We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
There is a broad consensus in the scholarly literature that EU treaty-making rules and norms should become more flexible. Such views are consistent with the two-level game approach, but they could, the two-level legitimacy approach warns, amplify problems of trust in the EU and national governments. This chapter critically examines the case for reforming EU treaty making, as viewed from the competing theoretical perspectives at the heart of this volume. It interrogates the case for (1) unanimity in treaty making, (2) the regulation of national referendums, (3) a pan-European referendum, (4) time locks on treaty reforms, (5) citizen-led treaty making, (6) judicial and parliamentary oversight, (7) a European Convention on the Law of Treaties and (8) allowing treaties to fail.
The transformation of EU treaty making is about trust as well as tactics. The evidence presented in this book is consistent with the claim that national governments tied their hands to boost their bargaining position in treaty making. At the same time, problems of public trust in the EU and its member states appear to have encouraged national governments to involve the people, parliament and courts in EU treaty making. Changing constitutional rules and norms have discouraged treaty amendment in the EU but not deterred it entirely, not least given national governments’ tendency to contest referendum results and their turn to international law treaties. This chapter recalls the key findings of this study and considers their wider implications for the study of the EU and the international system.
How has the transformation of treaty-making rules and norms affected the practice of EU treaty making over time? Using quantitative methods, this chapter shows that the rise of parliaments and referendums is associated with declining rates of treaty making over time. Faced with tighter ratification constraints, national governments have, it is noted, sought to untie their hands by rerunning unfavorable referendums and pursuing international law treaties negotiated and ratified at one remove from EU constitutional rules and norms. And yet the EU’s frequent recourse to treaty amendment in the 1990s and 2000s can be viewed as an attempt to address the problems of legitimacy exposed by earlier rounds of treaty making.
Referendums on treaties are rare worldwide, but they are now routine in the European Union (EU). Referendums by current or prospective EU member states on EU treaties account for more than a third of all foreign policy referendums held since 1972. How have the people come to play this prominent role in EU treaty making? This chapter offers an in-depth account of the changing constitutional rules and norms underpinning referendums on EU treaties. Based on a comparative analysis of the Union’s member states, it categorises rules and norms into how likely they make a referendum on EU treaty changes. On the basis of this analysis, we present the second of our three ratification scales.
Gender quotas are a controversial policy measure. However, over the past twenty years they have been widely adopted around the world and especially in Europe. They are now used in politics, corporate boards, state and local public administration and even in civil society organizations. This book explores this unprecedented phenomenon, providing a unique comparative perspective on gender quotas' adoption across thirteen European countries. It also studies resistance to gender quotas by political parties and supreme courts. Providing up-to-date comprehensive data on gender quotas regulations, Transforming Gender Citizenship proposes a typology of countries, from those which have embraced gender quotas as a new way to promote gender equality in all spheres of social life, to those who have consistently refused gender quotas as a tool for gender equality. Reflecting on divergences and commonalities across Europe, the authors analyze how gender quotas may transform dominant conception of citizenship and gender equality.
Treaty making is a site of struggle between those who claim the authority to speak and act on the international stage. The European Union (EU) is an important test case in this respect because the manner in which the Union and its member states make treaties has shifted significantly over the last six decades. Drawing insights from EU law, comparative constitutionalism and international relations, this book shows how and why parliaments, the people and courts have entered a domain once dominated by governments. It presents qualitative and quantitative evidence on the importance of public trust and political tactics in explaining this transformation of EU treaty making and challenges the idea that EU treaties are too rigid. Analysing legal developments in the EU and each of its member states, this will be essential reading for those who wish to understand the EU's controversial experiment in treaty making and its wider significance.