Preview

MGIMO Review of International Relations

Advanced search

The Ordinary Legislative Procedure in the EU as an Example of Cooperative Practices

https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2021-1-76-126-147

Abstract

The interaction of the EU institutions is aimed at aggregating a wide range of interests and ensuring the widest possible (preferably consensual) support for the policy. However, game theory reveals that the ordinary legislative procedure breeds competition between two co-legislators - the Council and the European Parliament - that seek to reflect their preferences within the legislative draft. This study attempts to assess the development of cooperative practices in the ordinary legislative procedure (since its establishment under the name “codecision procedure”) and the importance of these practices for the effectiveness of the legislative process. The development of cooperative practices is illustrated by three examples. First, the transformation of the rules of the third reading. Second, peculiarities of the Conciliation Committee functioning. Third, the development of trialogues and their main features.

According to the results of the study, the author concluded that a set of cooperative practices between the EU Council and the European Parliament has been formed within the framework of the ordinary legislative procedure which is structured in a way that encourages co-legislators to cooperate and engage in intensive inter-institutional negotiations that complement the negotiations within each of the institutions. The reason for this is that the ordinary legislative procedure has a complex system of checks and balances. This allows a number of actors to block or delay the decision-making process. Complex procedure literally forces the EU institutions to come to a compromise. The ordinary legislative procedure as it was set out in the Treaties was supplemented by number of cooperative practices based on political agreements, which enhance a more effective interaction between institutions. The need to ensure the support of all (the vast majority) of the Member States in the Council and key political groups in the European Parliament prompts to take into account the whole spectrum of interests. As a result, it ensures high quality of decision-making process and high quality of governance.

About the Author

N. Yu. Kaveshnikov
Moscow State Institute of International Relations (university); Institute of Europe, Russian Academy of Sciences
Russian Federation

Nikolay Yu. Kaveshnikov - Head of Department of Integration Studies MSI of International Relations of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MGIMO University); Leading Researcher, IE RAS.

76 pr. Vernadskogo, Moscow, 119454



References

1. Bainbridge T. 1998. The Impact of the European Parliament on EU Legislation: Cooperation, Co-Decision, Conciliation. Research and Documentation Service EPP Group - European Parliament.

2. Blockmans S. et al. 2014. From Subsidiarity to Better EU Governance: A Practical Reform Agenda for the EU. CEPS Essay №10, 08.04.2014 Brussels: Center for European Political Studies.

3. Blom-Hansen J. 2019. Studying Power and Influence in the European Union: Exploiting the Complexity of Post-Lisbon Legislation with EUR-Lex. European Union Politics. 20(4). P. 692-706. DOI: 10.1177/1465116519851181

4. Brandsma G.J. 2015. Co-decision after Lisbon: The Politics of Informal Trilogues in European Union Lawmaking. European Union Politics. 16(2). P. 300-319. DOI: 10.1177/1465116515584497

5. Brandsma G.J. 2019. Transparency of EU Informal Trilogues through Public Feedback in the European Parliament: Promise Unfulfilled. Journal of European Public Policy. 26(10). Р 1464-1483. DOI: 10.1080/13501763.2018.1528295

6. Corbett R. 2000. Academic Modeling of the Codecision Procedure: a Practitioner’s Puzzled Reaction. European Union Politics. 1(3). P. 373-81. DOI: 10.1177/0267323115612212

7. Corbett R., Jacobs F. and Shackleton M. 2007. The European Parliament. 7th ed. London: John Harper Publishing.

8. Corbett R., Jacobs F. and Shackleton M. 2011. ‘The Scrutiny and Control of the Executive’. Crobett, R., Jacobs, F. and Shackleton, M. (eds.). The European Parliament. London: John Harper Publishing. P. 312-339.

9. Costello R., Thomson R. 2011. The Nexus of Bicameralism: Rapporteurs’ Impact on Decision Outcomes in the European Union. European Union Politics. 12(3). P. 337-357. DOI: 10.1177/1465116511410087

10. Crombez C., Steunenberg B., Corbett R. 2000. Understanding the EU Legislative Process: Political Scientists' and Practitioners' Perspectives. European Union Politics. 1(3). P. 363-381. DOI: 10.1177/1465116500001003005

11. Curtin D., Leino P. 2017. In Search of Transparency for EU Law Making: Trilogues on the Cusp of Dawn. Common Market Law Review. 54(6). P. 1673-1712.

12. Farrell H., Heritier A. 2003. Formal and Informal Institutions under Codecision: Continuous Constitution-Building in Europe. Governance. 16(4). P. 577-600. DOI: 10.1111/14680491.00229

13. Farrell H., Heritier A. 2004. Interorganizational Negotiation and Intraorganizational Power in Shared Decision-Making: Early Agreements under Codecision and Their Impact on the European Parliament and Council. Comparative Political Studies. 37(10). P. 1184-1212. DOI: 10.1177/0010414004269833

14. Golub J. 2008. The Study of Decision-Making Speed in the European Union. Methods, Data and Theory. European Union Politics. 9(1). P. 167-179. DOI: 10.1177/1465116507085961

15. Hage F., Kaeding M. 2007. Reconsidering the European Parliament’s Legislative Influence: Formal vs. Informal Procedures. Journal of European Integration. 29(3). P. 341-361. DOI: 10.1080/07036330701442356

16. Hagemann S., Hoyland B. 2010. Bicameral Politics in the European Union, Journal of Common Market Studies. 48(4). P. 811-833. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-5965.2010.02075.x

17. Heisenberg D. 2005. The Institution of ‘Consensus’ in the European Union: Formal versus Informal Decision-Making in the Council. European Journal of Political Research. №44. P. 65-90. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6765.2005.00219.x

18. Hix S. 2008. The EU as a Political System. Caramini D. (ed.) Comparative Politics. Oxford University Press. P 573-601.

19. Hix S., Kreppel A., Noury A. 2003. The Party System in the European Parliament: Collusive or Competitive? Journal of Common Market Studies. 41(2). P. 309-331. DOI: 10.1111/14685965.00424

20. Hix S., Noury A., Roland G. 2009. 'Voting Patterns and Alliance Formation in the European Parliament'. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. 364 p. P. 821-831. DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2008.0263

21. Kasack C. 2004. The Legislative Impact of the European Parliament under the Revised CoDecision Procedure Environmental, Public Health and Consumer Protection Policies. European Union Politics. 5(2). P. 241-260. DOI: 10.1177/1465116504038138

22. Konig T. 2008. Analysing the Process of EU Legislative Decision-Making. To Make a Long Story Short. European Union Politics. 9(1). P. 145-165. DOI: 10.1177/1465116507085960

23. Konig T. 2008. Why do Member States Empower the European Parliament, Journal of European Public Policy. 15(2). P. 167-88. DOI: 10.1080/13501760701817674

24. Konig T., Lindberg B., Lechner S., Pohlmeier W 2007. Bicameral Conflict Resolution in the European Union: An Empirical Analysis of Conciliation Committee Bargains. British Journal of Political Science. №37. P. 281-312. DOI: 10.1017/S0007123407000142

25. Mariotto C., Franchino F. 2011. Explaining Outcomes of Conciliation Committee’s Negotiations. Paper prepared for the ‘Decision-making before and after Lisbon workshop’. Leiden University. №3-4.

26. Mattila M. 2009. Roll Call Analysis of Voting in the European Union Council of Ministers after the 2004 Enlargement. European Journal of Political Research. 48(6). Р. 840-857. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6765.2009.01850.x

27. Moser P. 1997. The European Parliament as a Conditional Agenda Setter: What are the Conditions? A Critique of Tsebelis (1994). The American Political Science Review. 90(4). P. 834838. DOI: 10.2307/2945846

28. Novak S., Rozenberg O., Bendjaballah S. 2020. Enduring Consensus: Why the EU Legislative Process Stays the Same. Journal of European Integration. DOI: 10.1080/07036337.2020.1800679

29. Nugent N. 2003. The Government and Politics of the European Union. 5th ed. Oxford. 555 p.

30. Rasmussen A. 2008. The EU Conciliation Committee: One or Several Principals. European Union Politics. №9. P. 87-113. DOI: 10.1177/1465116507085958

31. Rasmussen A. 2012. Twenty Years of Co-decision since Maastricht: Inter- and Intrainstitu-tional Implications. European Integration. 34(7).P. 735-751. DOI: 10.1080/07036337.2012.726012

32. Rasmussen A., Reh C. 2013. The Consequences of Concluding Co-Decision Early: Trilogues and Intra Institutional Bargaining Success. Journal of European Public Policy. 20(7). P. 1006-1024. DOI: 10.1080/13501763.2013.795391

33. Raunio T., Shackleton M. 2003. Co-decision since Amsterdam: a Laboratory for Institutional Innovation and Change. Journal of European Public Policy. 10(2). P. 171-187. DOI: 10.1080/1350176032000058982

34. Reh C., Heritier A., Bressanelli E. et al. 2013. The Informal Politics of Legislation: Explaining Secluded Decision Making in the European Union, Comparative Political Studies. 46(9). P. 1112-1142. DOI: 10.1177/0010414011426415

35. Ripoll Servent A. 2012. Playing the Co-Decision Game? Rules’ Changes and Institutional Adaptation at the LIBE Committee. Journal of European Integration. 34(1). P. 55-73. DOI: 10.1080/07036337.2011.566332

36. Rittberger B. 2000. Impatient Legislators and New Issue-Dimensions: a Critique of the Garrett-Tsebelis ‘Standard Version’ of Legislative Politics. Journal of European Public Policy. 7(4). P. 554-575. DOI: 10.1080/13501760050165361

37. Roederer-Rynning C. 2019. Passage to Bicameralism: Lisbon’s Ordinary Legislative Procedure at Ten. Comparative European Politics. №17. P. 957-973. DOI: 10.1057/s41295-018-0141-2

38. Roederer-Rynning C. and Greenwood J. 2017. The European Parliament as a Developing Legislature: Coming of Age in Trilogues? Journal of European Public Policy. 24(5). P. 735-754. DOI: 10.1080/13501763.2016.1184297

39. Roederer-Rynning C., Greenwood J. 2020. Black Boxes and Open Secrets: Trilogues as ‘Politicised Diplomacy’. West European Politics. DOI: 10.1080/01402382.2020.1716526

40. Scully R.M. 1997. The European Parliament and Co-Decision: a Rejoinder to Tsebelis and Garrett. Journal of Legislative Studies. 3(3). P. 93-103. DOI: 10.1080/13572339708420520

41. Shackleton M. 2000. The Politics of Codecision. Journal of Common Market Studies. 38(2). P. 325-342. DOI: 10.1111/1468-5965.00222

42. Stie A.E. 2010. Co-Decision - the Panacea for EU Democracy? ARENA Report.

43. Str0m K. 2003. ‘Parliamentary Democracy and Delegation’. Str0m K., Muller W.C., Bergman T. (eds). Delegation and Accountability in Parliamentary Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. P. 55-107.

44. Thomson R. 2009. Actor Alignments in the European Union before and after Enlargement. European Journal of Political Research. 48(6). P. 756-781. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6765.2009.00848.x

45. Thomson R., Hosli M. 2006. Who Has Power in the EU? The Commission, Council and Parliament in Legislative Decision-making. Journal of Common Market Studies. 44(2). P. 391417. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-5965.2006.00628.x

46. Thomson R. et al. 2012. A New Dataset on Decision-Making in the European Union before and after the 2004 and 2007 Enlargements (DEUII). Journal of European Public Policy. 19(4). P. 604-622. DOI: 10.1080/13501763.2012.662028

47. Toshkov D. 2017. The Impact of the Eastern enlargement on the Decision-Making Capacity of the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy. 24(2). P. 177-196. DOI: 10.1080/13501763.2016.1264081

48. Toshkov D., Rasmussen A. 2012. Time to Decide: The Effect of Early Agreements on Legislative Duration in the EU. European Integration Online Papers. 16(11). P. 1-20. DOI: 10.1695/2012011

49. Kaveshnikov N.Yu. 2010. Transformaciya institucionalnoj struktury Evropejskogo soyu-za [Transformation of the Institutional Structure of the European Union]. Moskva: Navona. 480 p. (In Russian).

50. Kaveshnikov N. 2015. Metody upravleniya v Evropejskom soyuze [Management Practices in the European Union]. Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya. №8. Р. 49-60. (In Russian).

51. Kaveshnikov N. 2020a. Vliyanie transformacii partijno-politicheskogo prostranstva Ev-rosoyuza na organizaciyu i funkcionirovanie Evroparlamenta [The impact of the Transformation of the EU Party and Political Space on the Organization and Functioning of the European Parliament]. Sovremennaya Evropa. №2. Р. 163-175. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15211/soveurope22020163175. (In Russian).

52. Kaveshnikov N. 2020b. Evolyuciya procedur prinyatiya reshenij v ES kak parametr glubiny integracii [The Evolution of Decision-Making Procedures in the EU as a Parameter of the Depth of Integration]. Sovremennaya Evropa. №5. Р. 77-88. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15211/sov-europe520207788. (In Russian).

53. Kamalova R.U. 2016. Ocenka raspredeleniya vliyaniya mezhdu politicheskimi gruppami v Evropejskom parlamente v 1979-2014 gg. [Assessment of the Distribution of Influence between Political Groups in the European Parliament in 1979-2014]. Polis. №4. Р. 147-161. (In Russian).

54. Klochkova Yu.A. 2006. Nekotorye osobennosti prinyatiya reshenij v Sovete Evropejskogo soyuza [Some Features of Decision-Making in the Council of the European Union.]. Mezhdun-arodnoepublichnoe i chastnoepravo. №3. Р. 9-22. (In Russian).

55. Levi D.A. 2009. Sovremennoe lobbirovanie v Evropejskom soyuze: v poiskah obshchih cen-nostej i tochek soprikosnoveniya [Modern Lobbying in the European Union: in Search of Common Values and Common Ground]. Sankt-Peterburg: Sezam Print. 182 p. (In Russian).

56. Pimenova O.I. 2019. Princip subsidiarnosti v Evropejskom soyuze: peripetii praktichesko-go primeneniya [The Principle of Subsidiarity in the European Union: the Vicissitudes of Practical Application]. Pravo. Zhurnal vysshej shkoly ekonomiki. №4. Р. 144-163. DOI: 10.17323/20728166.2019.4.144.163. (In Russian).

57. Rudenkova D.E. 2015. Lobbizm v institutah Evropejskogo soyuza. Mezhdunarodnye pro-cessy [Lobbying in the Institutions of the European Union]. 13(1(40)). Р. 68-80. (In Russian).

58. Stel'nikova N.A. 2017. Procedura prinyatiya delegirovannyh aktov v Evropejskom soyuze [Lobbying in the Institutions of the European Union]. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 11: Pravo. №4. Р. 99-110. (In Russian).

59. Strezhneva M.V 2009. Strukturirovanie politicheskogo prostranstva v Evropejskom soyuze (mnogourovnevoe upravlenie) [Structuring the Political Space in the European Union (Multi-Level Governance)]. Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya. №12. Р. 38-49. (In Russian).

60. Strezhneva M.V. 2010. Praktika nadnacional'nosti v Evrosoyuze [The Practice of Supranationalism in the European Union]. Mezhdunarodnyeprocessy. 3(24). Р. 57-69. (In Russian).

61. Strezhneva M.V. 2015. Rol' nacional'nyh parlamentov v upravlenii Evropejskim soyuzom [The Role of National Parliaments in the Governance of the European Union]. Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya. №1. Р. 52-62. (In Russian).

62. Strezhneva M.V 2016. Nadnacional'nost' i princip subsidiarnosti v ES i za ego predelami [Supranationality and the Principle of Subsidiarity in the EU and beyond]. Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya. 60(6). Р. 5-14. DOI: 10.20542/0131-2227-2016-60-6-5-14. (In Russian).


Review

For citations:


Kaveshnikov N.Yu. The Ordinary Legislative Procedure in the EU as an Example of Cooperative Practices. MGIMO Review of International Relations. 2021;14(1):126-147. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2021-1-76-126-147

Views: 1845


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 2071-8160 (Print)
ISSN 2541-9099 (Online)