On the 12th of February 2019 the European Council adopted the Gas Directive Amendment consisting of common rules for the European gas market. The Amendment added that the rules of the original Gas...Show moreOn the 12th of February 2019 the European Council adopted the Gas Directive Amendment consisting of common rules for the European gas market. The Amendment added that the rules of the original Gas Directive of 2009 were not merely applicable to the internal European gas market, but also applicable for pipelines going from, and to third countries (non-member states) making the Directive contain common rules for the external energy policy of member states. This is a big step for a more integrated Europe, because external energy policy has never been a topic where member states were willing to share interests about. This rather special area gives theories like Neofunctionalism a new challenge to explain the process of integration in the EU. Three concepts of Neofunctionalism (spillover, loyalty shift and politicization) are tested on the Gas Directive Amendment and explain the strengths and weaknesses of Neofunctionalism as integration theory.Show less
Space and its military uses are increasingly attracting the attention of the world's chancelleries. Last year Emmanuel Macron announced the creation of a new French space command, while Trump's...Show moreSpace and its military uses are increasingly attracting the attention of the world's chancelleries. Last year Emmanuel Macron announced the creation of a new French space command, while Trump's Space Force recently became the sixth branch of the US armed forces. This research aims to shed light on the evolution of the European Space Policy and its impact on the operations carried out under the umbrella of the Common Security and Defence Policy. The military applications of the European flagship programmes Galileo and Coperniucs offer an interesting case study to understand the supranational intertwining of the space and defence domains, which culminated with the setup of the DG Defence Industry and Space. The thesis makes use of the neofunctionalist theory and its most useful theoretical concepts to delve into the relevant events concerning European space governance.Show less
Theories on European integration postulate what actors, processes and developments are central to the construction and functioning of the EU. Therefore, such theorization of integration can be used...Show moreTheories on European integration postulate what actors, processes and developments are central to the construction and functioning of the EU. Therefore, such theorization of integration can be used to explain, clarify and justify specific events. This thesis draws on the authentic arguments and assumptions of Neofunctionalism and Liberal Intergovernmentalism, i.e. two classic integration theories, to test their explanatory power by means of a case study. The context in which this study takes place is the completion of the Single Market, the barriers thereto and the subsequent potential of the Single Market that is left unexploited. One such barrier is the existence of different corporate tax regimes in and across the Single Market. The case used in this study is the proposed legislation on a Common (Consolidated) Corporate Tax Base (C(C)CTB), which is aimed at addressing this issue and to eliminate the negative consequences of tax regime disparities. The research question that guides this thesis is as follows: ‘to what extent can Neofunctionalist and/or Liberal Intergovernmentalist theory explain the proposed legislation on a Common (Consolidated) Corporate Tax Base and associated processes and developments?’ In pursuance of rejecting the null hypothesis and supporting one of the three alternative hypotheses, this study derived six ‘expectations’ from both integration theories to assess their compatibility with what can be observed in practice. Subsequently, the theory with the most accurate presumptions, measured by the degree of compliance, is assumed to hold most explanatory power and, consequently, ‘wins this battle’. The data used for this study is composed of desk and field research, including but not limited to interviews with the European Commission, KPMG EU Tax Centre and the Permanent Representation of the Netherlands in Brussels. With an average score of 4.2 against 2.2 (on a five-point scale), the outcome of the data analysis clearly indicates that the expectations derived from Neofunctionalist theory are significantly better capable of explaining relevant processes and developments underlying the C(C)CTB. Therefore, this study concludes that Neofunctionalism in this case holds more explanatory power than Liberal Intergovernmentalism. Nevertheless, it is acknowledged that due to low external validity the results of this study cannot or to a very limited extent be generalized to other situations. Accordingly, further research, for which this thesis could provide a methodological blueprint, is required to assess the explanatory power of both integration theories in regards to other issues that constitute barriers to the Single Market. Thereafter, it may be verified whether the findings presented in this study do indeed hold and are as such applicable to the broader context in which this study is situated.Show less
The main research question that this thesis will try to answer is: “Who dictated the European Community policy concerning migration for Third Country Nationals during the 1970s and 1980s: the...Show moreThe main research question that this thesis will try to answer is: “Who dictated the European Community policy concerning migration for Third Country Nationals during the 1970s and 1980s: the European Commission or the member states?”.This thesis is divided into three parts. Firstly, it examines the relationships inside the European Community and member states from a theoretical perspective to propose several hypotheses to explain who dictated European migration policy. To test these hypotheses based on empirical research, chapters 2 and 3 will look at the positions of the European Commission and the European member states respectively.It seems more likely that when considering our hypotheses, the perspective of member states dictating European Community policy was more likely. Even though this paper established that the European Commission had received a competence in migration policy, the ones ultimately in power were the member states themselves.Show less
