized to a very limited extent. In general the above analysis confirm that in the EU, the interests of one MS can be satisfied to very small extent and the final shape of the policy is dependent on the inter-institutional-, not intergovernmental negotiations. On the other hand, due to current role of the EP, representatives of the MS interests have another platform, next to the Council.Show less
This thesis analyses separatist movements within EU member states. The cases of Scotland, Catalonia and Flanders are thoroughly analysed and compared to establish a pattern of separatism within the...Show moreThis thesis analyses separatist movements within EU member states. The cases of Scotland, Catalonia and Flanders are thoroughly analysed and compared to establish a pattern of separatism within the EU. The pattern that is established recognizes imagined communities and 'rationalized' arguments as the cornerstones of European separatism. Moreover, this thesis considers the seemingly contradictory pro-European attitude that is clearly present within these separatist movements.Show less
This study concerns the EU's external policies in Bosnia and Herzegovina and their effectiveness. The policies of the EU in Bosnia and Herzegovina since the Dayton Accords in 1995 are analysed from...Show moreThis study concerns the EU's external policies in Bosnia and Herzegovina and their effectiveness. The policies of the EU in Bosnia and Herzegovina since the Dayton Accords in 1995 are analysed from a constructivist point of view, and the effectiveness of these policies is studied. Although the EU has been involved in Bosnia and Herzegovina for almost twenty years, both during the war and afterwards, the goal of Bosnia and Herzegovina becoming at least an EU candidate member state has not yet been reached. The EU has invested millions of euros a year in Bosnia and Herzegovina, but its economy is still very unstable and the unemployment rate has increased. The EU itself has engaged mainly with Bosnian politicians for the responsibility of improving Bosnia's unstable situation. However, at the same time the EU criticises these same politicians for not being able to reform to a society that is divided by ethnicity. With their policies in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the EU has only been acting from its own identity and values, and has not taken into consideration the Bosnian history and identity in this process. Due to this, the EU policies on Bosnia and Herzegovina have been ineffective for they only act from a European perspective. In their attempt to make democracy succeed, the EU has enforced democracy on Bosnia and Herzegovina, resulting in a contradiction in terms against the values that the EU stands for. The principle of conditionality that is used by the EU to compel Bosnia and Herzegovina to reform is weakened by this contradiction. That leads to a credibility gap in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which undermines the EU's efforts and further increases the ineffectiveness of their actions.Show less
