Teaching Projects


 

 

Teaching Nr.

  1

Title

VO European Integration I: Theories and Politics within Global Dynamics (MA)

Prof. in charge

Prof. Dr. Andreas Maurer

Typology

X Lecture 

o Seminar

o Summer course

o Training course

o Intensive course

o Distance learning course

 

Description

 

Weekly lecture on the theoretical conceptualization of EU integration and their application with regard to the institutional, inter-institutional and functional scope of EU integration. The focus of this lecture is the discussion and analysis of traditional and recent EU integration theories. The theory models and their explanatory power are analysed with regard to the genesis and transformation of European primary, secondary and tertiary/soft law, criteria of democratic, efficient, effective and transparent policymaking as well as policy-specific questions on the functional scope and density of European integration in the context of increasing socio-economic integration of the EU with other regions of the international community. The focus will therefore be on examples of European trade policy, the foreign policy dimensions of the single market policies and economic and monetary union, development and economic cooperation policies and the common foreign and security policy. Particular attention is paid to the justification, reform, structures and procedures of cross-level decision-making and control institutions.

Datum

Themen

 

Session 1

Einführung

 

Session 2

Föderalismus, Bieling/Lerch, 35-54, S a), b),

è  Bundesstaatsideen im Kontext des Nachkriegs

è  Zentralisierung-Dezentalisierung und optimale Handlungskontexte

è  Kompetenzfragen und Subsidiarität

è  Subsidiarität nach Oben (EU/WTO)

 

Session 3

(Neo)Funktionalismus, Bieling/Lerch, 55-76, S d), e)

è  Interessengruppen und Außenpolitik

 

Session 4

(Post)Funktionalismus, Bieling/Lerch, 55-76, S f), g) h) i) j)

è  TTIP, CETA, WWU-Governance

 

Session 5

(Post)Funktionalismus, Desintegration, Bieling/Lerch, 55-76, S f), g) h) i) j)

è  BREXIT, Ungarn/Polen vs. EU

 

Session 6

Neorealismus / Intergouvernementalismus, Bieling/Lerch, 77-98, S h), i)

è  GASP/ESVP

 

Session 7

Neorealismus / Intergouvernementalismus, Bieling/Lerch, 77-98, S h), i)

è  GASP/ESVP

 

Session 8

Liberaler Intergouvernementalismus / New Intergovernmentalism,  Bieling/Lerch 141-164, S k) l)

è  Entwicklung und Wandel EU-außenpolitischer Ideen

è  Staaten-Gesellschaft und Politik, ACTA, Assoziierungspolitiken

 

Session 9

Multi-Level Governance, Bieling/Lerch 187-206, S c), t)

è  Mandatierungsprozesse in der Handelspolitik EU/EFTA

 

Session 10

Multi-Level Governance, Bieling/Lerch 187-206, S m), n) o) p) q) r)

è  Parlamente und Außenpolitik I

 

Session 11

(Neo) Institutionalismus, Bieling / Lerch 225-246, S p) q) s) t)

è  Parlamentarisierung der Handelspolitik

 

Session 12

(Neo) Institutionalismus, Bieling / Lerch 225-246, S p) q) s) t)

è  Pfadabhängigkeit: Rahmenabkommen und Verpflichtungen der EU-Kommission

 

Session 13

Klausur

 

Pflichtliteratur für alle TeilnehmerInnen in allen Sitzungen:

 

1.     Hans-Jürgen Bieling / Marika Lerch (Hrsg.): Theorien der Europäischen Integration, 3. Aufl. VS Verlag, Wiesbaden 2012 (i.F. abgekürzt Bieling/Lerch).

2.     Sieglinde Gstöhl / Dirk de Bièvre: The Trade policy of the European Union, London, Palgrave 2018

3.     Grundlagentexte (Syllabus) (i.F. abgekürzt S…):

 

a.     Altiero Spinelli, Manifest der Europäischen Integration, http://www.cvce.eu/obj/das_manifest_von_ventotene_1941-de-316aa96c-e7ff-4b9e-b43a-958e96afbecc.html.  

b.     David Mitrany, The Prospect of Integration, Federal or Functional, 1965

c.     Andreas Maurer, Comparing EU and EFTA Trade Agreements: Drivers, Actors, Benefits, and Costs, 2016.

d.     Ernst B. Haas, The Uniting of Europe – Political, Social and Economic Forces, 1958

e.     Leon Lindberg, The Political Dynamics of European Economic Integration, 1963

f.      Liesbet Hooghe/Gary Marks: A Postfunctionalist Theory of European Integration: From Permissive Consensus to Constraining Dissensus, 2008

g.     Frank Schimmelpfennig: European Integration in the Euro Crisis: The Limits of Postfunctionalism, 2014

h.     Dorette Corbey: Dialectical functionalism: stagnation as a booster of European integration, 2009

i.      Philippe Schmitter: On the Way to a Post-Functionalist Theory of European Integration, 2009

j.      Hans Vollaard: Explaining European Disintegration, 2014

k.     Stanley Hoffmann, Obstinate or Obsolete? The Fate of the Nation-State and the Case of Western Europe, 1966

l.      Wayne Sandholtz/John Zysman, Recasting the European Bargain, 1989

m.    Simon Collard-Wexler: Integration Under Anarchy: Neorealism and the European Union 2006

n.     Andrew Moravcsik, Negotiating the Single European Act: national interests and conventional statecraft in the European Community, 1991

o.     Bickerton/Hodson/Puetter: The New Intergovernmentalism: European Integration in the Post-Maastricht Era, 2105

p.     Fritz W. Scharpf, Die Politikverflechtungsfalle – Europäische Integration und deutscher Föderalismus im Vergleich, 1985

q.     Robert Putnam: Diplomacy and domestic politics: The logic of two-level games, 1988

r.      Gary Marks et.al., European Integration from the 1980s: State-Centric v. Multi-Level Governance

s.     Paul Pierson, The Path to European Integration, A Historical Institutionalist Analysis, 1996

t.     Simon Hix, The Study of the European Union II: The new governance agenda and its rival, 1998

 

Impact

Students will be enabled to reconstruct, analyze and evaluate theoretical models and conceptual approaches concerning EU integration in order to promote an understanding of integration and cooperation processes. They know and are able to characterize the features of the political system of the EU, including inter-institutional negotiation and decision-making processes, functional specialization, the embedding of the EU in international contexts such as the WTO and the UN, and cooperation between the EU and other states and international organizations.

 

1st acad. year:

2nd acad. year:

3rd acad. year:

Total over 3 years:

N° of hours

30

30

30

90

N° of students

30

30

30

30

Discipline of

audience

Students of the MA programme “Political Science: European and International Studies”

Year/type of study

 

o 1st cycle (Bachelor) 

X 2nd cycle (Masters)

o 3rd cycle (Postgraduate)

o Doctoral studies

o Summer school

 

Nature

X Compulsory 

o Optional

o New

X Existing

Timing

X 1st year 

X 2nd year

X 3rd year

X 1st semester 

o 2nd semester

 

             

 

 

 

Teaching Nr.

  2

Title

SE European Integration I: Theories and Politics within Global Dynamics (MA)

Prof. in charge

Prof. Dr. Andreas Maurer

Typology

o Lecture 

X Seminar

o Summer course

o Training course

o Intensive course

o Distance learning course

 

Description

 

The Seminar reconstructs, analyses and evaluates theoretical models and concepts on European integration. The seminar concentrates on definitions and hypotheses with regard to the characteristics of the EU's political system including the process of interinstitutional negotiation and decision-making, the differentiation of the EU's functional scope, the EU's inclusion within wider contexts such as the WTO, and the cooperation between the EU and third countries and organisations. Overall, the seminar will discuss theoretical approaches to EU integration and their application with regard to the institutional, procedural, and functional dimension:

- Neofunctialist, Federalist and Neorealist approaches to analyse the EU’s foreign, security and trade policies

- Multi-Level Governance in polyarchic systems – analysing the EU’s international agreements’ policies

- Neo-institutionalisms and their explanatory power to describe, analyse and explain the EU’s trade policy

- Inter- und intrainstitutional dynamics of the EU – role attributions, claims and functions of the EU institutions in the EU’s foreign policies

- Working mechanisms of the EU institutions – Intra-institutional dynamics in the area of trade policy, development policy, neighbourhood policy, international climate policy, CFSP, and ESDP

- Institutional and procedural characteristics of EU politics in the member states

- NGOs and the EU’s trade policy

 

Methods: Presentation of short papers on the basis of the literature compiled for the seminar / weekly drafting of seminar papers on the basis of the literature compiled for the seminar / Independent elaboration of case studies for the analysis of different theories

 

Assessment: Oral presentation + Position paper/Abstract + Written paper

 

Datum

Themen

 

Session 1

Einführung

 

Session 2

Föderalismus, Bieling/Lerch, 35-54, S a), b),

 

Session 3

(Neo)Funktionalismus, Bieling/Lerch, 55-76, S d), e)

è  Interessengruppen und Außenpolitik

 

Session 4

(Post)Funktionalismus, Bieling/Lerch, 55-76, S f), g) h) i) j)

è  TTIP, CETA

 

Session 5

(Post)Funktionalismus, Desintegration, Bieling/Lerch, 55-76, S f), g) h) i) j)

è  EU/UK relations after BREXIT

 

Session 6

Neorealismus / Intergouvernementalismus, Bieling/Lerch, 77-98, S h), i)

è  GASP/ESVP

 

Session 7

Neorealismus / Intergouvernementalismus, Bieling/Lerch, 77-98, S h), i)

è  EU trade and development policy, EU-Vietnam FTA vs. EU South Korea FTA

 

Session 8

Liberaler Intergouvernementalismus / New Intergovernmentalism,  Bieling/Lerch 141-164, S k) l)

è  Entwicklung und Wandel EU-außenpolitischer Ideen

è  ACTA, Assoziierungspolitiken

 

Session 9

Multi-Level Governance, Bieling/Lerch 187-206, S c), t)

è  Mandatierungsprozesse in der Handelspolitik EU vs. EFTA

 

Session 10

Multi-Level Governance, Bieling/Lerch 187-206, S m), n) o) p) q) r)

è  Parlamente und Außenpolitik

 

Session 11

(Neo) Institutionalismus, Bieling / Lerch 225-246, S p) q) s) t)

è  Parlamentarisierung der Handelspolitik

 

Session 12

(Neo) Institutionalismus, Bieling / Lerch 225-246, S p) q) s) t)

è  Pfadabhängigkeit: Rahmenabkommen und Verpflichtungen der EU-Kommission

 

Session 13 and Session 14

Applying theoretical models to MA theses: Best practice examples and „Lernwerkstatt“: Students form groups to discuss the application of EU integration theories to analyse the negotiations towards CETA, the EU-Vietnam FTA, the EU-Singapore FTA, the EU-Perou/Colombia FTA, the EU and the International Tropical Timber Agreement, the EU-Morocco agreements. Each group presents its outline to understand the explanatory power of “their” theory.

 

Pflichtliteratur für alle TeilnehmerInnen in allen Sitzungen:

 

  • Hans-Jürgen Bieling / Marika Lerch (Hrsg.): Theorien der Europäischen Integration, 3. Aufl. VS Verlag, Wiesbaden 2012 (i.F. abgekürzt Bieling/Lerch).
  • Sieglinde Gstöhl / Dirk de Bièvre: The Trade policy of the European Union, London, Palgrave 2018
  • Grundlagentexte (Syllabus) (i.F. abgekürzt S…):

 

a.     Altiero Spinelli, Manifest der Europäischen Integration, http://www.cvce.eu/obj/das_manifest_von_ventotene_1941-de-316aa96c-e7ff-4b9e-b43a-958e96afbecc.html.  

b.     David Mitrany, The Prospect of Integration, Federal or Functional, 1965

c.     Andreas Maurer, Comparing EU and EFTA Trade Agreements: Drivers, Actors, Benefits, and Costs, 2016.

d.     Ernst B. Haas, The Uniting of Europe – Political, Social and Economic Forces, 1958

e.     Leon Lindberg, The Political Dynamics of European Economic Integration, 1963

f.      Liesbet Hooghe/Gary Marks: A Postfunctionalist Theory of European Integration: From Permissive Consensus to Constraining Dissensus, 2008

g.     Frank Schimmelpfennig: European Integration in the Euro Crisis: The Limits of Postfunctionalism, 2014

h.    Dorette Corbey: Dialectical functionalism: stagnation as a booster of European integration, 2009

i.      Philippe Schmitter: On the Way to a Post-Functionalist Theory of European Integration, 2009

j.      Hans Vollaard: Explaining European Disintegration, 2014

k.     Stanley Hoffmann, Obstinate or Obsolete? The Fate of the Nation-State and the Case of Western Europe, 1966

l.      Wayne Sandholtz/John Zysman, Recasting the European Bargain, 1989

m.   Simon Collard-Wexler: Integration Under Anarchy: Neorealism and the European Union 2006

n.    Andrew Moravcsik, Negotiating the Single European Act: national interests and conventional statecraft in the European Community, 1991

o.     Bickerton/Hodson/Puetter: The New Intergovernmentalism: European Integration in the Post-Maastricht Era, 2105

p.     Fritz W. Scharpf, Die Politikverflechtungsfalle – Europäische Integration und deutscher Föderalismus im Vergleich, 1985

q.     Robert Putnam: Diplomacy and domestic politics: The logic of two-level games, 1988

r.     Gary Marks et.al., European Integration from the 1980s: State-Centric v. Multi-Level Governance

s.     Paul Pierson, The Path to European Integration, A Historical Institutionalist Analysis, 1996

t.     Simon Hix, The Study of the European Union II: The new governance agenda and its rival, 1998

 

Impact

Students are able to reconstruct, analyze and evaluate theoretical models and conceptual proposals concerning EU integration in order to promote an understanding of integration and cooperation processes. They know and are able to characterize the features of the political system of the EU, including inter-institutional negotiation and decision-making processes, functional specialization, the embedding of the EU in international contexts, and cooperation between the EU and other states and international organizations.

 

1st acad. year:

2nd acad. year:

3rd acad. year:

Total over 3 years:

N° of hours

30

30

30

90

N° of students

30

30

30

30

Discipline of

audience

Students of the MA programme “Political Science: European and International Studies”

Year/type of study

 

o 1st cycle (Bachelor) 

X 2nd cycle (Masters)

o 3rd cycle (Postgraduate)

o Doctoral studies

o Summer school

 

Nature

X Compulsory 

o Optional

o New

X Existing

Timing

X 1st year 

X 2nd year

X 3rd year

X 1st semester 

o 2nd semester

 

             

 

 

 

Teaching Nr.

  3

Title

VO Multi-Level Governance and European Democratic Society (MA)

Prof. in charge

Prof. Dr. Andreas Maurer

Typology

X Lecture 

o Seminar

o Summer course

o Training course

o Intensive course

o Distance learning course

 

Description

 

Do the dynamics of international trade politics and global governance erode parliamentary democracy? Against the backdrop of the overall evolution of the WTO, some parliaments are intensifying their focus on issues relating to their role in international trade, multilateral trading systems and international trade organisations’ decision-making. This lecture seeks to show how parliamentary bodies (re)-act in and adapt to a dynamic institutional and procedural set up. How do parliamentary actors in different (supra)-, (inter-) and -national and socio-political settings, and forged in different national traditions, adapt to common challenges, constraints and opportunities for which they are mainly responsible themselves, since they have ratified the fundamental set-up of these opportunity structures? Do international treaties matter - and in how far do they matter - for the set-up and the functioning of parliamentary involvement? During the last two decades, many legislatures and interparliamentary groups have expressed support for a greater role for parliamentarians in global governance. In this respect, the September 2000 declaration of the presiding officers of national parliaments meeting at the United Nations underlined that „Parliaments embody the sovereignty of the people and can, in all legitimacy, contribute to expressing the will of the State internationally […] parliaments and their members must assume increased responsibility in international relations”.  They therefore called on all national legislatures to „strengthen their activities and capacities at the domestic level in order to undertake larger international responsibilities. This should include „continuous dialogue” with the public on international affairs, better use of current legislative procedures, involvement of all parties and members, contributions to government negotiations, better information gathering, and „a more proactive role in ratification and compliance with international agreements.”  As regards interparliamentary cooperation for exchanging views on parliamentary scrutiny in transnational governance, the Inter-parliamentary Union and the European Parliament have acted as joint initiators of this kind of dialogue.

In theory, Parliaments may use their traditional control and ratification powers to shape international regimes and try to maximise the returns on this use of power. Yet in order to assess their capacity to do so, it is important to define the nature of the challenges facing parliaments in a growing international trade regime. To this end, the following background conditions are of relevance:

-     the dynamic evolution of new and refined agreements leading to an ever-increasing set of frameworks for policy-making in the area of trade policy, e.g. the construction of the services trade regime on the multilateral level in the form of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) in the framework of the World Trade Organisation;

-     the subsequent widening of the functional scope of the WTO leading to a sectoral differentiation of an increasing variety of policy issues within the trade regime, and thus involving more and more national actors;

-     the creation of institutions by subsequent trade agreements lead to an increasing number of interaction styles and modes of governance within the process of regime-building;

-     the set-up of different kinds of formal and informal procedures, which provide the actors with several opportunity structures for consensus-building. The EU’s trade agreements foresee complex decision-making rules. This procedural differentiation increases the complexity of regime-building in the area of trade policy and the need of parliamentary actors to improve their procedural skills;

-     the activation of policy networks, as well as procedural and working mechanisms, which allow a growing set of interest groups outside the ‘official’ array of institutions to participate in trade policy-making. This specific kind of regime-building gives rise to the imperative of allowing more and more actors to articulate their opinions. Consequently, the trade agreements induce an increasing need to take political sensibilities in a broader set of coalition games into account.

Given these background conditions, we ask whether parliaments are catching up with the profound change of their politico-institutional environments: are parliamentarians the losers of international policy-making in trade matters? Alternatively, are we witnessing a process of institutional adaptation to the EU’s and the WTO’s trade regimes?

 

Overall, the Lecture introduces concepts, hypotheses and applications of multi-level system analysis with regard to the EU's system. While focusing on the EU’s trade and international agreements policies, the lecture provides a systematic analysis of functions and profiles of both the European Parliament and national (sub-national) parliaments with regard to trade policy-making (legislative functions), control and accountability, (s)election and creation functions, communication, representation and interaction functions and system-development functions. We will analyse institutional and functional change in the area of the EU’s common commercial policy from the Rome treaties to the Lisbon treaty. In how far, under which circumstances and depending on which (set of) intervening variables do parliaments develop their concepts and strategies for parliamentarisation, democratisation and legitimisation of the EU’s trade policy? What kinds of parliamentary diplomacy can we observe? How do parliaments operate in interparliamentary networks and assemblies? How do parliamentary concepts and strategies for participating in EU trade policy impact on interparliamentary processes and institutions?

 

Basisliteratur

 

Bungenberg, Marc/Herrmann, Christoph (Eds.): Die gemeinsame Handelspolitik der Europäischen Union nach Lissabon, Baden-Baden, Nomos 2011.

Bungenberg, Marc/Herrmann, Christoph (Eds.): Die gemeinsame Handelspolitik der Europäischen Union. Fünf Jahre nach Lissabon - Quo Vadis?, Baden-Baden, Nomos 2016.

Dialer, Doris/Maurer, Andreas/Richter, Margarethe: Handbuch zum Europäischen Parlament, Baden-Baden 2015.

Corbett, Richard/Jacobs, Francis/Shackleton, Michael (2011): The European Parliament, 8th Ed., London: John Harper Publishing.

Gstöhl, Sieglinde/de Bièvre, Dirk: The Trade Policy of the European Union, London, Palgrave 2018.

Kadelbach, Stefan (Ed.): Die Welt und Wir. Die Außenbeziehungen der Europäischen Union, Baden-Baden, Nomos 2017.

Kuijper, Pieter J./Wouters, Jan/Hoffmeister, Frank/De Baere, Geert/Ramopoulos, Thomas: The Law of EU External Relations, 2nd. Edition, Oxford University Press 2015

Meunier, Sophie: Trading Voices. The European Union in International Commercial Negotiations, Princeton University Press 2005.

Stavridis, Stelios/Irerra, Daniela (Eds.) The European Parliament and its International Relations, Milton Park, Routledge 2015.

Stavridis, Stelios/Jancic, Davor (Eds.): Parliamentary Diplomacy in European and Global Governance, Leiden/Boston, Brill/Nijhoff 2017.

Woolcock, Stephen: European Union Economic Diplomacy, Farnham, Ashgate 2012.

 

Vertiefungsliteratur:

 

·       Auel, Katrin/Arthur Benz (Hrsg.) (2005): The Europeanisation of Parliamentary Democracy, Journal of Legislative Studies, Vol. 11, Nr. 3-4 (Special Issue).

·       Cooper, Ian (2014): Parliamentary Oversight of the EU after the Crisis: On the Creation of the 'Article 13' Interparliamentary Conference, LUISS Guido Carli School of Government Working Paper No. SOG-WP21/2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2488723.

·       Costa, Oliver/Latek, Maria (2001): “Paradoxes et limites de la coopération interparlementaire dans l'Union européenne“, in: Journal of European Integration, Vol. 23 Nr. 2, S. 139-164.

·       Costa, Olivier/Dehousse, Renaud/Trakalova, Aneta (2011): Codecision and "early agreements”. An improvement or a subversion of the legislative procedure?, Notre Europe, Paper Nr. 84, Paris.

·       Crum, Ben/John E. Fossum (2009): ‘The Multilevel Parliamentary Field: A Framework for Theorizing Representative Democracy in the EU’, European Political Science Review, Vol. 1, Nr. 2, S. 249-271.

·       Eppler, Annegret (2011): „Vertikal und horizontal, bi- und multilateral: Interparlamentarische Beziehungen in EU-Angelegenheiten”, in: Abels, Gabriele/Eppler, Annegret (Hrsg.) (2011): Auf dem Weg zum Mehrebenenparlamentarismus? Funktionen von Parlamenten im politischen System der EU, Baden-Baden, Nomos, S. 297-314.

·       Farrel, Henry/Adrienne Hèritier (2007): "Codecision and Institutional Change”, in: West European Politics, Vol. 38 Nr. 2, S. 285-300.

·       Kietz, Daniela/Maurer, Andreas (2004): Die neuen Rechte der nationalen Parlamente, Diskussionspapier, SWP, 2004-04, Berlin, http://www.swp-berlin.org/fileadmin/contents/products/arbeitspapiere/DieneuenRechteKS.pdf.

·       Kietz, Daniela/Maurer, Andreas (2007): “The European Parliament in Treaty Reform: Predefining IGCs through Interinstitutional Agreements”, in: European Law Journal, Vol. 13, No. 1/2007, pp. 20-46.

·       Kietz, Daniela/Maurer, Andreas (2010): “The European Parliament and Treaty Change: Predefining Reforms through Interinstitutional Agreements”, in: Kietz/Slominski/Maurer/Puntscher-Riekmann (Eds.): Interinstitutionelle Vereinbarungen in der Europäischen Union. Baden-Baden, Nomos, S. 157-198.

·       Maurer, Andreas (1996): Perspectives de la coopération entre le Parlement européen et les Parlements nationaux, Europäisches Parlament/GD IV, Reihe Politik, Nr. W-19, Luxemburg. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/1996/166066/DG-4-AFCO_ET(1996)166066_FR.pdf

·       Maurer, Andreas (2002): Parlamentarische Demokratie in der Europäischen Union. Der Beitrag des Europäischen Parlaments und der nationalen Parlamente, Baden-Baden, Nomos. http://www.amazon.de/Parlamentarische-Demokratie-Europ%C3%A4ischen-Union-Parlaments-ebook/dp/B00JI76ZO6/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1425909244&sr=8-2&keywords=Parlamentarische+Demokratie+in+der+Europ%C3%A4ischen+Union+Andreas+Maurer

·       Maurer, Andreas (2003): “The Legislative Powers and Impact of the European Parliament”, in: Journal of Common Market Studies, No. 2/2003, pp. 227-247.

·       Maurer, Andreas (2007): “The European Parliament between Policy-Making and Control”, in: Beate Kohler-Koch / Berthold Rittberger (Ed.): Debating the Democratic Legitimacy of the European Union, Lanham, MD/Oxford/Tokio, Rowman & Littlefield, 2007, pp. 75-101.

·       Maurer, Andreas (2011): „Mehrebenenparlamentarismus – Konzeptionelle und empirische Fragen zu den Funktionen von Parlamenten nach dem Vertrag von Lissabon“, in: Abels, Gabriele/Eppler, Annegret (Hrsg.) (2011): Auf dem Weg zum Mehrebenenparlamentarismus? Funktionen von Parlamenten im politischen System der EU, Baden-Baden, Nomos, S. 43-64.

·       Maurer, Andreas (2014): „Die Kreationsfunktion des Europäischen Parlaments im Spannungsfeld zwischen Politisierungsimpulsen und Systemerfordernissen“, in: Zeitschrift für Politik, Nr. 3/2014, pp. 301-326.

·       Maurer, Andreas/Wessels, Wolfgang (2001): National Parliaments on their Ways to Europe. Losers or Latecomers?, Baden-Baden, Nomos.  http://aei.pitt.edu/1476/1/National_Parliaments_Losers_or_Latecomers.pdf

·       Raunio, Tapio (1996): "Parliamentary Questions in the European Parliament: Representation, Information and Control", in: Journal of Legislative Studies, Vol. 2 Nr. 4, S. 356-382.

·       Raunio, Tapio (2005a): „Holding Governments Accountable in European Affairs: Explaining Cross-National Variation”, in: Journal of Legislative Studies, Vol. 11, Nr. 3-4, S. 319-342.

·       Tsebelis, George (1994): "The Power of the European Parliament as a conditional Agenda-Setter”, in: American Political Science Review, Vol. 88 Nr. 1, S. 128-142.

·       Tsebelis, George/Garret Geoffrey (1997): "Agenda-Setting, Vetoes and the European Union’s Co-Decision procedure", in: Journal of Legislative Studies, Vol. 3 Nr. 3, S. 74-92.

·       Tsebelis, George/Garret, Geoffrey (1995): "Conditional Agenda-Setting and Decision-Making inside the European Parliament", in: Journal of Legislative Studies, Vol. 1 Nr. 1, S. 65-93.

 

Datum

Thema

 

Session 1

Mehrebenensystemtheorie und Theorie des Mehrebenenparlamentarismus

 

Session 2

Lesarten des Europäischen Parlaments – Das EP im Politikzyklus der europäischen Handelspolitik

 

Session 3

Europäisches Parlament und Systemgestaltung – Liberaler Intergouvernementalismus vs. Neo-Institutionalismus: Die Entwicklung der Parlamentsbefugnisse in der europäischen Handels- und internationalen Abkommenspolitik

 

Session 4

Kontrollfunktionen des Europäischen Parlaments – Neo-Institutionalismus: Kontrollbeziehungen des Parlaments gegenüber der Kommission und dem Ministerrat im Bereich der Handels- und Entwicklungspolitik

 

Session 5

Gesetzgebungsfunktionen des Europäischen Parlaments – Lesarten des Neo-Institutionalismus am Beispiel der sekundärrechtlichen Ausformung der autonomen Handelspolitik

 

Session 6

Kreationsfunktion und Wahlfunktion des Europäischen Parlaments – Neo-Funktionalismus vs. Neo-Institutionalismus

 

Session 7

Das Europäische Parlament in der Europäischen Handelsabkommenspolitik – Luns-Westerterp, Rahmenabkommen und Zustimmungsverfahren

 

Session 8

Nationale Parlamente und Regieren in der EU – Theoriebildung zu den Funktionen

 

Session 9

Nationale Parlamente und Regieren in der EU – Theoriebildung zum Politikzyklus der europäischen Handels- und internationalen Abkommenspolitik

 

Session 10

Empirie zur europapolitischen Mitwirkung der nationalen Parlamente in der Handels-, Entwicklungs-, Aussen- und Sicherheitspolitik

 

Session 11

Interparlamentarische Kooperation in der Aussen- und Sicherheitspolitik der EU

 

Session 12

Interparlamentarische Kooperation in der Handelspolitik der EU

 

Session 13 und Session 14

Mehrebenendemokratie – Mehrebenenparlamentarismus – eine Bilanz am Beispiel der Verhandlungen zum Handelsabkommen der EU mit Südkorea, ACTA und CETA

 

Session 15

Klausur

 

 

Impact

Students are able to reconstruct the embedding of EU bodies, member states, and nongovernmental organizations in the multilevel system of the EU. They can describe and explain the complex interactions, interdependencies and cooperative efforts of institutions and processes. Students are able to analyze issues concerning the democratic legitimacy of European governance with regard to its international dimension and the EU’s common commercial policy.

 

1st acad. year:

2nd acad. year:

3rd acad. year:

Total over 3 years:

N° of hours

30

30

30

90

N° of students

30

30

30

30

Discipline of

audience

Students of the MA programme “Political Science: European and International Studies”

Year/type of study

 

o 1st cycle (Bachelor) 

X 2nd cycle (Masters)

o 3rd cycle (Postgraduate)

o Doctoral studies

o Summer school

 

Nature

X Compulsory 

o Optional

X New

 Existing

Timing

X 1st year 

X 2nd year

X 3rd year

X 1st semester 

 2nd semester

 

             

 

 

 

Teaching Nr.

  4

Title

SE Multi-Level Governance and European Democratic Society (MA)

Prof. in charge

Prof. Dr. Andreas Maurer

Typology

 Lecture 

X Seminar

o Summer course

o Training course

o Intensive course

o Distance learning course

 

Description

 

Do the dynamics of international trade politics and global governance erode parliamentary democracy? Against the backdrop of the overall evolution of the WTO, some parliaments are intensifying their focus on issues relating to their role in international trade, multilateral trading systems and international trade organisations’ decision-making. This seminar seeks to analyse how parliamentary bodies (re)-act in and adapt to a dynamic institutional and procedural set up. How, under which conditions do parliamentary actors in different (supra)-, (inter-) and -national and socio-political settings, and forged in different national traditions, adapt to common challenges, constraints and opportunities for which they are mainly responsible themselves, since they have ratified the fundamental set-up of these opportunity structures? Do international treaties matter - and in how far do they matter - for the set-up and the functioning of parliamentary involvement?

 

In theory, Parliaments may use their traditional control and ratification powers to shape international regimes and try to maximise the returns on this use of power. Yet in order to assess their capacity to do so, it is important to define the nature of the challenges facing parliaments in a growing international trade regime. We ask whether parliaments are catching up with the profound change of their politico-institutional environments: are parliamentarians the losers of international policy-making in trade matters? Alternatively, are we witnessing a process of institutional adaptation to the EU’s and the WTO’s trade regimes?

 

Overall, the seminar introduces concepts, hypotheses and applications of multi-level system analysis with regard to the EU's system. While focusing on the EU’s trade and international agreements policies, the lecture provides a systematic analysis of functions and profiles of both the European Parliament and national (sub-national) parliaments with regard to trade policy-making (legislative functions), control and accountability, (s)election and creation functions, communication, representation and interaction functions and system-development functions. We will analyse institutional and functional change in the area of the EU’s common commercial policy from the Rome treaties to the Lisbon treaty. In how far, under which circumstances and depending on which (set of) intervening variables do parliaments develop their concepts and strategies for parliamentarisation, democratisation and legitimisation of the EU’s trade policy? What kinds of parliamentary diplomacy can we observe? How do parliaments operate in interparliamentary networks and assemblies? How do parliamentary concepts and strategies for participating in EU trade policy impact on interparliamentary processes and institutions?

 

Method: All students draft short papers on selected research contributions. Two students (selection in alphabetical order) present their synthesis and introduce the discussion.

 

Assessment: Oral Presentation + Abstract/Presentation paper + Written paper

 

Basisliteratur

 

Bungenberg, Marc/Herrmann, Christoph (Eds.): Die gemeinsame Handelspolitik der Europäischen Union nach Lissabon, Baden-Baden, Nomos 2011.

Bungenberg, Marc/Herrmann, Christoph (Eds.): Die gemeinsame Handelspolitik der Europäischen Union. Fünf Jahre nach Lissabon - Quo Vadis?, Baden-Baden, Nomos 2016.

Dialer, Doris/Maurer, Andreas/Richter, Margarethe: Handbuch zum Europäischen Parlament, Baden-Baden 2015.

Corbett, Richard/Jacobs, Francis/Shackleton, Michael (2011): The European Parliament, 8th Ed., London: John Harper Publishing.

Gstöhl, Sieglinde/de Bièvre, Dirk: The Trade Policy of the European Union, London, Palgrave 2018.

Kadelbach, Stefan (Ed.): Die Welt und Wir. Die Außenbeziehungen der Europäischen Union, Baden-Baden, Nomos 2017.

Kuijper, Pieter J./Wouters, Jan/Hoffmeister, Frank/De Baere, Geert/Ramopoulos, Thomas: The Law of EU External Relations, 2nd. Edition, Oxford University Press 2015

Meunier, Sophie: Trading Voices. The European Union in International Commercial Negotiations, Princeton University Press 2005.

Stavridis, Stelios/Irerra, Daniela (Eds.) The European Parliament and its International Relations, Milton Park, Routledge 2015.

Stavridis, Stelios/Jancic, Davor (Eds.): Parliamentary Diplomacy in European and Global Governance, Leiden/Boston, Brill/Nijhoff 2017.

Woolcock, Stephen: European Union Economic Diplomacy, Farnham, Ashgate 2012.

 

 

Datum

Thema

 

Session 1

Mehrebenensystemtheorie und Theorie des Mehrebenenparlamentarismus

 

Session 2

Lesarten des Europäischen Parlaments – Das EP im Politikzyklus der europäischen Handelspolitik

 

Session 3

Europäisches Parlament und Systemgestaltung – Liberaler Intergouvernementalismus vs. Neo-Institutionalismus: Die Entwicklung der Parlamentsbefugnisse in der europäischen Handels- und internationalen Abkommenspolitik

 

Session 4

Kontrollfunktionen des Europäischen Parlaments – Neo-Institutionalismus: Kontrollbeziehungen des Parlaments gegenüber der Kommission und dem Ministerrat im Bereich der Handels- und Entwicklungspolitik

 

Session 5

Gesetzgebungsfunktionen des Europäischen Parlaments – Lesarten des Neo-Institutionalismus am Beispiel der sekundärrechtlichen Ausformung der autonomen Handelspolitik

 

Session 6

Kreationsfunktion und Wahlfunktion des Europäischen Parlaments – Neo-Funktionalismus vs. Neo-Institutionalismus

 

Session 7

Das Europäische Parlament in der Europäischen Handelsabkommenspolitik – Luns-Westerterp, Rahmenabkommen und Zustimmungsverfahren

 

Session 8

Nationale Parlamente und Regieren in der EU – Theoriebildung zu den Funktionen

 

Session 9

Nationale Parlamente und Regieren in der EU – Theoriebildung zum Politikzyklus der europäischen Handels- und internationalen Abkommenspolitik

 

Session 10

Empirie zur europapolitischen Mitwirkung der nationalen Parlamente in der Handels-, Entwicklungs-, Aussen- und Sicherheitspolitik

 

Session 11

Interparlamentarische Kooperation in der Aussen- und Sicherheitspolitik der EU

 

Session 12

Interparlamentarische Kooperation in der Handelspolitik der EU

 

Session 13 und Session 14

Mehrebenendemokratie – Mehrebenenparlamentarismus – eine Bilanz am Beispiel der Verhandlungen zum Handelsabkommen der EU mit Südkorea, ACTA und CETA

 

Session 15

Schlussbesprechung und Evaluierung

 

 

Impact

Students will be able to analyze the integration of parliamentary bodies into the EU multilevel system and its international agreements’ and trade policies. They can analyze policy-area and level-specific questions on the democratic legitimacy of European governance. On the basis of concrete case studies, they acquaint themselves with the practice of parliamentary involvement in EU trade policy and inter-parliamentary cooperation. They learn to validate theory-based hypotheses on questions of democracy, legitimacy and effectiveness of European integration on the basis of empirical findings of their own.

 

1st acad. year:

2nd acad. year:

3rd acad. year:

Total over 3 years:

N° of hours

30

30

30

90

N° of students

30

30

30

30

Discipline of

audience

Students of the MA programme “Political Science: European and International Studies”

Year/type of study

 

o 1st cycle (Bachelor) 

X 2nd cycle (Masters)

o 3rd cycle (Postgraduate)

o Doctoral studies

o Summer school

 

Nature

X Compulsory 

o Optional

X New

 Existing

Timing

X 1st year 

X 2nd year

X 3rd year

X 1st semester 

 2nd semester

 

             

 

 

 

Teaching Nr.

  5

Title

SE Coordination and Agenda-Shaping in the European Parliament and beyond

Prof. in charge

Prof. Dr. Andreas Maurer / Michael Wolf

Typology

 Lecture 

X Seminar

o Summer course

o Training course

o Intensive course

o Distance learning course

 

Description

 

Many scholars, politicians, media actors and not surprisingly the majority of its electorate do not perceive the European Parliament as an “ordinary Parliament” or “true Parliament” in the common understanding. An important part of the negative attitude towards the EP accounts to the belief, that the EP apparently has no influence on the legislative agenda. Due its lack of initiative, the argument continues, European elections on the grounds of fundamental, party-political belief-systems do not matter. This seminar will look at the actual influence of the EP regarding political agenda-setting and agenda-shaping-processes. It is widely acknowledged that the EP proved to be able to enhance its participation powers with every treaty amendment of the last decades, starting from the treaty of Rome in 1957 and speeded up by the Single European Act (1986) (Earnshaw and Judge 1995; 1997) the treaties of Maastricht (1992), Amsterdam (1997), Nice (2001) (Farrel and Hèritier 2004; 2007; Hix, Noury, and Roland 2007) and Lisbon (2007) (Shackleton 2017). With the Lisbon treaty, the EP not only gained access to additional areas of policy-making in the formerly de-parliamentarised area of trade policy. The treaty also symbolically strengthened the EP’s legislative roles by rebranding the procedure of co-decision into “ordinary legislative procedure” (Art. 294 TFEU). In fact, the EP has a strong saying in important areas linked to the functioning of the internal market and the EU’s external economic policies. Despite these powers to reject, (co-)amend, and (co-)adopt legislation with the Council of Ministers, the EP is still perceived weak, especially because of its assumed lack of agenda-setting-powers.

Critics evidently refer to Art. 17(2) of the TEU which – since 1957 – holds that “Union legislative acts may only be adopted on the basis of a Commission proposal, except where the Treaties provide otherwise.” Indeed, most legislative procedures within the scope of the EU’s internal market and the EU’s area of freedom, security and justice (AFSJ) depend on a formal proposal of the Commission to get the process started. Despite this uncontroversial fact our paper focuses on the indirect, informal and formal opportunities and practices of the EP to kick into the political agenda of the Commission and thus to shape the EU’s legislative programme.

Despite the evident lack of formal agenda-setting powers with regard to the internal market and the RFSJ of the EU, the last treaty amendments provided the EP with substantial means to put pressure on the Commission to initiate legislation and to hold it to account. Amongst a set of measures to get the Commission to deal with parliamentary legislative requests, we concentrate on two distinctive forms of “Own-initiative reports”. Whereas the scientific community widely ignored the relevance of these parliamentary motions in the past, at least parts of the EP’s administration point to their powerful channels of influence. The seminar will address the overarching question: To what degree can the European Parliament – beside the Commission’s formal monopoly – be viewed as a considerable actor in regard to the agenda setting process within the European Union? To approach our question, we look into preliminary theoretical studies and empirical evidence.

 

After introducing the basic structural and procedural determinants of the EU’s political system, the seminar examines the preferences, political and legal frameworks, as well as the rationales of action of various collective and individual actors of the EU's political system. The aim is to evaluate the room for action of these actors regarding the process of legislation, but also with a view to the longer-term general prospects of the EU. The respective control and co-ordination capacity will herby be discussed and assessed with reference of legal and political sciences.

 

First, a few introductory sessions are supposed to make students familiar with the forces and counter-forces of European integration. After that, specific workshops will focus on those collective and individual actors, which are enabled, due to their legally enshrined authority or their politically claimed functions, to shape the structure of the EU - in the sense of long-term systemic development and regarding their functional scope in terms of shaping secondary law. Based on respective literature, the seminar provides a profound overview on the ability of a whole range of preselected actors regarding coordination and agenda-setting in the EU.

 

Basic literature:

Hayward, Jack Ernest Shalom (Hg.) (2008): Leaderless Europe. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.

Journal of European Integration (2017): Special issue: Political leadership in the EU, Vol. 39 (2).

Zahariadis, Nikolaos (Hg.) (2016): Handbook of public policy agenda setting. Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing.

 

Impact

Students will learn about the functioning of the European Union considering supranational and intergovernmental patterns of thought related to actors on EU and member state level. They can comprehend the European integration process, taking into account the legally sanctioned and politically motivated preferences of different collective and individual actors, and classify them along historical developmental paths and scientific theories.

 

1st acad. year:

2nd acad. year:

3rd acad. year:

Total over 3 years:

N° of hours

30

30

30

90

N° of students

25

25

25

75

Discipline of

audience

Students of the University of Innsbruck’s BA, MA, and PhD programmes from all disciplines (university offer for all schools and departments)

Year/type of study

 

X 1st cycle (Bachelor) 

X 2nd cycle (Masters)

X 3rd cycle (Postgraduate)

o Doctoral studies

o Summer school

 

Nature

 Compulsory 

X Optional

X New

 Existing

Timing

X 1st year 

X 2nd year

X 3rd year

X 1st semester 

 2nd semester

 

             

 

 

 

Teaching Nr.

  6

Title

European integration - Introduction

Prof. in charge

Camilla Mariotto

Typology

o Lecture 

X Seminar

o Summer course

o Training course

o Intensive course

o Distance learning course

 

Description

 

How are policy decisions taken in the EU? How does variation in the rules governing decision-making lead to differences in outcomes and in the influence of actors? The main aim of this course is to provide a detailed understanding of how the European Union and the main political processes within it operate, to convey this knowledge through the theoretical foundations of political science, and to enable students to develop analytical and theoretical skills that can be transferred directly into a non-academic environment or that provide the foundations for further academic research.

The course explores the key institutions of the European Union (the European Commission, the Council of the EU and the European Council, the European Parliament, and the European Court of Justice), and the key legislative processes. It then analyses in depth policy areas where decisions are made at the Community level (Internal Market, Social Policy and Common Agricultural Policy), and a policy areas with a limited role for the Commission and the Parliament, governed primarily via an intergovernmental setup (Justice and Home Affairs, with a focus on the migrant crisis). By comparing and contrasting outcomes in these policy fields, the course shows the policy effects of (a lack of) European integration.

 

Literature

Hix, Simon, and Bjorn Hoyland. The Political System of the European Union. 3rd Edition. Palgrave Macmillan, 2011.

+ Compulsory journal articles

+ Optional journal articles 

 

Methods : Presentations and essays

Assessment: Students will be assessed on the basis of: Class participation (20%), a presentation of an article (30%), final essay – 4000/5000 words (50%)

Impact

Students acquire the ability to explain and describe the process of European integration and how the European Union works. They are able to analyse and independently answer the questions concerning the institutions, decision-making processes and policy fields in the political system of the EU and its member states.

 

1st acad. year:

2nd acad. year:

3rd acad. year:

Total over 3 years:

N° of hours

30

30

30

90

N° of students

35

35

35

105

Discipline of

audience

Political Science

Year/type of study

 

X 1st cycle (Bachelor) 

o 2nd cycle (Masters)

o 3rd cycle (Postgraduate)

o Doctoral studies

o Summer school

 

Nature

X Compulsory 

o Optional

o New

X Existing

Timing

o 1st year 

o 2nd year

o 3rd year

o 1st semester 

X 2nd semester

 

             

 

 

 

Teaching Nr.

  7

Title

European integration - European Development Policy after 2020. Trade rather than Aid?

Prof. in charge

Doris Dialer

Typology

o Lecture 

X Seminar

o Summer course

o Training course

o Intensive course

o Distance learning course

 

Description

 

The EU is the world's largest aid provider in terms of trade. Moreover, EU development policy is designed to promote European principles and values in the world. These include democracy, good governance and human rights. However, the Cotonou Partnership Agreement (CPA) between the European Union (EU) and the 79 African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries comprises a significant dimension in terms of trade because the EU is the second-biggest trade partner of the ACP after the USA. It imports goods valued at € 860 billion annually from developing countries, which helps their economies.

In February 2020, the CPA will expire and a new relationship has to be designed, taking into account the achievements and shortcomings of the agreement. Thus, this BA course considers the question of post-Cotonou relations between the EU and the ACP-States. In order to address this question, the course briefly reflects the historic relationship between the EU and its former colonies, which has since evolved through a succession of agreements: from the association agreements of Yaoundé I and II Conventions between the European Economic Community and former French colonies in Africa (1963-1975), to the successive ACP-EU Lomé Conventions (1975-2000), and the latest Partnership Agreement signed in Cotonou (2000).

Under Lomé IV, ACP countries benefited from non-reciprocal preferences granted unilaterally by the EU. This set-up was ruled to be against the World Trade Organisation's "Most Favoured Nation" (MFN) principle, so the EU has therefore negotiated trade deals the so called Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) - supported by development aid - with the six regions that comprise the 79 ACP countries. The EPAs are premised on the logic that greater regional integration boosts trading capacities and in turn, triggers growth, employment and economic development. In order to better understand which elements influence ACP’s positioning in global value chains (GVCs), this BA course analyses factors which can be influenced by both, EU and ACP policy-makers. Finally, three possible scenarios for ACP–EU trade relations beyond 2020 are discussed and unfolded. 

 

Methods:

We shall take a closer look at theories and methodological challenges the social sciences offer to describe the institutional settings and operative contexts of interest representation. On top of that, key actors and instruments of EU-ACP cooperation will be analyzed and selected empirical studies discussed.

 

Assessment:

For a successful completion it is requested that participants show continuous presence, active participation in the discussions, oral opening statements (topic to be chosen from the list); public affairs poster analysis (in class), Essay (2,5 to 3 pages)

Impact

Students acquire the ability to explain and describe the process of European integration and how the European Union works in the field of development and economic cooperation policies. They are able to analyse and independently answer the questions concerning the institutions, decision-making processes and policy fields in the political system of the EU and its member states.

 

1st acad. year:

2nd acad. year:

3rd acad. year:

Total over 3 years:

N° of hours

30

30

30

90

N° of students

35

35

35

105

Discipline of

audience

Political Science, Economics, Law, Sociology

Year/type of study

 

X 1st cycle (Bachelor) 

o 2nd cycle (Masters)

o 3rd cycle (Postgraduate)

o Doctoral studies

o Summer school

 

Nature

 Compulsory 

X Optional

X New

 Existing

Timing

o 1st year 

o 2nd year

o 3rd year

X 1st semester 

 2nd semester

 

             

 

 

 

Teaching Nr.

  8

Title

European integration - EU Environmental Policies and Policy-Making

Prof. in charge

Gaby Umbach

Typology

o Lecture 

X Seminar

o Summer course

o Training course

o Intensive course

o Distance learning course

 

Description

 

Environmental issues and stresses are among the most pressing challenges of our times. As debates and concerns over the degradation of ecosystems, pollution, loss of biodiversity, climate change or extreme weather events increased, environmental policies turned central stage at global and European level. Environmental policies have yet long played a less prominent role within EU policy-making and it was only with the Single European Act of 1987 that the policy area was based on EU primary law foundations. Before that period, environmental policies rooted in single market-related competences and treaty foundations, leading to an uncoordinated policy approach and a strong economic rationale. In present times, environmental policies have become most complex subjects of supranational policy-making, global governance and international negotiations. Analysed through a sustainability lens, ecological, economic, social-political, geopolitical and development concerns are interlinked in this area. Globally, ideological disputes about resource dependency, environmental and social justice as well as global North-South relations frame the debate and influence EU environmental policy paradigms and approaches, especially in the field of EU Climate Action.

 

Against this background, the seminar will analyse the EU’s particular approaches towards environmental policies focusing on their conceptual characteristics, policy coherence and international embedment. It will analyse EU environmental policies as well as their overall conceptual approach. Moreover, the seminar will particularly examine the EU’s role in international climate change negotiations in for a post-Kyoto legal framework. In doing so, the seminar takes into consideration two particular perspectives: In a cross-temporal one, it analyses the policy area’s development over time. This perspective includes the analysis of European environmental policies of different temporal origin. In a cross-sectoral dimension, the seminar analyses the EU’s environmental policies approach in terms of policy coherence between different policies and beyond by paying tribute to so-called ‘mainstreaming aspects’.

 

Course Objectives and Methods: Key course objectives and methods are to:

·         introduce students to key elements of EU environmental policies and policy-making;

·         analyse the conceptual characteristics, policy coherence and international embedment of EU environmental policies;

·         encourage students to assess the quality of EU environmental and Climate Action policies in view of their overall coherence;

·         pay particular tribute to EU Climate Action and the post COP-21 Climate Negotiations within the UNFCCC;

·         provide students with an opportunity to explore areas of special interest through their individual research papers;

·         further develop students’ research and writing skills via their papers.

 

Students are expected to analyse, understand, explain and evaluate EU environmental and Climate Action policies. This will also be demonstrated in a simulation game at the end of the seminar and a research paper thoroughly dealing with theoretical and empirical aspects of the chosen topic. Regular participation in the scheduled sessions is compulsory. If classes cannot be attended, students are expected to give prior notice of absence to the instructor. Students are expected to be fully prepared to actively participate in the class discussions and exercises.

 

Seminar Outline

During the first seminar session, the overall seminar topic, content, style and syllabus will be introduced to the participants and the thematic array of the seminar will be outlined. Moreover, paper topics will be distributed (first-mail-first-serve-approach) and countries for the ‘Innsbruck Climate Talks 2018’ (Simulation game) will be assigned. In terms of content, the first session will serve as an introduction into the political system of the EU and to EU environmental policy-making. Within the session, key institutional aspects, the history and development of EU environmental policy will be discussed, and key environmental principles and policies of the EU presented. The environmental media perspective will be applied to structure these sessions. The second seminar session will be dedicated to EU environmental policies and climate action to give and in-depth insight into the area to prepare the ‘Innsbruck Climate Talks 2018’. During the final session, participants will simulate an international UNFCCC climate negotiation session. For this negotiation, participants, during the semester, have to research the position of their assigned negotiation delegation and prepare a 5-minute statement on their delegation’s opinion on particular points of the current debate (points will be communicated during the first session). The final outcome of the negotiations will be joint 2-page paper (a so-called ‘non-paper’) to be jointly drafted during the last session.

Each participant is moreover expected to submit a short research paper (appr. 3,000 words) on a topic assigned during the first seminar session. All research papers will have to be submitted as MS Word file. The papers are expected to include a clear and concise argument and documented footnotes. They should be written in decent academic English language and include a title page, table of contents, text, footnotes, references and, if required, an annex. Basic knowledge of the political system of the European Union is expected. Participants are expected to have a good command of English.

 

Literature

 

EU Environmental Policy

Delreux, T. (2014). EU actorness, cohesiveness and effectiveness in environmental affairs. Journal of European Public Policy, 21(7), 1017–1032.

Golub, J. (2013). New instruments for environmental policy in the EU. Routledge.

Holzinger, K., Knill, C., & Schäfer, A. (2006). Rhetoric or reality? ‘New governance’ in EU environmental policy. European Law Journal, 12(3), 403–420.

Jordan, A., & Adelle, C. (2013). Environmental policy in the EU: actors, institutions and processes. Routledge, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon.

Judge, D. (2014). A green dimension for the European Community: political issues and processes. Routledge.

Kelemen, R. D. (2010). Globalizing European Union environmental policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 17(3), 335–349.

Langlet, D., & Mahmoudi, S. (2016). EU Environmental Law and Policy. Oxford University Press.

Lee, M. (2014). EU Environmental Law, Governance and Decision-Making. Hart Pub Limited.

Schulze, K., & Tosun, J. (2013). External dimensions of european environmental policy: An analysis of environmental treaty ratification by third states. European Journal of Political Research, 52(5), 581–607.

Steinebach, Y., & Knill, C. (2016). Still an entrepreneur? The changing role of the European Commission in EU environmental policy-making. Journal of European Public Policy, 1–18.

Strunz, S., Gawel, E., Lehmann, P., & others. (2015). Towards a general Europeanization of EU Member States energy policies? Economics of Energy & Environmental Policy, 4(2).

Thaler, P. (2016). The European Commission and the European Council: coordinated agenda setting in European energy policy. Journal of European Integration, 38(5), 571–585.

Wurzel, R. (2016). The evolving and interacting bases of EU environmental policy legitimacy: a reply to Brown. Global Discourse, 1–3.

 

‘EU Climate Action’

Collier, U. (1996). The European Union’s climate change policy: limiting emissions or limiting powers? Journal of European Public Policy, 3(1), 122–138.

Costa, O. (2016). Beijing After Kyoto? The EU and the New Climate in Climate Negotiations. In EU Policy Responses to a Shifting Multilateral System (pp. 115–133). Springer.

Damro, C. D., Hardie, I., & MacKenzie, D. (2008). The EU and climate change policy: law, politics and prominence at different levels. Journal of Contemporary European Research, 4(3), 179–192.

Fernandez, P. M., Soares, I., & others. (2016). Addressing 2030 EU policy framework for energy and climate: Cost, risk and energy security issues. Energy.

Grosjean, G., Acworth, W., Flachsland, C., & Marschinski, R. (2016). After monetary policy, climate policy: is delegation the key to EU ETS reform? Climate Policy, 16(1), 1–25.

Helm, D. (2009). EU climate-change policy—a critique, In Helm, D. and Hepburn, C. (Eds.) The Economics and Politics of Climate Change, Oxford: Oxford University Press, http://www.endseurope.com/docs/90904a.pdf.

Hintermann, B., Peterson, S., & Rickels, W. (2016). Price and Market Behavior in Phase II of the EU ETS: A Review of the Literature. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 10(1), 108–128.

Jordan, A., van Asselt, H., Berkhout, F., Huitema, D., & Rayner, T. (2012). Understanding the Paradoxes of Multilevel Governing: Climate Change Policy in the European Union. Global Environmental Politics, 12(2), 43–66.

Nilsson, M. ans, & Nilsson, L. J. (2005). Towards climate policy integration in the EU: evolving dilemmas and opportunities. Climate Policy, 5(3), 363–376.

Wettestad, J. (2009). European climate policy: toward centralized governance? Review of Policy Research, 26(3), 311–328.

 

International Climate Negotiations

Andresen, S., & Agrawala, S. (2002). Leaders, pushers and laggards in the making of the climate regime. Global Environmental Change, 12(1), 41–51.

Bodansky, D. (2011). W[h]ither the Kyoto Protocol? Durban and Beyond. Policy Brief, Harvard Project on Climate Agreements, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School.

Cooper, R. N. (2001). The Kyoto Protocol: a flawed concept. http://papers.ssrn.com/Sol3/papers.cfm? abstract_id=278536

Falkner, R., Stephan, H., & Vogler, J. (2010). International climate policy after Copenhagen: Towards a ‘building blocks’ approach. Global Policy, 1(3), 252–262.

Gupta, J. (2010). A history of international climate change policy. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 1(5), 636–653.

Rabe, B. G. (2007). Beyond Kyoto: Climate change policy in multilevel governance systems. Governance, 20(3), 423–444.

Schroeder, H. (2010). The history of international climate change politics: three decades of progress, process and procrastination. The Politics of Climate Change: A Survey, 26–41.

 

EU’s role in International Climate Negotiations

 

Delreux, T. (2014). EU actorness, cohesiveness and effectiveness in environmental affairs. Journal of European Public Policy, 21(7), 1017–1032.

Groenleer, M. L., & Van Schaik, L. G. (2007). United We Stand? The European Union’s International Actorness in the Cases of the International Criminal Court and the Kyoto Protocol. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 45(5), 969–998.

Kilian, B., & Elgström, O. (2010). Still a green leader? The European Union’s role in international climate negotiations. Cooperation and Conflict, 45(3), 255–273.

Oberthür, S. (2011a). Global climate governance after Cancun: options for EU leadership. The International Spectator, 46(1), 5–13.

Oberthür, S. (2011b). The European Union’s performance in the international climate change regime. Journal of European Integration, 33(6), 667–682.

Parker, C. F., & Karlsson, C. (2010). Climate change and the European Union’s leadership moment: an inconvenient truth? JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 48(4), 923–943.

Van Schaik, L., & Schunz, S. (2012). Explaining EU Activism and Impact in Global Climate Politics: Is the Union a Norm-or Interest-Driven Actor? JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 50(1), 169–186.

 

Grading: Class Participation: 25%, Simulation Game: 35%, Final Essay/Research Paper: 40%. Students will have to actively take part in the single course sessions and the simulation game. Moreover, they will write a research paper on a topic chosen from a suggested list of topics proposed by the instructor. The papers (3000 words) will present in-depth analysis of and reflection on the theoretical and empirical aspects of the chosen topic. They shall be submitted by XX. Essays are expected to follow the general conventions for academic analysis and will be evaluated based on the criteria for academic essays.

 

Potential policy areas for paper topics (Selection; topic to be defined)

 

EU Environmental Policies and Policy-Making

 

           Key principles of EU environmental policies and policy-making

           Environmental Impact Assessment

           EU Environmental Action Programmes

           EU biodiversity and habitat policies

           EU waste policies

           EU water policies

           EU maritime policies

           EU policies on genetically modified organisms and invasive species

           EU clean air policies

           EU chemical policies

           EU policies on urban environment

 

EU’s Climate Action

 

           European Climate Change Programme

           EU’s Emissions Trading System (EU-ETS)

           EU’s 2030 Framework for Climate and Energy Policies

           EU’s Roadmap for moving to a Low-Carbon Economy in 2050

           Climate policy mainstreaming in the Europe 2020 Strategy

 

International Embedment and EU Actorness, Priorities, Activities – Example Climate Action

 

           The EU as an actor of Global Climate Governance

           The EU’s Global Climate Change Alliance initiative

           The EU’s Global Approach to Migration and Mobility to fight climate-induced migration

           The EU’s Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction

 

 

Impact

Students will acquire knowledge on EU environmental and Climate Action policies; gain a general overview and understanding of environmental policy-making; understand basic policy analysis practices and techniques and apply them in a simulation game on international climate negotiations; acquire academic presentation competences and negotiation experience; practice free presentation and argumentation; improve language skills through active communication in English.

 

1st acad. year:

2nd acad. year:

3rd acad. year:

Total over 3 years:

N° of hours

30

30

30

90

N° of students

35

35

35

105

Discipline of

audience

Political Science, Geography, Sociology, Ecology

Year/type of study

 

X 1st cycle (Bachelor) 

o 2nd cycle (Masters)

o 3rd cycle (Postgraduate)

o Doctoral studies

o Summer school

 

Nature

 Compulsory 

X Optional

X New

Existing

Timing

o 1st year 

o 2nd year

o 3rd year

 1st semester 

X 2nd semester

 

             

 

 

 

Teaching Nr.

 9

Title

Innsbruck-Brussels Workshop seminars (study trips to Brussels) - EU trade policies and access to (classified) documents

Prof. in charge

Andreas Maurer / Camilla Mariotto / Doris Dialer

Typology

X Lecture 

X Seminar

o Summer course

o Training course

X Intensive course

o Distance learning course

 

Description

 

Note: To participate at one of the Brussels workshop seminars, students must be enrolled and actively participating in at least of the teaching activities 1 to 8. As we have to limit the number of participants to 30, a specific selection process will be coordinated between the Chair and the teaching staff of the BA seminars (Mariotto, Dialer, Umbach). To qualify for the participation, students must draft a short paper (max. 4000 words) on the potential roles and functions of the EP, EU national or subregional parliaments in the area of the EU’s foreign policies.

 

‘Trade’ is a substance matter serving as the basis of EU cooperation. It represents the core business of the internal market characterised by the so-called four fundamental freedoms: free movement of goods, persons, services and capital. While access to the EU internal market is a key point in trade talks (EEA, Brexit, Switzerland), trade agreements have also acquired an increasing impact in the international arena in the form of international trade agreements (such as ACTA, TTIP, CETA, EU-Korea, or EU-Singapore FTAs). Trade is nowadays strictly connected with many other policy areas of the EU, such as development cooperation or the EU external action (including human rights promotion), which makes it one of the most interesting and challenging fields to explore. It also has an impact on citizens’ lives, as testified by the ongoing public discussion regarding the content and consequences of international trade agreements (e.g. with regard to safety standards, environmental impact or investment protection provisions).

 

It is extremely difficult to strengthen parliamentary oversight of the EU’s trade policies without clear and predictable rules and procedures for the EP to access relevant information from the Commission and the Council. The workshops seminar shall provide an overview on the rules guaranteeing access to information in international trade negotiations both in the EU and in selected third countries. We will discuss the existing arrangements on access to information by Parliament in view of the provisions included in the Treaty of Lisbon, international norms and agreements, EU case-law, and similar rules, arrangements and practices in a group of national parliaments.

 

Background: Information is the oxygen that sustains oversight, control, scrutiny, or any other form of parliamentary involvement in policy-making. Any mandate to control a government’s or – regarding the EU’s institutions - an executive agents’ work is of limited use unless it is accompanied by access to the relevant information. Overall, it is extremely difficult to strengthen parliamentary oversight the EU’s trade policies without clear and predictable rules and procedures on access to relevant information from the Commission and the Council. While access to relevant information is fundamental to scrutiny and oversight, the management of this information by parliaments is also crucial to generate an effective policy-control cycle. Accordingly, improved access to classified information by the EP should be accompanied by the development of appropriate procedures for the protection of this information, as well as an ongoing commitment from MEPs to handle classified information in a professional manner. Access to documents (hereinafter ATD) is essential to ensure that parliaments can properly carry out their scrutiny functions. With recent trade negotiations such as ACTA, CETA, TTIP or the EU-Vietnam FTA gaining traction in civil society, the quest for more transparency has become a major political issue both in the EU and abroad. The secrecy that traditionally surrounded international trade negotiations is openly challenged by the European Parliament and a growing number of NGOs and pressure groups. Transparency in international trade negotiations has always been a contentious topic, as most international negotiations have always been carried out behind closed doors. Despite an increased number of documents being made available, many parties remain concerned about a lack of transparency.  It is therefore of utmost importance to secure a clear presentation of current rules and established practices governing access to sensitive trade documents. Transparency is important for the elected chamber and civil society in EU as well as in third countries. ATD is subject to limitations to protect certain types of information from disclosure. In this context it is important to draw on the lessons learned on the basis of inter- and intra-institutional practice in both national and EU contexts. Case law from the Court of Justice and the General Court assume great importance for the revision of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and a potential revision of the relevant Inter-institutional Agreements (IIAs) and EP’s internal rules regarding ATD for its Members and staff. The constitutional nature of the right of ATD, based on primary law, restricts the room for manoeuvre available to Member States, the Council and the Commission. Since, as was defined by the ECJ, transparency is part of the democratic nature of the Union’s institutional system, it seems difficult to stick with such a minimalist approach, both technically and substantively. It is difficult to clearly distinguish the legal framework on ATD by citizens and the rules on access by the EP. While the right to ATD for any natural or legal person is limited by Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, specific rights for the European Parliament are exclusively based on internal rules of the institutions and inter-institutional agreements. In clear contrast to EU Member States, where comprehensive rules on parliamentary access to documents and the classification of information (that is, limiting and controlling access to it) are based on parliamentary laws or presidential regulations, the EP’s access to documents of the Commission and the Council is a matter of non-legislative rules.

 

The normative basis for rules on the EP’s access to and handling of documents should primarily draw on the clear-cut principle of democratic theory and practice that applies in the vast majority of democratic systems. If confidential information is beyond the reach of public access, it must be available to parliamentarians (or institutions established by parliaments) scrutinizing those who negotiate trade agreements on behalf of EU citizens. In principle, parliamentary access to classified information implies a privileged access to specific categories of information, which are justifiably exempt from access of the larger public and third parties. The basic foundation for granting parliaments privileged access to such confidential information rests with the logic of parliamentary democracies. In parliamentary democracies, governments are nothing else than the highest aggregate of parliament's majority. Governments obtain delegated power from their parliamentary majority. Rules on governance, including those restricting access to and treatment of documents - produced or owned by governments - are legal expressions of parliaments' willingness to provide the executive with some room of manoeuvre and discretion when interacting with third parties. Rules governing parliamentary access to classified information should therefore be set out in law as the counterweight of general freedom of/access to information laws.

 

The Lisbon Treaty establishes a legally binding obligation for the Commission to keep Parliament regularly informed on on-going negotiations. It also contains legally binding obligation for both the Council and the Commission to inform Parliament immediately and fully at all stages of the procedure. As the ECJ ruled on Case C 685/11, “all stages of the procedure” implies “preceding the conclusion of the agreement”. While these provisions are incorporated in the 2010 Framework agreement, the IIAs between Council and Parliament are silent on when information should be provided.

 

Literature:

·       Adams, C., (2014), Freedom of Information and Parliamentary Departments, Australian Journal of Public Administration, vol. 73, no. 1/2014, pp. 67–78;

·       Alemanno, A. (2014), Unpacking the Principle of Openness in EU Law: Transparency, Participation and Democracy, (2014) 39 E.L. Rev, 72-90.

·       Alemanno, A./Stefan, O. (2014), Openness at the Court of Justice of the European Union: Toppling a Taboo, Common Market Law Review 51: 97-140, 2014.

·       Brooks, N. (2004), The Protection of Classified Information: The Legal Framework, RS21900, Updated August 5, 2004.

·       Chambers, S. (2004) ‘Behind Closed Doors: Publicity, Secrecy and the Quality of Deliberation’. Journal of Political Philosophy, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 389–410.

·       Curtin, D. (2011), ‘Top Secret Europe’. Inaugural lecture on appointment to the chair of Professor of European Law at the University of Amsterdam, 20 October. Available at: «http://dare.uva.nl/ document/355707».

·       Curtin, D. (2013) ‘Official Secrets and the Negotiation of International Agreements: Is the EU Executive Unbound?’ Common Market Law Review, Vol. 50, No. 2, pp. 423–58.

·       Curtin, D. (2014) ‘Challenging Executive Dominance in European Democracy’. Modern Law Review, Vol. 77, No. 1, pp. 1–24.

·       Curtin, D. (2014), ‘Overseeing Secrets in the EU: New Frontiers, Old Challenges’. JCMS, Vol. 52, No. 3, pp. 684–700.

·       De Goede, M. (2011), ‘The Swift Affair and the Global Politics of European Security’. JCMS, Vol. 50. No. 2, pp. 214–30.

·       de Walsche, A. (2005), ‘La procédure de conclusion des accords internationaux’ in M Dony and J-V Louis (eds), Commentaire J. Mégret 12 - Relations extérieures (2nd ed, Université libre de Bruxelles, 2005), 77-110.

·       Devuyst, Y. (2013), ‘The European Parliament and international trade agreements. Practice after the Lisbon Treaty’, in I. Govaere/E. Lannon/P. Van Elsuwege/S. Adam (eds), The European Union in the World, Essays in Honour of Marc Maresceau, The Hague, Brill 2013, pp. 172-189.

·       Elsea, J.K. (2007), The Protection of Classified Information: The Legal Framework, CRS Report RS21900.

·       Galloway, D. (2014), Classifying Secrets in the EU, in: Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 52, No 3/2014. pp. 668-683.

·       Heremans, T. (2011) Public Access to Documents: Jurisprudence between Principle and Practice (Brussels: Egmont Institute). Available at: «http://www.egmontinstitute.be/papers/11/eur/ EPB4.pdf».

·       Inter-Parliamentary Union (2005), ‘Parliamentary Involvement in International Affairs’, report to the Second World Conference of Speakers of Parliaments, New York, 7-9 September 2005

·       Kaiser, F.M. (2011), Protection of Classified Information by Congress: Practices and Proposals, Congressional Research Service, August 31, 2011, Doc. No. 7-5700.

·       Labayle, H. (2013), Openness, transparency and access to documents and information in the European Union, European Parliament, Policy Dept. C, Note, 2013, p. 11.

·       Nicoll, W. (1996), The ‘Code of Conduct’ of the Commission towards the European Parliament, in: Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 34, No. 2/1996, 275-281.

·       Passos, R. (2013), ‘The European Union’s external relations a year after Lisbon: a first evaluation from the European Parliament’, in: P. Koutrakos (ed.), The European Union’s External Relations a Year After Lisbon, The Hague: Centre for the law of EU external relations, Working paper (3), 2011.

·       Rengeling, H.-W. (1981), Zu den Befugnissen des Europäischen Parlaments beim Abschluss völkerrechtlicher Verträge im Rahmen der Gemeinschaftsverfassung, in: Ingo

·       Romaniello, M. (2013), The international role of the European Parliament: The SWIFT Affair and the ‘re-assessed’ European institutional balance of power, Perspectives on Federalism, Vol. 5, issue 1, 2013.

·       Rosén, G. (2011) ‘Can You Keep a Secret? How the European Parliament got Access to Sensitive Documents in the Area of Security and Defence’. RECON Working Paper 22. Available at: http://www.reconproject.eu/projectweb/portalproject/RECONWorkingPapers2011.html.

·       Stärkle, G. (2011) ‘La protection et le traitement des information classifiées dans le cadre de la politique de sécurité et de défense commune (PSDC) au sein des institutions et agences de l’Union européenne’. Cahiers de droit européen, Vol. 47, pp. 155–229.

·       Thomsen, J. and Van de Rijt, W. (2004) ‘Public Access to Documents versus the Need for Security: How to Strike the Balance between Transparency and Confidentiality’. In Thym, D. (2008), Parliamentary Involvement in European International Relations, WHI - Paper 5-08, Berlin 2008.

 

Objective and impact of the workshops seminar

The main objective of the seminar is to deepen the knowledge of advanced BA and Master students on EU political processes by providing them first-hand knowledge on the roles and functions of EU institutions in view of the priorities of the EU’s strategic agenda including the EU trade interests, challenges and possible developments.

 

Draft programme

 

Monday  

 

14:00 – 15:00     Opening and Introduction to the seminars

15:00 – 17:00     Introductory lecture: Internal market, Customs Union and Common Commercial Policy

17:00 – 17:30    Questions & Answers

18:00 – 19:30     Informal get-together (Austrian PermRep, Brussels)

 

Tuesday

 

09:00 – 10:30     Lecture: Common market beyond the EU: the European Economic Area

11:15 – 13:00    Visit to the Commission / DG Trade: Transatlantic trade relations: a comparative analysis of CETA and EU-MERCOSUR

13:00    Lunch Break

14:30 – 16:00    Visit to the Commission / DG Trade: Access to negotiation documents in the area of trade and the application of the EP/Commission framework agreement

16:00    Coffee Break

16:30 – 18:00     Seminar: Brexit, EFTA and CETA – an evolving scenario of EU trade relationship in the Atlantic

Wednesday

 

09:00 – 11:00    Visit to the Commission / DG Trade: Australia, New Zealand and new trade perspectives for the EU

11:15 – 13:00    Visit to European External Action Service: the EU and its Eastern Neighbourhood: between trade interests and soft power

13:00    Lunch Break

14:30 – 16:00    Visit to DG DEVCO/NEAR: Association Agreements and the trade dimension of the EU relations with its Southern Neighbours

16:00    Coffee Break

16:30 – 18:00    Seminar with Heidi Hautala, MEP: Access to documents – the European Parliament’s views

 

Thursday 01 February 2018

 

09:00 – 10:30    Visit to the European Parliament: Trade as a development tool: the COTONOU agreement and post 2020 framework(s)

10:30 – 12:00  Visit to the European Parliament: How the Committee on International Trade deals with ongoing trade negotiations

11:45 – 13:15    Visit to OCTA - Association of the Overseas Countries and Territories of the European Union

 

13:00    Lunch Break

 

14:30 – 17:00   Visit to the Council: Transparency and Information to the Public

15:00 – 17:00   The Council’s policies for Access to Documents and Confidentiality rules

 

 

Impact

By attending this seminar, participants will be able to acquire and deepen their knowledge on EU politics in the field of trade, gaining valuable insights into the practicalities of Brussels policy-making; meet high level professionals from EU institutions, academia, and NGOs; meet and exchange views with students from different disciplinary and national backgrounds from all over the EU and beyond; improve their analytical and argumentative skills; and enhance their employability.

 

1st acad. year:

2nd acad. year:

3rd acad. year:

Total over 3 years:

N° of hours

 

30

30

60

N° of students

 

30

30

60

Discipline of

audience

Political Science, Economics, Law, Sociology

Year/type of study

 

X 1st cycle (Bachelor) 

X 2nd cycle (Masters)

o 3rd cycle (Postgraduate)

X Doctoral studies

o Summer school

 

Nature

 Compulsory 

X Optional

X New

 Existing

Timing

o 1st year 

o 2nd year

o 3rd year

X 1st semester 

 2nd semester

 

             

 

 

 

Teaching Nr.

10

Title

The European Union Online (blended learning in English)

Prof. in charge

Natascha Zeitel-Bank

Typology

o Lecture 

o Seminar

o Summer course

o Training course

o Intensive course

X Distance learning course with onsite elements (Webinar)

 

Description

 

The course aims to provide a detailed understanding of the structure and function of the European Union with focus on specific policy fields. The online course in English ensures a compact overview of the structure, the central decision maker and the main policy fields of the European Union. Thus, the main fields of consideration are: history, basic theories, decision making / institutions, single market, external relations, environment, the area of freedom, security and justice, the foreign, security and defence policies, economic and monetary union, social and economic cohesion, enlargement, EU governance and public opinion.

The online course is determined for students which are inscribed at the University of Innsbruck. It is limited to 25 persons per course in summer term and 50 persons in winter term. It is no MOOC lecture, but more a course mixing online and offline tools (webinar). We include Adobe Connect, meaning online interaction and discussion directly with the students. The overall course consists of 10 weekly assignments with respective questions referring to a specific book chapter, a current scientific article, a current EU topic link from the europa.eu website.

Example of used books are: Cini, Michelle and Nieves Perez-Solorzano Borragan (2016): European Union Politics, 4th Edition, Oxford University Press; Baldwin, Richard and  Wyplosz, Charles (2012): The Economics of European Integration, fourth Edition, McGrawHill

 

Impact

Students from all University of Innsbruck’s schools are invited to get a comprehensive overview of the structure and function of the European Union with focus on specific policy fields.

 

1st acad. year:

2nd acad. year:

3rd acad. year:

Total over 3 years:

N° of hours

 

30

30

60

N° of students

 

25

25

50

Discipline of

Audience

All schools of the University „Interdisziplinäre und Außerfachliche Kompetenzen für Bachelorstudien“

Year/type of study

 

X 1st cycle (Bachelor) 

o 2nd cycle (Masters)

o 3rd cycle (Postgraduate)

o Doctoral studies

o Summer school

 

Nature

o Compulsory 

X Optional

o New

X Existing

Timing

o 1st year 

X 2nd year

X 3rd year

X 1st semester 

o 2nd semester

 

             

 

 

 

Teaching Nr.

11

Title

Die in Brüssel und wir? Warum leisten wir uns die Europäische Union?  

Prof. in charge

Andreas Maurer / Thomas Stornig

Typology

o Lecture 

X Seminar

o Summer course

X Teachers’ Training course

o Intensive course

Distance learning course with onsite elements (Webinar)

 

Description

 

A one-day (8 hrs) training course for teachers of high schools and professional schools.

Different prejudices against the European Union are repeatedly brought forward. In part, the EU also serves as a welcome scapegoat for politicians in the Member States, in order to shift disagreeable decisions to "those in Brussels". Full-bodied accusations of the technocratic detachment and the regulatory rage of the Brussels "water heads", the high costs of the EU bureaucracy can be read and heard daily. Many of these prejudices are so fertile most of the time because of a lack of knowledge about how political processes are taking place in the European Union, and what role the representatives of the governments of the Member States play, in particular. In the seminar we turn to current examples of prejudices and examine how the "euro bureaucracy" is real, how much and how little "we" are “Brussels” and how the EU institutions, Member States and regions are doing exercise. The training course serves to critically address prejudices against the EU, to deepen one's own expertise and to illustrate possibilities for action in the classroom.

Impact

Active teachers will be provided with an interactive seminar to critically reflect their initial perceptions of “Europe”, and the “EU”, to discuss populist anti-european propaganda. The get equipped with didactic tools and material to de-construct anti-european sentiments and propaganda.

 

1st acad. year:

2nd acad. year:

3rd acad. year:

Total over 3 years:

N° of hours

8

8

8

24

N° of students

30

30

30

90

Discipline of

Audience

Teachers of High Schools and Professional Schools

Year/type of study

 

 1st cycle (Bachelor) 

o 2nd cycle (Masters)

X 3rd cycle (Postgraduate)

o Doctoral studies

o Summer school

 

Nature

o Compulsory 

X Optional

X New

 Existing

Timing

X 1st year 

X 2nd year

X 3rd year

X 1st semester 

o 2nd semester

 

             

 

 

 

MILDIPA

MILDIPA Teaching projects 2014-2017

Lehrtätigkeit Nr.

L1

Titel

European Integration: Theories and Politics within Global Dynamics – Legitimes, demokratisches und effizientes Regieren in Mehrebenensystemen

Verantwortlicher Prof.

Prof. Dr. Andreas Maurer

Typologie

Vorlesung

 

MA-EIS/WS

 

 

Beschreibung

 

Im Zentrum dieser Vorlesung steht die Diskussion und Analyse traditioneller und neuerer EU-Integrationstheorien. Systematisch werden die Theoriemodelle und ihre Aussage- und Erklärungskraft im Hinblick auf die Genese europäischen Primär-, Sekundär- und Tertiärrechts, Fragen der demokratischen, effizienten, effektiven und transparenten Politikgestaltung sowie politikbereichspezifische Fragen der funktionalen Reichweite und Dichte europäischer Integration vor dem Hintergrund zunehmender sozioökonomischer Verflechtung der EU mit anderen Regionen der internationalen Gemeinschaft vorgestellt. Den Schwerpunkt bilden daher Beispiele der europäischen Aussenwirtschaftspolitik, der aussenpolitischen Dimensionen der Binnenmarktpolitiken und der Wirtschafts- und Währungsunion, der Entwicklungs- und Wirtschaftskooperationspolitik sowie der Gemeinsamen Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik. Besonderes Augenmerk wird hierbei auf die Begründung, Reform, Strukturen und Verfahren ebenenübergreifender Entscheidungs- und Kontrollinstitutionen gelegt.

Lernziele

Die Studierenden gewinnen fundierte Kenntnisse zu den theoretischen Modellen und konzeptionellen Entwürfen zur EU-Integration, um Integrations- und Kooperationsprozesse eigenständig und am konkreten Fallbeispiel zu rekonstruieren, zu erklären und analysieren und zu bewerten. Sie werden in die Lage versetzt, die Eigenschaften des politischen Systems der EU einschließlich der interinstitutionellen Verhandlungs- und Entscheidungsprozesse, der funktionalen Ausdifferenzierung des Handlungssystems der EU, der Einbettung des EU-Systems in internationale Handlungskontexte wie der WTO, der UN, des IWF und der Zusammenarbeit zwischen der EU und dritten Staaten und Internationalen Organisationen zu benennen und zu charakterisieren. Die Vorlesung spricht Studierende mit EU-Vorkenntnissen an, die sie im BA-Studium erworben haben. Ziel ist es, ein vertieftes Verständnis für das Mehrebenensystem der EU zu vermitteln, so dass die Studierenden in der Lage sind, das System zu erfassen und einzuschätzen.

Studienjahr/art

 

2. Studienstufe (Master)

 

 





 

 

Lehrtätigkeit Nr.

L2

Titel

European Integration: Theories and Politics within Global Dynamics – Multilaterale und Mehrebenensysteme in der Analyse

Verantwortlicher Prof.

Prof. Dr. Andreas Maurer

Typologie

Seminar

MA-EIS/WS

 

Beschreibung

 

Ausgehend von der Präsentation und Diskussion einschlägiger Theoriemodelle der EU-Integration geht das Seminar der Frage nach, wie sich politisches Handeln der in den EU-Organen und –Einrichtungen zusammenkommenden Akteure in den außenpolitisch wirksamen Politikfeldern der EU beschreiben und erklären läßt. Wir gehen dabei mit Blick auf das europäische Sekundärrecht von einem idealtypischen Politikzyklus (Entscheidungsvorbereitung, -deliberation, -verhandlung, -fällung, -umsetzung, -kontrolle und –revision) aus und beleuchten die Interaktionsstränge zwischen und in den jeweiligen Akteursebenen. Ein Schwerpunkt liegt auf der Herausarbeitung handlungsleitender Faktoren in den Mitgliedstaaten, in den EU-Organen sowie in den Nichtregierungsorganisationen: Wie rechtfertigen die Akteure ihre Mitwirkung? Welche Anreizstrukturen werden unter welchen Rahmenbedingungen genutzt? Wie lässt sich der Wandel in der Nutzung/Ausprägung einzelner Akteursfunktionen erklären? Wie wirken sich Vertragsänderungen auf die Akteure aus?  Lehrmethoden: Die Studierenden halten Teamreferate zu jeweils mindestens einer Interaktionskonstellation und prüfen hierbei die Aussagekraft mindestens einer von ihnen gewählten Theorie. Ihnen wird Gelegenheit gegeben, eine Einführung zu einem von ihnen gewählten Themenbereich im Literatur- und Dokumentationsportal zu schreiben.

Lernziele

Verbesserung des Kenntnisstandes zur Entwicklung der Komplexität europäischen Regierens, v.a. in Hinblick auf die Rollen- und Funktionsprofile der Parlamente, des Ministerrates und ihres Funktionswandels; Vertiefung des Kenntnisstandes über die politischen Systeme der EU-Mitgliedstaaten; Erwerb von Methoden der Europäisierungsforschung und der Erhebung und Auswertung einschlägiger Materialien (z.B. Parlamentaria, Verhandlungsmandatsentwürfe der Kommission etc.). Herstellung von Kontakten zur europäischen Staats-, Parlaments- und Verwaltungspraxis, die z.B. für Praktika und Bewerbungen nach Abschluss des MA-Studiums nützlich sind.

Studienjahr/art

 

2. Studienstufe (Master)

 





 

 

Lehrtätigkeit Nr.

L3

Titel

European Multi-Level Governance and European Democratic Society

Verantwortlicher Prof.

Prof. Dr. Andreas Maurer

Typologie

Vorlesung

 

MA-EIS/SS

 

Beschreibung

 

Die Vorlesung diskutiert diejenigen Integrationstheorien, die den Prozess der europäischen Integration als Mehrebenensystem beschreiben und erklären. Schwerpunkte bilden hier Ansätze der Mehrebenen-Governance-Forschung, Föderalismus- und Europäisierungsforschung, des Neofunktionalismus, des historischen und soziologischen Neoinstitutionalismus und des liberalen Intergouvernementalismus. Systematisch werden Funktionsprofile des Europäischen Parlaments und der nationalen (und subnationalen) Parlamente in den Bereichen der Politikgestaltung (Gesetzgebung und Haushalt), Kontrolle, Wahl, Rekrutierung, Kommunikation, Interaktion und Systemgestaltung im Verlauf des idealtypischen Politikzyklus der EU beleuchtet und Fragen des Funktionswandels vor dem Hintergrund der in und zwischen den Parlamentsebenen wirksam werdenden Demokratie- und Legitimationsverständnisse untersucht.

Lernziele

Die Studierenden werden in die Lage versetzt, die Einbettung der parlamentarischen Organe in das Mehrebenensystem der EU zu erklären und in ihrer historischen Entstehung und politischen Bedeutung hinsichtlich der Legitimität von EU Politik selbständig zu bewerten. Sie lernen, komplexe Interaktionsprozesse der Verflechtung und des Zusammenwirkens von Institutionen und Verfahren zu beschreiben und zu erklären sowie Fragen der demokratischen Legitimation europäischen Regierens zu analysieren.

Studienjahr/art

 

2. Studienstufe (Master)

 





 

Lehrtätigkeit Nr.

L4

Titel

European Multi-Level Governance and European Democratic Society – Analyse parlamentarischer Demokratie in Mehrebenensystemen

Verantwortlicher Prof.

Prof. Dr. Andreas Maurer

Typologie

Seminar

 

MA-EIS/SS

 

Beschreibung

 

Das Seminar dient der systematischen Analyse der Funktionsprofile des Europäischen Parlaments und der nationalen (und subnationalen) Parlamente in den Bereichen der Politikgestaltung (Gesetzgebung und Haushalt), Kontrolle, Wahl, Rekrutierung, Kommunikation, Interaktion und Systemgestaltung im Verlauf des idealtypischen Politikzyklus der EU. Der über Vertragsänderungen statuierte Funktionswandel in den Parlamenten wird politikbereichsspezifisch sowie länderspezifisch auf die Frage hin analysiert, welche Faktoren ausschlaggebend für die Vergegenwärtigung unterschiedlicher Parlamentarisierungs-, Demokratie- und Legitimationsverständnisse sind und wie sich diese in den Parlamenten sowie innerhalb der verschiedenen interparlamentarischen Strukturen (COSAC, Konferenz der PräsidentInnen, Gemeinsame Ausschussitzungen etc.) operativ niederschlagen. 

Lehrmethoden: Die Studierenden halten Einzel- und Teamreferate zu jeweils mindestens einem Funktionsprofil und den beobachtbaren Wirkungen des Funktionswandels in einem Politikfeld oder in einem Parlament. Sie prüfen hierbei die Aussagekraft mindestens einer von ihnen gewählten Theorie. Ihnen wird Gelegenheit gegeben, eine Einführung zu einem von ihnen gewählten Themenbereich im Literatur- und Dokumentationsportal zu schreiben.

Lernziele

Die Studierenden werden in die Lage versetzt, die Einbettung der parlamentarischen Organe in das Mehrebenensystem der EU zu erklären und politikbereichs- wie ebenenspezifische Fragestellung zur demokratischen Legitimation europäischen Regierens anhand von Theorien einzuordnen und zu analysieren. Anhand konkreter Fallkonstellationen machen sie sich mit der Praxis interparlamentarischer Zusammenarbeit vertraut und lernen, eigenständig theoriegeleitete Hypothesen zu Fragen der Demokratie, Legitimität und Finalität europäischer Intergration anhand selbst erarbeiteter empirischer Befunde zu überprüfen.

Studienjahr/art

 

2. Studienstufe (Master)

 





 

 

Lehrtätigkeit Nr.

L5

Titel

Forschungs- und Workshopseminar „Europäische Integration – Parlamente, Mehrebenenparlamentarismus und interparlamentarische Zusammenarbeit“

Verantwortlicher Prof.

Prof. Dr. Andreas Maurer / Martina Fürrutter

Typologie

Seminar

 

BA-MA-GEN

 

Beschreibung

 

Das Forschungsseminar ist für Studierende aller Fakultäten konzipiert, die sich in der Vorbereitung oder Anfertigung einer Abschlussarbeit (Bachelor, Master, PhD) befinden. Ziel ist es, themenspezifische Fragen der Studierenden und Forschungsfragen des Lehrstuhlinhabers und seines Teams zum Europäischen Parlament sowie zur interparlamentarischen Zusammenarbeit zu diskutieren. Integraler Bestandteil ist dabei die Diskussion der Studierenden untereinander, die sowohl ihre eigene Arbeit vorstellen als auch jeweils eine andere Arbeit kommentieren sollen (Discussant). Hierdurch können die Studierenden von den Erfahrungen anderer profitieren und lernen zugleich, umfangreichere Arbeiten unter wissenschaftlichen und methodischen Aspekten im Zusammenhang internationaler „Call-for-papers“-Konferenzen vorzustellen und zu begutachten. Prinzipiell sind die Arbeiten themenoffen; durch die starke Fokussierung der Lehrveranstaltungen auf Fragen der Parlamente in der EU, der Theoriemodelle zum Mehrebenenparlamentarismus (Maurer, Abels/Eppler, Crum/Fossum) und der Entwicklung interparlamentarischer Deliberations- und Kontrollinstrumente (Laprat, Scoffoni, Pöhle, Maurer) während der Projektlaufzeit ist jedoch zu erwarten, dass verstärkt Abschlussarbeiten zu diesem Themenkreis verfasst werden.

Das Forschungsseminar findet jedes Semester statt, um für die Studierenden eine konstante Betreuung ihrer Abschlussarbeiten und die Publikationsprojektplanung des Lehrstuhlinhabers zu garantieren.

Lehrmethoden: Anfertigung von Exposés; Anfertigung von Discussant-Papers; Anfertigung von Buchrezensionen und Zeitschriftenrundschauen, Vorstellung und Diskussion der Arbeitspläne im Seminar.

Lernziele

Das Seminar bietet den Studierenden eine konstante, fokussierte Betreuung in der Anfertigung ihrer Abschlussarbeiten. Sie lernen zudem, fremde Arbeiten anhand wissenschaftlicher Kriterien zu beurteilen, eigene Erfahrungen auszutauschen, alternative Herangehensweisen an Forschungsprobleme zu bewerten und erste wissenschaftliche Publikationen anzufertigen.

Studienjahr/art

 

1. Studienstufe (Bachelor)

2. Studienstufe (Master)

 

Promotion

 





 

 

Lehrtätigkeit Nr.

L6

Titel

European Multi-Level Governance and European Democratic Society–Debating the democratic deficit of the EU

Verantwortlicher Prof.

Prof. Dr. Andreas Maurer / Dr. Annegret Eppler

Typologie

Seminar – Exkursion

MA-EIS/OPT

 

Beschreibung

 

Der zu einem immer komplizierter werdenden Verflechtungssystem führende Integrationsprozess wird seit der Rati­fi­zie­rung des Maastrich­ter Vertrages regelmäßig unter dem Stichwort des Demokratiedefi­zits als undemokratisch, entparlamentarisiert, intransparent, bürgerfern, kompliziert und ineffizient kritisiert. Dreh- und Angelpunkt dieser EU-Kritik ist dabei die Einschätzung, dass innerhalb der EU durch das Setzen allgemein verbindlicher Entscheidungen, die unmittelbar in die Gestaltungsfreiheit der BürgerInnen eingreifen, öffentliche Herrschaft ausgeübt wird, die nicht den gewohnten Maßstäben demokratischen Regierens entspricht. Insbesondere die Gestaltungs- und politischen Eingriffsoptionen der handlungs- und entscheidungsberechtigten Akteure auf EU-Ebene gelten in diesem Zusammenhang als nicht oder nur unzureichend demokratisch legitimiert.

Das Seminar soll fortgeschrittene Studierende, die sich für die Problematik der demokratischen Qualität europäischen Regierens interessieren, in die Debatte um das Demokratiedefizit der EU einführen. Es werden unterschiedliche Stränge in der wissenschaftlichen und politischen Diskussion vorgestellt und hinsichtlich ihrer demokratietheoretischen Fundierung diskutiert.

Lehrmethoden: Leistungsanforderungen in Gestalt kurzer Thesenpapiere, Research Paper und Discussion Paper. Das Seminar findet als Blockveranstaltung in Zusammenarbeit mit der Abteilung für Beziehungen zu nationalen Parlamenten des Europäischen Parlaments und der Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik in Brüssel statt, wobei der Termin so gelegt wird, dass die Studierenden an interparlamentarischen Sitzungen des Europäischen Parlaments – auf Ausschuss-, Fraktions-, und Sekretariatsebene – teilnehmen können und Gelegenheit haben, zuvor in der Gruppe vorbereitete, leitfadengestützte Interviews mit Delegationen der Parlamente zu führen. Das Seminar wird in englischer Sprache angeboten, um einen leichteren Zugang für Masterstudierende aus dem Ausland zu ermöglichen und um die Verständigungsfähigkeit deutscher Studierender in der englischen Sprache zu verbessern.

Lernziele

Das Seminar findet als Blockveranstaltung außerhalb der gewohnten Räumlichkeiten der Universität statt. Zur Auswahl stehen für die Vorbereitung des Seminars die Räumlichkeiten des Forum Alpbach, das Universitätszentrum Obergurgl und die Politische Akademie Tutzing sowie für die Durchführung des Seminars die Repräsentanz der Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik in Brüssel und Räumlichkeiten der nationalen Parlamentsvertretungen im Europäischen Parlament. Den Studierenden wird so die Möglichkeit geboten, sich intensiv und ohne tagesaktuelle Ablenkung wissenschaftlich mit der Thematik des Demokratiedefizits und der interparlametarischen Zusammenarbeit in der EU auseinanderzusetzen.

Studienjahr/art

 

1. Studienstufe (Bachelor) 

2. Studienstufe (Master)

 

 





 

 

Lehrtätigkeit Nr.

L7

Titel

Einführung in das politische System der EU

Verantwortlicher Prof.

Prof. Dr. Andreas Maurer

Typologie

 Vorlesung

 

BA-WS/SS

 

Beschreibung

 

Die Vorlesung vermittelt einen Überblick über das politische System der EU. Die Besonderheiten des EU-Systems werden herausgearbeitet (Dynamik, polyarchischer bzw. polyzentrischer Mehrebenencharakter, Modelle der Gewaltenteilung und Praxis der Gewaltenteilung im EU-System, demokratische Qualität, Effizienz, Effektivität und Transparenz). Darüber hinaus werden grundlegende Kenntnisse über die europäischen Institutionen und Entscheidungsverfahren vermittelt. Die speziell hierfür arbeitenden MentorInnen führen exemplarisch in einzelne Politikfelder der EU ein.

Lernziele

Die Vorlesung spricht Studierende ohne EU-Vorkenntnisse auf BA-Niveau an. Ziel ist es, ein grundlegendes Verständnis für das System der EU zu vermitteln, so dass die Studierenden in die Lage versetzt werden, das System zu erfassen und anhand grundlegender politikwissenschaftlicher Analysekategorien (Akteur/Struktur, Macht/Herrschaft, Interessen/Präferenzen, Identität/Normen, Produktionsverhältnisse, Gender etc.) einzuschätzen. Da zu dieser Vorlesung Studierende aus allen Fachbereichen sowie Austauschstudierende zugelassen sind, kann eine breite Wirkung erzielt werden. Da den Studierenden die Möglichkeit gegeben wird, in dieser Vorlesung Leistungspunkte im Bereich „Überfachliche Qualifikationen“ zu erwerben, wird der Anreiz zum Besuch erhöht.

Studienjahr/art

 

 1. Studienstufe (Bachelor) 

 

 





 


 

 

Lehrtätigkeit Nr.

L8

Titel

Einführung in der europäische Integration

Verantwortlicher Prof.

Prof. Dr. Andreas Maurer

Typologie

Vorlesung

 

BA-SS

 

Beschreibung

 

Die Vorlesung vermittelt einen vertieften Einblick über das politische System der EU. Die  Besonderheiten des polyarchischen bzw. polyzentrischen Mehrebenensystems werden durch die Darstellung der intra- und interinstitutionellen Strukturen und Verfahren der parlamentarischen bzw. im EU-Entscheidungsprozess parlamentsanalog wirkenden Akteure herausgearbeitet. Im Zentrum steht die Analyse des Europäischen Parlaments, des Ministerrats und Europäischen Rates (einschließlich der Eurogruppe und der mitgliedstaatlichen, europapolitischen Koordinations- und Entscheidungsstrukturen), der nationalen und subnationalen Parlamente, der Umsetzung vertraglich gesetzter Willensbildungs- und Entscheidungsabläufe innerhalb der Organe (Geschäftsordnungen) und zwischen den Organen (interinstitutionelle Vereinbarungen). Die speziell für die Vorlesung eingesetzten MentorInnen führen exemplarisch in einzelne Politikfelder der EU ein und bieten einen Lektürekurs zum Vergleich der Vertragsbestimmungen mit den Geschäftsordnungen der Organe an.

Lernziele

Studierende erhalten einen vertieften Einblick, wie Parlamente und Regierungen die Anreizstrukturen des Lissabonner Vertrages meistern und wie sie untereinander und miteinander interagieren. Sie vergleichen unterschiedliche Kooperations- und Verhandlungsmodi in den Phasen des EU-Politikzyklus. Das Stichwort der „Europafähigkeit“ der Parlamente wird auf Ministerrat, Parlamente und Europäisches Parlament in Bezug auf die wissenschaftliche Forschung, aber auch in Bezug auf die praktischen Probleme erfasst und empirisch überprüft.

Studienjahr/art

 

1. Studienstufe (Bachelor) 

 

 





 

Lehrtätigkeit Nr.

L9

Titel

Interparlamentarische Zusammenarbeit – Strukturen, Funktionen und Erträge

Verantwortlicher Prof.

Prof. Dr. Andreas Maurer  / Dr. Annegret Eppler / Martina Fürrutter

Typologie

Seminar

 

 

Beschreibung

 

Das Projektseminar befasst sich mit den verschiedenen, seit den ersten Direktwahlen zum Europäischen Parlament eingeführten Strukturen der Zusammenarbeit zwischen dem Europäischen Parlament, den nationalen und subnationalen Parlamenten der EU-Mitgliedstaaten und den Parlamenten dritter Staaten und internationaler Organisationen. Nach einer Einführung in die Grundmuster interparlamentarischer Zusammenarbeit, ihrer Entwicklung, ihrer denkbaren Funktionen im Hinblick auf den europapolitischen Politikzyklus sowie der theoretischen und methodologischen Grundlagen zur empirischen Untersuchung interparlamentarischer Zusammenarbeit führen die Studierenden selbständig, unter Anleitung der MentorInnen und des Lehrstuhlinhabers, empirische Untersuchungen zu selbstständig entwickelten Fragestellungen durch. Angestrebt ist hierbei sowohl die Untersuchung neuerer Formen der interparlamentarischen Zusammenarbeit im Bereich der Wirtschafts- und Währungsunion und der Gemeinsamen Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik als auch die Erforschung regional unmittelbar relevanter Kooperationsstrukturen im direkten Einzugsbereich der Universität (Tirol, Vorarlberg, Italien/Südtirol/Trentino, Liechtenstein, Bayern, Baden-Württemberg). Lehrmethoden: Durch Abwechslung von Input-Phasen des Dozenten und Eigenarbeit der Studierenden, Simulationsanordungen, Gruppenarbeiten, forschendes Lehren Lehre sollen die Forschungskompetenzen der Studierenden zugleich erprobt und verbessert werden. Die Ergebnisse der Projekte sollen in geeigneter Weise, im Rahmen einer Ausstellung im Landtag des Bundeslands Tirol, auf der OLAT-Lernplattform, dem Literatur- und Dokumentationsportal und einer Diskussionsveranstaltung in Zusammenarbeit mit den regional in Frage kommenden, parlamentarischen Versammlungen auch für andere Studierende und die interessierte Öffentlichkeit zugänglich gemacht werden.

Lernziele

Fundierte und reproduzierbare Kenntnisse der Studierenden zum Europäischen Parlament, zu den nationalen und subnationalen Parlamenten sowie zu den Besonderheiten der interparlamentarischen Zusammenarbeit. Ferner wird grundlegendes politikwissenschaftliches Handwerkszeug zur Verfügung gestellt, um die Fähigkeiten der Studierenden zur eigenständigen empirischen Analyse zu stärken.Methodenkompetenz der Studierenden auszubauen. Um die Fähigkeit zur Analyse von Primärquellen zu fördern, nutze ich die Methode der Dokumentenanalyse. Originalquelle. Durch die Präsentation der Ergebnisse über den Kreis der politikwissenschaftlich Studierenden hinaus erzielt das Seminar zudem eine besondere Multiplikatorenwirkung in die Öffentlichkeit, die Medien und die Untersuchungsobjekte in Gestalt der Abgeordneten und Angestellten der Parlamentsverwaltungen.

Studienjahr/art

 

1. Studienstufe (Bachelor)

2. Studienstufe (Master)

 

 





 

Veranstaltungs-tätigkeit Nr.

V1 – Ass. Prof. Eppler / Prof. Maurer / Prof. Neisser

Titel

Jean-Monnet-Lectures I: Die Koordination der österreichischen Europapolitik

Typologie

2014-2015

Vorlesungsreihe

 

Beschreibung

Anläßlich des 20-jährigen Jubiläums der österreichischen EU-Mitgliedschaft führt MILDIPA eine semestrale Vortragsreihe durch. Die Mehrzahl der politischen Entscheidungen wird nach dem EU Beitritt Österreichs nicht mehr in Innsbruck oder Wien, sondern in Brüssel getroffen. Sollen am Ende eines Politikgestaltungsprozesses spezifisch österreichische Interessen und Politikinhalte berücksichtigt sein, ist die Vertretung österreichischer Positionen in Brüssel entscheidend. Damit stehen die ehemals „allein“ agierenden politischen Akteure und Institutionen vor der Herausforderung, sich in den allen Stadien des EU-Politikzyklus innerösterreichisch möglichst gut zu koordinieren. Bevor österreichische Akteure in Brüssel ihre Position einnehmen, wirken am innerstaatlichen Willensbildungsprozess die verschiedenen Bundesministerien, der Nationalrat, der Bundesrat und die österreichischen Länder mit. „Nationales Regieren unter den Kontextbedingungen von Europäisierung ist in zunehmendem Maße ausgerichtet auf das Management von Interdependenzbeziehungen, die sich aus der gemeinsamen Nutzung der Instrumente politischer Steuerung durch die unterschiedlichen politischen Ebenen ergeben“ (Pehle/Sturm 2008, S. 156). Wie kommt die Bundesregierung zu den in Brüssel vertretenen „nationalen Interessen“? Wer ist an der innerstaatlichen Willensbildung beteiligt und wie funktioniert sie? Wie effektiv, wie transparent und wie demokratisch ist die europapolitische Koordination in Österreich?

Die Vortragsreihe möchte über die Koordination der österreichischen Europapolitik informieren. Die eingeladenen Referentinnen und Referenten sind Vertreter der wichtigsten europapolitischen Akteure Österreichs und arbeiten an den Schnittstellen der europapolitischen Koordination. Sie berichten aus ihren Arbeitsbereichen über die konkrete Organisation der europa-politischen Willensbildung, über positive Erfahrungen, Probleme und Reformanläufe hinsichtlich der effektiven und demokratischen Vertretung Österreichs in der Europäischen Union. Die Vorträge vermitteln damit einen Einblick in die Komplexität modernen Regierens.

 

 

 

Veranstaltungs-tätigkeit Nr.

V2 – Prof. Maurer / Plangger MA / Prof. Neisser

Titel

Jean-Monnet-Lectures II: Landtage des Alpenraums im EU System (in Zusammenarbeit mit dem Institut für Föderalismus, Innsbruck und dem Landtag des Bundeslandes Tirol)

Typologie

2016

Vorlesungsreihe

 

Beschreibung

Landtage sind gewählte Volksvertretungen. Welche Rolle haben sie im EU-System? Inwiefern setzen Sie EU-Recht um, inwiefern speisen sie eigene Interessen in die EU-Politikgestaltung ein? Welche administrativen und organisatorischen Voraussetzungen schaffen sie sich für ihre Arbeit? Inwiefern arbeiten sie mit der eigenen Exekutive, mit Akteuren und Institutionen auf nationaler Ebene, mit anderen subnationalen Parlamenten zusammen? Wie sind ihre Verbindungen nach Brüssel? Wie artikulieren sie im interparlamentarischen Verbund ebenen- und politikbereichsspezifische Interessen? Die Vortragsreihe befasst sich mit der Rolle von subnationalen Parlamenten im EU-System in den subnationalen Einheiten des Alpenraums in vergleichender Perspektive.

Ziel der Veranstaltungsreihe ist neben dem Gewinn wissenschaftlicher Erkenntnisse die Vernetzung der politischen Akteure. Der Workshop bietet für Praktiker/innen einen Ort zum Austausch ihrer Erfahrungen und zur Förderung der direkten Beziehungen der subnationalen Parlamente untereinander. Hierdurch soll Arbeitsteilung, Informationsaustausch und Zusammenarbeit bei der Einbringung spezifischer parlamentarischer Interessen des Alpenraums und damit der parlamentarischen Demokratie in der EU auf der bürgernächsten Ebene gestärkt werden.