Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T06:07:23.285Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Negotiations and Coalition Formation in the European Community

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2014

Extract

INSTITUTIONAL REFORM IS ON THE AGENDA OF THE EUROPEAN Communities again, perhaps more seriously than for a decade. The European Parliament's Draft Treaty on European Union and the Dooge Report provided a focus for assessing possible changes to the institutional ground rules and constitutional framework of EC negotiations. A central strand in the debate has been the concern of many practitioners to make the negotiating process more productive and effective, particularly given the prospect that enlargement to twelve wil make the EC more heterogeneous and less manageable. Aside from the constitutionalists, whose arguments for reform are essentially political, the pragmatists can be divided between proponents of better practice and the advocates of some Treaty amendments as necessary means to their end. This article seeks to shed some light on the character of the EC negotiating process in the hope of aiding judgments about the relevance of institutional rules to negotiating outputs.

Type
Article
Copyright
Copyright © Government and Opposition Ltd 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Institutional Affairs, the ‘Dooge Report’, Brussels, March 1985.

2 Morgan, R. and Bray, C. (eds), Partners and Rivals: Britain, France and Germany, Gower, 1985 Google Scholar (forthcoming).

3 Fisher, R. and Wry, M., Getting to Yes: How to Succeed in Negotiation without giving in, Hutchinson, 1982 Google Scholar.

4 Winham, , ‘Negotiation as a Management Process’, World Politics, 10 1977, and ‘Practitioners’ Views of International Negotiation’, World Politics, 10 1979 Google Scholar.

5 See also, Holsti, K., ‘Bargaining theory and diplomatic reality: CSCE negotiations’, Review of International Studies, 1982 Google Scholar.

6 Wallace, H., Wallace, W. and Webb, C., Policy‐Making in the European Community, Wiley, 2nd ed., 1983 Google Scholar, chapter 3.

7 See for instance the underlying argument in Puchala, D., Fiscal Harmonisation: National Politics and International Cooperation, Frances Pinter, 1984 Google Scholar.

8 Zartman, I.W. and Berman, M., The Practical Negotiator, Yale UP, 1982 Google Scholar.

9 Buzan, B., ‘Negotiating by Consensus: Developments in Technique at the United Nations Conference on Law of the Sea’, American Journal of International Law, 04 1981 Google Scholar.

10 Rummel, R., Zusammengesetzte Aussenpolitik, Verlag, N.P. Engel, Kehl am Rhein, 1982 Google Scholar.

11 Simonian, H., The Privileged Partnership: Franco‐German Relations in the European Community, 1969–84, Clarendon UP, 1985 Google Scholar.

12 Gamson, W. A., ‘A Theory of Coalition Formation’, American Sociological Review, 1961 Google Scholar.

13 Browne, E. C. and Franklin, M. N., ‘Aspects of Coalition Pay‐offs in European Parliamentary Democracies’, American Political Science Review, 1973 Google Scholar.

14 Franklin, M. N. and Mackie, T. T., Measuring the effects of size and ideology on the formation of governing coalitions and parliamentary democracies, Strathclyde Papers on Government and Politics, No 5, 1983, and Schofield, N. and Laver, M., ‘Bargaining Theory and Portfolio Pay–offs in European Coalition Governments, 1945–83’, British Journal of Political Science, 1985 Google Scholar.

15 Speech in Bonn, March 1985, mimeo.

16 Grabitz, E. (ed.), Abgestiifte Integration: Eine Alternative zum herkommlichen Intergrationskonzept?, Verlag, N.P. Engel, 1985 Google Scholar; and Wallace, H., Europe: The Challenge of Diversity, Chatham House Policy Papers, 1985 Google Scholar (forthcoming).