Westlake, Martin, The European Union's ‘blind watchmakers’: the process of constitutional change, IN MARTIN WESTLAKE, (ED.), THE EUROPEAN UNION BEYOND AMSTERDAM (1998), p. 30.Google Scholar

LILLIAN HELLMAN, PENTIMENTO (1973), p. 3.Google Scholar

This line of inquiry seeks to go beyond asserting or denying the causal importance of the regions in line with neofunctionalist and intergovernmentalist theorists. Pollack in, CAROLYN RHODES AND SONIA MAZEY, (EDS.) THE STATE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION. BUILDING A EUROPEAN POLITY? (1995).Google Scholar

Moravcsik, Andrew, Negotiating the Single European Act: National Interests and Conventional Statecraft in the European Community, INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION 45 (1) (1991), p. 651–88.Google Scholar

ANDREW MORAVCSIK, THE CHOICE FOR EUROPE. SOCIAL PURPOSE AND STATE POLICY FROM MESSINA TO MAASTRICHT (1998).Google Scholar

Milner, Helen, International Theories of Cooperation Among Nations, WORLD POLITICS, 44 (3) (April 1992), pp. 466–96.Google Scholar

Andrew Moravcsik and Kalypso Nicolaïdis, “Keynote Article: Federal Ideals and Constitutional Realities in the Treaty of Amsterdam” JOURNAL OF COMMON MARKET STUDIES 36 (September 1998), p. 17.Google Scholar

Goetz, Klaus H., Integration Policy in a Europeanised State: Germany and the Intergovernmental Conference, JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN PUBLIC POLICY Vol. 3 No. 1 (1996), p. 40.Google Scholar

Moravcsik and Nicolaïdis, p. 23.Google Scholar

Mazzucelli, in BRADLEY A. SHINGLETON, MARION J. GIBBON AND KATHRYN S. MACK (EDS.) DIMENSIONS OF GERMAN UNIFICATION (1995).Google Scholar

Moravcsik and Nicolaïdis, p. 23.Google Scholar

Blume and Graf von Rex, in FRANZ H.U. BORKENHAGEN (ED.), EUROPAPOLITIK DER DEUTSCHEN LÄNDER (1998).Google Scholar

KENNETH WALTZ, MAN, THE STATE AND WAR (1959), p. 122.Google Scholar

Marks, in CHARLIE JEFFERY (ED.) THE REGIONAL DIMENSION OF THE EUROPEAN UNION (1997), pp. 34–35. In the literature on the resolution of international conflicts, we are concerned with analyses of conflict among states and nations that deal with their power and interests. This literature also analyzes conflicts among people, who act in the name of states and nations, and explores basic human interactions and reactions. A common element in analyses of European integration and cooperation and conflict in the more general sense may emerge in attempts to bridge these two areas, conflict among states and nations and conflicts among people, as we explore the lessons each provides for the other. See, I. WILLIAM ZARTMAN AND J. LEWIS RASMUSSEN (EDS.) PEACEMAKING IN INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT, (1997), p. 3.Google Scholar

Janning, Josef, A German Europe – A European Germany? On the debate over Germany's foreign policy, INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS 72 (1), pp. 34–37.Google Scholar

DIETRICH ROMETSCH AND WOLFGANG WESSELS (EDS.) THE EUROPEAN UNION AND MEMBER STATES (1996), p. 329.Google Scholar

Marks, in CHARLIE JEFFERY (ED.) THE REGIONAL DIMENSION OF THE EUROPEAN UNION (1997), p. 25.Google Scholar

Atkinson, Rick, Germans Debating European Unity Again, THE WASHINGTON POST (November 12, 1993), at A48.Google Scholar

On EMU, Stoiber questioned the approach to the creation of the EURO, particularly regarding the inclusion of Italy and the decision by the European Central Bank (ECB) to admit Greece in 2001. See, Helmut Greimel, Pressure Mounts on European Bank (May 4, 2000) THE ASSOCIATED PRESS/AMERICA ONLINE NEWS.Google Scholar

Giering, Claus, Interview on April 3, 2000, at the Centrum für Angewandte Politikforschung.Google Scholar

Borries, Reimer von, Interview on November 3, 1998, at the Bundeswirtschaftsministerium. This is in contrast to the Länder's participation in their own right as members at the table during Council of Ministers negotiations in policy areas that concern their prerogatives such as culture, education and health, in accordance with Article 23 in the Basic Law.Google Scholar

Barth/Mentler, in in FRANZ H.U. BORKENHAGEN (ED.), EUROPAPOLITIK DER DEUTSCHEN LÄNDER (1998), p. 86.Google Scholar

COLETTE MAZZUCELLI, FRANCE AND GERMANY AT MAASTRICHT. POLITICS AND NEGOTIATIONS TO CREATE THE EUROPEAN UNION (2nd edition paperback, 1999), pp. 273–85.Google Scholar

CHARLIE JEFFERY (ED.) THE REGIONAL DIMENSION OF THE EUROPEAN UNION (1997), p. 72.Google Scholar

The other Land representative was the Rhineland-Palatinate whose Secretary of State, Karl-Heinz Klär, emphasizes the demands of all the Länder in the area of subsidiarity while acknowledging that, until the change in government from Major to Blair, the United Kingdom's position blocked progress across the board during the intergovernmental conference. See, Karl-Heinz Klär, The State of the European Union and Transatlantic Relations, Speech on June 4, 1998, at the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, Washington, DC, pp. 14–17.Google Scholar

BUNDESRAT, DEMANDS OF GERMANY'S FEDERAL STATES ON THE OCCASION OF THE 1996 INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE (667/95) Bonn (1995), p. 12.Google Scholar

This earlier period, 1958–1984, is important to bear in mind because it provides the historical context to understand the decentralized nature of European policy making in the Federal Republic of Germany and the unique division of labor in European affairs between the Economics Ministry and Foreign Office with the former largely responsible for federal-state relations in the making of European legislation.Google Scholar

This historical development is well researched on both sides of the Atlantic, see, e.g., Deeg in CAROLYN RHODES AND SONIA MAZEY, (EDS.) THE STATE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION. BUILDING A EUROPEAN POLITY? (1995); Josef Janning, A German Europe – A European Germany? On the debate over Germany's foreign policy, INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS 72 (1) (1997), pp. 33–42; Klaus H. Goetz, Integration Policy in a Europeanised State: Germany and the Intergovernmental Conference, JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN PUBLIC POLICY Vol. 3 No. 1 (1996), pp. 23–44. The implications of this evolution for our conceptual understanding of the Union's relations with its member states are not always drawn.Google Scholar

COLETTE MAZZUCELLI, FRANCE AND GERMANY AT MAASTRICHT. POLITICS AND NEGOTIATIONS TO CREATE THE EUROPEAN UNION (2nd edition paperback, 1999), pp. 243–85.Google Scholar

Tuschhoff, Christian, Centralization and Asymmetry. The Impact of European Integration on German Federalism, Presented at the Study Group on European Integration and Domestic Policy. The European Union Center. Harvard University, 1998, http://www.jeanmonnetprogram.org/EUatHarvard/Publications/tuschhoff1.html Google Scholar

Goetz, p. 32.Google Scholar

Schmuck, in FRANZ H.U. BORKENHAGEN (ED.), EUROPAPOLITIK DER DEUTSCHEN LÄNDER (1998), p. 225.Google Scholar

Council Secretariat, Non Paper (Compilation of Texts under Discussion) SN/2555/97 (SN/539/97 (C40) Brussels (1997), p. 15.Google Scholar

Bonzel, Matthias van, Interview on May 20, 1998, at Dutch Permanent Representation to the European Union.Google Scholar

Devuyst, Youri, The Treaty of Amsterdam: An Introductory Analysis, ECSA REVIEW X (Fall 1997), p. 8.Google Scholar

Barth/Mentler, FRANZ H.U. BORKENHAGEN (ED.), EUROPAPOLITIK DER DEUTSCHEN LÄNDER (1998) p. 87.Google Scholar

Mazzucelli, Colette, Analyzing Decision Making during the Intergovernmental Conference Process: Maastricht and Amsterdam, Presented at the ELEVENTH CONFERENCE OF EUROPEANISTS. Baltimore, MD (February 26–28, 1998), http://www.boschalumni.org/alumni/ mazzucelli, p. 41.Google Scholar

Reinhard Silberberg, Interview on May 15, 1998, at Bonn, Auswärtiges Amt.Google Scholar

ANTHONY FORSTER, BRITAIN AND THE MAASTRICHT NEGOTIATIONS (1999); ALASDAIR BLAIR, DEALING WITH EUROPE (1999).Google Scholar

In an earlier inquiry into political integration and behavior of states, the point was made that “the stability of a national party system can affect decisively that state's ability to develop a consistent community policy.” In post-war Europe, continuity of policy in states with large Christian Democratic parties, like West Germany and Italy, was expected. In cases where governments consisted of shaky coalitions, a member state was likely to have less stability in its relations with the integration movement. This lack of stability in turn was expected to condition the behavior of interest groups toward the integrating institutions. See, CHARLES PENTLAND, INTERNATIONAL THEORY AND EUROPEAN INTEGRATION (1973), p. 237. In this case, it was already clear that the domestic actors and the integrating institutions were gradually developing interactive relations that could over time evolve into an interdependent fusion of their interests. Once this is acknowledged, however, it is also significant to examine the extent to which the party system in the post war Federal Republic was shaped by the Basic Law and the personalities of its dominant politicians.Google Scholar

Goetz, p. 41.Google Scholar

Andrew Moravcsik and Kalypso Nicolaïdis, “Explaining the Treaty of Amsterdam: Interests, Influence and Institutions”, JOURNAL OF COMMON MARKET STUDIES 37 (1), pp. 68–69.Google Scholar

Mazzucelli, Colette, “Comparative Dimensions of Factionalism. The French Socialists and the German Social Democrats: A Review of the Theses of Sartori, Beller and Belloni and Hine”, Washington, DC: Georgetown University, 1989 (unpublished paper); Colette Mazzucelli, “The SPD's Evolving Views on the ‘European Pillar‘”, Washington, DC: Georgetown University, 1989 (unpublished paper).Google Scholar

BRUNO DE WITTE, THE EC LEGAL SYSTEM. EIPA Presentation. (1999).Google Scholar

Tuschhoff, Christian, Centralization and Asymmetry. The Impact of European Integration on German Federalism, Presented at the Study Group on European Integration and Domestic Policy. The European Union Center. Harvard University, 1998, http://www.jeanmonnetprogram.org/EUatHarvard/Publications/tuschhoff1.html.Google Scholar

Rogoff, Martin A., The European Union, Germany and the Länder: New Patterns of Political Relations in Europe, 5 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN LAW 415, 422-28 (1999).Google Scholar