Show simple item record

[journal article]

dc.contributor.authorMüller, Manuelde
dc.date.accessioned2024-01-31T11:19:51Z
dc.date.available2024-01-31T11:19:51Z
dc.date.issued2023de
dc.identifier.issn2183-2463de
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/handle/document/91726
dc.description.abstractIn May 2022, the European Parliament (EP) launched a procedure to amend the EU treaties and began drafting a report with concrete reform proposals. In their resolution, EP members explicitly described this as a necessary response to recent crises (notably the Russian aggression against Ukraine, the Covid-19 pandemic, and climate change) as well as a follow-up to the Conference on the Future of Europe. However, the stated objectives of the reform, in particular more efficient and democratic EU decision-making, were not new but followed long-standing discourses on deepening EU integration. This raises the question of to what degree the EP's initiative really reflected a lesson from recent crises - in line with a "failing forward" approach towards EU reform - or rather a "backlog" of reforms which had already been proposed before but whose implementation had been blocked by member states, and for which the crises only represented a window of opportunity. The article assesses the development of treaty change proposals by the EP and bodies close to it, comparing three comprehensive plans for institutional reform: the federalist Spinelli Group's Fundamental Law for the EU (2013), the EP's Verhofstadt Report (2017), and the EP's latest Article 48 Report (2023). The comparison shows that, while the crises had an impact on the level of ambition in some policy areas, the EP's general approach, especially on institutional issues, was characterised by a high degree of continuity.de
dc.languageende
dc.subject.ddcPolitikwissenschaftde
dc.subject.ddcPolitical scienceen
dc.subject.otherEU treaty reform; crisis learning; institutional reform; polycrisisde
dc.titleCrisis Learning or Reform Backlog? The European Parliament’s Treaty‐Change Proposals During the Polycrisisde
dc.description.reviewbegutachtet (peer reviewed)de
dc.description.reviewpeer revieweden
dc.identifier.urlhttps://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/7326/3552de
dc.source.journalPolitics and Governance
dc.source.volume11de
dc.publisher.countryPRTde
dc.source.issue4de
dc.subject.classozEuropapolitikde
dc.subject.classozEuropean Politicsen
dc.subject.thesozEUde
dc.subject.thesozEUen
dc.subject.thesozEuropaparlamentde
dc.subject.thesozEuropean Parliamenten
dc.subject.thesozStaatsvertragde
dc.subject.thesoztreatyen
dc.subject.thesozReformde
dc.subject.thesozreformen
dc.rights.licenceCreative Commons - Namensnennung 4.0de
dc.rights.licenceCreative Commons - Attribution 4.0en
internal.statusformal und inhaltlich fertig erschlossende
internal.identifier.thesoz10041441
internal.identifier.thesoz10041440
internal.identifier.thesoz10059012
internal.identifier.thesoz10034858
dc.type.stockarticlede
dc.type.documentZeitschriftenartikelde
dc.type.documentjournal articleen
dc.source.pageinfo311-323de
internal.identifier.classoz10506
internal.identifier.journal787
internal.identifier.document32
internal.identifier.ddc320
dc.source.issuetopicGoverning the EU Polycrisis: Institutional Change After the Pandemic and the War in Ukrainede
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v11i4.7326de
dc.description.pubstatusVeröffentlichungsversionde
dc.description.pubstatusPublished Versionen
internal.identifier.licence16
internal.identifier.pubstatus1
internal.identifier.review1
internal.dda.referencehttps://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/oai/@@oai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/7326
ssoar.urn.registrationfalsede


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record