Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T05:37:58.495Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

European Integration as Compromise: Recognition, Concessions and the Limits of Cooperation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2013

Christine Reh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The role of compromise in EU politics has been widely recognized by scholars and practitioners alike. At the same time, the systematic conceptual, analytical and normative study of compromise has remained an exception. This is surprising, given that the study of compromise can be linked to three broader questions at the heart of integration: (1) How does the EU accommodate diversity? (2) What makes supranational rule normatively justifiable? (3) Who or what defines the limits of cooperation? Against this backdrop, this article sheds light on the concept of compromise, on the role of compromise in legitimizing supranational governance and on the limits to compromise in the European polity. I argue that the EU – a divided, multilevel and functionally restricted polity – is highly dependent on the legitimizing force of ‘inclusive compromise’, which is characterized by the recognition of difference. This is true for horizontal or micro-level relations between political actors (where compromise works through concessions as well as justification, perspective-taking and empathic concern in a process of ‘procedural accommodation’), and for vertical or macro-level relations between systems of governance (where compromise works through ‘constitutional compatibility’). Given the legitimizing force of inclusive compromise, I subsequently identify the limits to such agreements and, thus, to supranational cooperation; I argue that these limits are issue specific and depend on where the costs of cooperation are borne. The article concludes by outlining routes for follow-up empirical research.

Type
Articles
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 47 , Special Issue 3: Politics as Compromise , 2012 , pp. 414 - 440
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2012.

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

2 Heisenberg, Dorothee, ‘The Institution of “Consensus” in the European Union: Formal Versus Informal Decision-Making in the Council’, European Journal of Political Research, 44: 1 (2005), pp. 65–90 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Lewis, Jeffrey, ‘Is the “Hard Bargaining” Image of the Council Misleading? The Committee of Permanent Representatives and the Local Elections Directive’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 36: 4 (1998), pp. 479–504 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Moravcsik, Andrew, ‘The European Constitutional Compromise and the Neofunctionalist Legacy’, Journal of European Public Policy, 12: 2 (2005), pp. 349–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Elgström, Ole and Jönsson, Christer, ‘Negotiation in the European Union: Bargaining or Problem-Solving?’, Journal of European Public Policy, 7: 5 (2000), pp. 684–704 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dür, Andreas and Mateo, Gemma, ‘Choosing a Bargaining Strategy in EU Negotiations: Power, Preferences, and Culture’, Journal of European Public Policy, 17: 5 (2010), pp. 680–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 Arregui, Javier and Thomson, Robert, ‘States' Bargaining Success in the European Union’, Journal of European Public Policy, 16: 5 (2009), pp. 655–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Richard Bellamy and Justus Schönlau, ‘The Good, the Bad and the Ugly: The Need for Constitutional Compromise and the Crafting of the EU Constitution’, in Lynn Dobson and Andreas Føllesdal (eds), Political Theory and the European Constitution, London and New York, Routledge, 2004, pp. 56–74; Christine Reh, ‘Consensus, Compromise and “Inclusive Agreement”: Negotiating Supranational Governance’, in Corneliu Bjola and Markus Kornprobst (eds), Arguing Global Governance: Agency, Lifeworld and Shared Reasoning, London, Routledge, 2010, pp. 177–93.

8 See for example Neyer, Jürgen, ‘Explaining the Unexpected: Efficiency and Effectiveness in European Decision-Making’, Journal of European Public Policy, 11: 1 (2004), pp. 19–38 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Panke, Diana, ‘More Arguing than Bargaining? The Institutional Designs of the European Convention and Intergovernmental Conferences Compared’, Journal of European Integration, 28: 4 (2006), pp. 357–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Risse, Thomas and Kleine, Mareike, ‘Deliberation in Negotiations’, Journal of European Public Policy, 17: 5 (2010), pp. 708–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 See for example Fritz W. Scharpf, Governing in Europe: Effective and Democratic? Oxford and New York, Oxford University Press, 1999; Lord, Christopher and Beetham, David, ‘Legitimizing the EU: Is There a “Post-Parliamentary Basis” for its Legitimation?’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 39: 3 (2001), pp. 443–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Føllesdal, Andreas and Hix, Simon, ‘Why There is a Democratic Deficit in the European Union: A Response to Moravcsik and Majone’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 44: 3 (2005), pp. 533–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 Margalit, Avishai, On Compromise and Rotten Compromises, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2010, p. 38 Google Scholar.

11 Richard Bellamy, Markus Kornprobst and Christine Reh, ‘Introduction: Meeting in the Middle’, this volume, pp. 275–95.

12 Scharpf, Fritz W., ‘Legitimacy in the Multilevel European Polity’, European Political Science Review, 1: 2 (2009), pp. 173–204 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 Helen Wallace, ‘Politics and Policy in the EU: The Challenge of Governance’, in Helen and William Wallace (eds), Policy-Making in the European Union, 3rd edition, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1996, pp. 3–36, at p. 32; Dür and Mateo, ‘Choosing a Bargaining Strategy’.

14 Elster, Jon, ‘Introduction’, in Elster, Jon (ed.), Deliberative Democracy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1998, pp. 1–18, at p. 5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 Jönsson, Christer, ‘Diplomacy, Bargaining and Negotiation’, in Carlsnaes, Walter, Risse, Thomas and Simmons, Beth A. (eds), Handbook of International Relations, London, Sage, 2002, pp. 212–34, at p. 217IICrossRefGoogle Scholar. Throughout this article ‘negotiation’ is used in a generic way, namely as one possible mode of solving conflicts peacefully, rather than as the narrow concept of ‘bargaining’ that dominates the study of European politics and international relations.

16 For a more encompassing approach see Andreas Dür, Gemma Mateo and Daniel C. Thomas (eds), Negotiation Theory and the EU: The State of the Art, London and New York, Routledge, 2011.

17 Robert Thomson, Frans N. Stokman, Christopher H. Achen and Thomas König (eds), The European Union Decides, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2006; Arregui and Thomson, ‘States' Bargaining Success’.

18 Neyer, ‘Explaining the Unexpected’.

19 Erik O. Eriksen and John O. Fossum (eds), Democracy in the European Union: Integration Through Deliberation?, London and New York, Routledge, 2000.

20 Joerges, Christian and Neyer, Jürgen, ‘From Intergovernmental Bargaining to Deliberative Political Processes: The Constitutionalisation of Comitology’, European Law Journal, 3: 3 (1997), pp. 273–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Joerges, Christian and Neyer, Jürgen, ‘Transforming Strategic Interaction into Deliberative Problem-Solving: European Comitology in the Foodstuffs Sector’, Journal of European Public Policy, 4: 4 (1997), pp. 609–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Risse and Kleine, ‘Deliberation in Negotiations’.

21 Naurin, Daniel, ‘Most Common When Least Important: Deliberation in the European Union Council of Ministers’, British Journal of Political Science, 40: 1 (2010), pp. 31–50 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 Elgström and Jönsson, ‘Negotiation in the European Union’.

23 Arend Lijphart, Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries, New Haven, CT, and London, Yale University Press, 1999, p. 46.

24 See for example Weiler, Joseph H. H., ‘Problems of Legitimacy in Post 1992 Europe’, Aussenwirtschaft, 46: 3/4 (1991), pp. 411–37Google Scholar; Grimm, Dieter, ‘Does Europe Need a Constitution?’, European Law Journal, 1: 3 (1995), pp. 282–302 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25 See for example Weiler, , ‘Problems of Legitimacy’; Simon Hix, ‘The Study of the European Union II: The “New Governance” Agenda and its Rival’, Journal of European Public Policy, 5: 1 (1998), pp. 38–65 Google Scholar; Scharpf, Governing in Europe.

26 Hix, ‘The Study of the European Union II’, p. 51.

27 Weiler, ‘Problems of Legitimacy’, p. 419.

28 Scharpf, ‘Legitimacy in the Multilevel European Polity’; Vivien Schmidt, Democracy in Europe: The EU and National Polities, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2007.

29 Fritz W. Scharpf, ‘Reflections on Multilevel Legitimacy’, MPIfG Working Paper 3, 2007, p. 8.

30 Jospeh H. H. Weiler, ‘In Defence of the Status Quo: Europe's Constitutional “Sonderweg” ’, in Joseph H. H. Weiler and Marlene Wind (eds), European Constitutionalism Beyond the State, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2003, pp. 7–23; Bellamy, Richard, ‘The Liberty of the Moderns? Market and Civic Freedom within the EU’, Global Constitutionalism, 1: 1 (2012), pp. 141–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

31 Scharpf, ‘Legitimacy in the Multilevel European Polity’.

32 Bolleyer, Nicole and Reh, Christine, ‘EU Legitimacy Revisited: The Normative Foundations of a Multilevel Polity’, Journal of European Public Policy, 19: 4 (2012), pp. 472–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

33 Miguel P. Maduro, We the Court: The European Court of Justice and the European Economic Constitution, Oxford, Hart, 1998.

34 Stefano Bartolini in Simon Hix and Stefano Bartolini, ‘Politics: The Right or Wrong Sort of Medicine for the EU?’, Notre Europe Policy Paper 19, 2006; Moravcsik, Andrew, ‘ “In Defence of the Democratic Deficit”: Reassessing Legitimacy in the European Union’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 40: 4 (2004), pp. 603–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For the counter-argument see Føllesdal and Hix, ‘Why There is a Democratic Deficit’.

35 Bellamy, ‘The Liberty of the Moderns’; Scharpf, ‘Reflections on Multilevel Legitimacy’; Scharpf, ‘Legitimacy in the Multilevel European Polity’.

36 See for example Lord and Beetham, ‘Legitimizing the EU’.

37 See for example Kohler-Koch, Beate, ‘Civil Society and EU Democracy: “Astroturf” Representation?’, Journal of European Public Policy, 17: 1 (2010), pp. 100–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

38 See for example Eriksen and Fossum, Democracy in the European Union.

39 Andeweg, Rudy B., ‘Consociational Democracy’, Annual Review of Political Science, 3 (2000), pp. 509–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at p. 515; Lijphart, ‘Patterns of Democracy’, pp. 42ff.

40 Bellamy, Kornprobst and Reh, ‘Introduction’, p. 285.

41 Ibid., pp. 285ff.

42 Richard Bellamy and Martin Hollis, ‘Consensus, Neutrality and Compromise’, in Richard Bellamy and Martin Hollis (eds), Pluralism and Liberal Neutrality, London and Portland, OR, Frank Cass, 1999, pp. 54–78.

43 Margalit, On Compromise, chapter 2.

44 Reh, ‘Consensus, Compromise and “Inclusive Agreement” ’.

45 Bellamy, Kornprobst and Reh, ‘Introduction’, pp. 285ff.

46 Margalit, On Compromise, p. 39.

47 Bellamy, Richard, Liberalism and Pluralism: Towards a Politics of Compromise, London, Routledge, 1999, chapter 1Google Scholar.

48 Bellamy, Liberalism and Pluralism, p. 96.

49 Margalit, On Compromise, pp. 37ff.

50 David A. Lax and James K. Sebenius, The Manager as Negotiator: Bargaining for Cooperation and Competitive Gain, New York and London, Free Press, 1986, pp. 112ff. Naurin, Daniel, ‘Why Give Reason? Measuring Arguing and Bargaining in Survey Research’, Swiss Political Science Review, 13: 4 (2007), pp. 559–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Richard E. Walton and Robert B. McKersie, A Behavioral Theory of Labor Negotiations: An Analysis of a Social Interaction System, New York, McGraw-Hill, 1995, pp. 144ff.

51 Holzinger, Katharina, ‘Kommunikationsmodi und Handlungsmodi in den Internationalen Beziehungen: Anmerkungen zu einigen irreführenden Dichotomien’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen, 8: 2 (2001), pp. 243–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at p. 268.

52 Müller, Harald, ‘Arguing, Bargaining and All That: Communicative Action, Rationalist Theory and the Logic of Appropriateness in International Relations’, European Journal of International Relations, 10: 3 (2004), pp. 395–435 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at p. 397.

53 Naurin, ‘Why Give Reason’, p. 561.

54 Lax and Sebenius, The Manager as Negotiator, p. 119.

55 Naurin, ‘Why Give Reason’, p. 563.

56 De Mesquita, Bruce B., Morrow, James D. and Zorick, Ethan R., ‘Capabilities, Perception, and Escalation’, American Political Science Review, 91: 1 (1997), pp. 15–27 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

57 Moravcsik, Andrew, ‘Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics’, International Organization, 51: 4 (1997), pp. 513–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

58 Margalit, On Compromise, p. 48.

59 Ibid., p. 39.

60 Risse, Thomas, ‘ “Let's Argue”! Communicative Action in World Politics’, International Organization, 54: 1 (2000), pp. 1–39 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at p. 7.

61 Bellamy, Liberalism and Pluralism, p. 101.

62 Margalit, On Compromise, p. 41.

63 Reh, ‘Consensus, Compromise and “Inclusive Agreement” ’.

64 Bellamy and Hollis, ‘Consensus, Neutrality and Compromise’, p. 64.

65 Naurin, ‘Why Give Reason’, p. 563. For a more extensive discussion of integrative bargaining see Lax and Sebenius, The Manager as Negotiator; for an overview of different negotiation modes see Hopmann, Terence, ‘Negotiation Data: Reflections on the Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis of Negotiation Processes’, International Negotiation, 7 (2002), pp. 67–85 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

66 For an excellent discussion of the preconditions of successful bargaining more generally see Panke, ‘More Arguing than Bargaining?’.

67 Naurin, ‘Why Give Reason’, p. 562.

68 Bellamy, Liberalism and Pluralism, p. 101.

69 Lax and Sebenius, The Manager as Negotiator, p. 72.

70 Bellamy, Liberalism and Pluralism, p. 104; Holzinger, Katharina, ‘Verhandeln statt Argumentieren oder Verhandeln durch Argumentieren? Eine empirische Analyse auf der Basis der Sprechakttheorie’, Politische Vierteljahresschrift, 42: 3 (2001), pp. 414–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at p. 428.

71 Naurin, ‘Why Give Reason’, p. 563.

72 Reh, ‘Consensus, Compromise and “Inclusive Agreement” ’.

73 Deitelhoff, Nicole and Müller, Harald, ‘Theoretical Paradise: Empirically Lost? Arguing with Habermas’, Review of International Studies, 31 (2005), pp. 167–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at p. 172.

74 Holzinger, ‘Verhandeln statt Argumentieren’, p. 428.

75 Naurin, ‘Why Give Reason’, p. 563.

76 Moravcsik, Andrew, The Choice for Europe, Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Press, 1998, p. 24 Google Scholar.

77 Neyer, ‘Explaining the Unexpected’, p. 28.

78 Müller, ‘Arguing, Bargaining and All That’, p. 397.

79 Batson, C. Daniel and Ahmad, Nadia Y., ‘Using Empathy to Improve Intergroup Attitudes and Relations’, Social Issues and Policy Review, 3: 1 (2009), pp. 141–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at p. 142.

80 Thomas Saretzki, ‘Wie unterscheiden sich Argumentieren und Verhandeln?’, in Volker von Prittwitz (ed.), Verhandeln und Argumentieren: Dialog, Interessen und Macht in der Umweltpolitik, Opladen, Leske and Budrich, 1996, pp. 19–39.

81 Reh, ‘Consensus, Compromise and “Inclusive Agreement” ’, pp. 183ff.

82 David Beetham, The Legitimation of Power, Basingstoke, Macmillan, 1991, pp. 6–13; David Easton, A System's Analysis of Political Life, New York and London, John Wiley & Sons, 1965, pp. 159–64.

83 Beetham, The Legitimation of Power, p. 26.

84 Ibid., p. 25; see also Reus-Smit, Christian, ‘International Crisis of Legitimacy’, International Politics, 44: 2/3 (2007), pp. 157–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

85 Beetham, The Legitimation of Power, p. 27; see also Scharpf, Governing in Europe.

86 Beetham, The Legitimation of Power, pp. 15–25.

87 Héritier, Adrienne, ‘Elements of Democratic Legitimation in Europe: An Alternative Perspective’, Journal of European Public Policy, 6: 2 (1999), pp. 269–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

88 Majone, Giandomenico, ‘Europe's “Democracy Deficit”: The Question of Standards’, European Law Journal, 4: 1 (1998), pp. 5–28 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

89 For an overview see Neyer, Jürgen, ‘The Deliberative Turn in Integration Theory’, Journal of European Public Policy, 13: 5 (2006), pp. 779–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

90 Panke, ‘More Arguing than Bargaining?’.

91 Reh, ‘Consensus, Compromise and “Inclusive Agreement” ’, pp. 188–9.

92 Hirschman, Albert O., ‘Social Conflicts as Pillars of Democratic Market Society’, Political Theory, 22: 2 (1994), pp. 203–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar, p. 214.

93 Bellamy, Liberalism and Pluralism, p. 102; Reh, ‘Consensus, Compromise and “Inclusive Agreement” ’, pp. 188ff.

94 Margalit, On Compromise, p. 40.

95 Ibid., p. 41.

96 For a similar argument see Weiler, ‘In Defence of the Status Quo’.

97 Margalit, On Compromise, p. 41.

98 Ibid., p. 43.

99 Ibid.

100 Hayes-Renshaw, Fiona, van Aken, Wim and Wallace, Helen, ‘When and Why the Council of Ministers Votes Explicitly’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 44: 1 (2006), pp. 161–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at p. 163; see also Heisenberg, ‘The Institution of “Consensus” ’.

101 Batson and Ahmad, ‘Using Empathy’, p. 149; emphasis added.

102 Bellamy, Liberalism and Pluralism, p. 106.

103 Batson and Ahmad, ‘Using Empathy’, p. 145.

104 Ibid., pp. 145–6; see also Galinsky, Adam D., Maddux, William W., Gilin, Debra and White, Judith B., ‘Why it Pays to Get Inside the Head of Your Opponent: The Differential Effects of Perspective Taking and Empathy in Negotiations’, Psychological Science, 19: 4 (2008), pp. 378–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Michael Morrell, Empathy and Democracy: Thinking, Feeling and Deliberation, University Park, Pennsylvania University Press, 2010.

105 Galinsky et al., ‘Why it Pays’, p. 379.

106 Ibid., p. 379I and II.

107 Ibid., p. 383II.

108 Morrell, Empathy and Democracy, p. 16.

109 Bolleyer and Reh, ‘EU Legitimacy Revisited’.

110 Weiler, ‘In Defence of the Status Quo’, p. 20.

111 Scharpf, ‘Reflections on Multilevel Legitimacy’; Scharpf, ‘Legitimacy in the Multilevel European Polity’.

112 Weiler, ‘In Defence of the Status Quo’, p. 15.

113 Thomas H. Marshall, ‘Citizenship and Social Class’, in Thomas H. Marshall and Tom Bottomore, Citizenship and Social Class, London, Pluto Press, 1992.

114 Bellamy, ‘The Liberty of the Moderns’; Scharpf, ‘Reflections on Multilevel Legitimacy’; Scharpf, ‘Legitimacy in the Multilevel European Polity’; Bolleyer and Reh, ‘EU Legitimacy Revisited’.

115 Weiler, ‘In Defence of the Status Quo’, p. 19.

116 Bolleyer and Reh, ‘EU Legitimacy Revisited’.

117 Margalit, On Compromise, p. 49.

118 Hirschman, ‘Social Conflicts as Pillars’; see also Andeweg, ‘Consociational Democracy’, pp. 511 and 530.

119 Bellamy, Liberalism and Pluralism, p. 103; Margalit, On Compromise, pp. 48ff.