Ariadna Ripoll Servent | University of Salzburg (original) (raw)

Articles by Ariadna Ripoll Servent

Politics and Governance, 2024

Until recently, we knew very little about the role of populist governments in EU decision-making.... more Until recently, we knew very little about the role of populist governments in EU decision-making. The “crucial case” of refugee distribution within the EU demonstrated that their behaviour was ruled by unpolitics: they rejected formal and informal rules of decision-making if these were not conducive to their preferred outcome, they rejected traditional means of ensuring compromises, and they rejected solutions to perpetuate crises. However, to what extent is unpolitics a phenomenon unique to migration—an area prone to (nativist) populist capture? This thematic issue compares the behaviour of populist governments in the Council of the EU across different policy areas. The goal is to better understand under which conditions unpolitics is more likely to manifest in EU decision-making. We argue that unpolitics is intrinsically linked to vote-seeking strategies, where populist governments use EU decision-making to mobilise domestic audiences. Hence, unpolitics is more prone to “high gain” and “low risk” issues, since they can be more easily politicised. Unpolitics is also more likely to manifest in venues that act as a tribune, where populist actors can directly speak to domestic audiences. Finally, since unpolitics relies on the mobilisation of voters, it is essentially a two-level game largely determined by domestic political and socioeconomic conditions. Overall, we see that, although the EU institutions have proved relatively resilient, unpolitics is gradually unsettling and hollowing out norms, institutions, and discourses.

JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 2022

We still know very little of how populist governments behave as compared to mainstream government... more We still know very little of how populist governments behave as compared to mainstream governments in Council decision-making. Studying the ‘crucial case’ of negotiations around refugee distribution in the EU, an issue which allows populists to mobilize both anti-EU and anti-immigrant sentiment, we demonstrate that populist governments differ from mainstream ones in three important ways: First, they reject formal and informal rules of Council decision-making if these are not conducive to their preferred outcome; second, they reject traditional means of ensuring compromise such as package-deals and side-payments; third, they reject the final solution and exploit the ensuing deadlock to prove that the EU is weak and dysfunctional. We show that populist governments adopt such a behaviour even when they would benefit from the adoption of a policy solution. However, we expect populists to engage in such political games only when the negative effects of non-decisions are not immediate.

Politics and Governance , 2022

The European Union’s climate policy is considered quite ambitious. This has led to a growing inte... more The European Union’s climate policy is considered quite ambitious. This has led to a growing interest among political scientists investigating the European Parliament’s ability to negotiate such ambitious climate legislation. These studies generally focus on the voting behaviour of members of the European Parliament, which allows us to know more about their positions when it comes to accepting or rejecting legislative acts. However, we know surprisingly little about how they debate and justify their positions in Parliament. In these debates, members of the European Parliament not only identify the problem (i.e., climate change and its adverse effects) but also discuss potential solutions (i.e., their willingness or ambition to fight and adapt to climate change). In addition, plenary debates are ideal for making representative claims based on citizens’ interests on climate action. Therefore, this article aims to understand how climate policy ambitions are debated in the European Parliament and whose interests are represented. We propose a new manual coding scheme for climate policy ambitions in parliamentary debate and employ it in climate policy debates in the ninth European Parliament (2019–present). In doing so, this article makes a methodological contribution to operationalising climate policy ambition from a parliamentary representation and legitimation perspective. We find debating patterns that connect quite detailed ambitions with clear representative claims and justifications. There is more agreement on what to do than how to get there, with divides emerging based on party, ideological, and member-state characteristics.

Politics and Governance, 2021

The evolution of the inter-institutional balance of powers has been a constant feature of the Eur... more The evolution of the inter-institutional balance of powers has been a constant feature of the European integration process. Therefore, this thematic issue reopens these theoretical and empirical discussions by looking at an underexploited angle of research, namely the impact of rule change on policy outputs. We offer a discussion on how to theorise rule change, actors’ behaviour, and their impact on policy outputs. We also examine the links between theory and methods, noting the strengths and weaknesses of different methods for the study of institutional and policy change. We draw on the contributions of this thematic issue to delineate further paths to push forward the current frontiers in EU decision-making research.

Política Y Sociedad, 2021

This conclusion to the special issue reflects on the evolution of European integration since the ... more This conclusion to the special issue reflects on the evolution of European integration since the early 1990s in
order to better understand the contested origins of the Treaty of Lisbon and the consequences the latter have had for the
EU’s political system. It considers the various contributions of the special issue and shows how the Treaty emerged in an
era of shifting cleavages, disputed steps towards a more political Union and rising populism. This legacy has led to more
polarisation and politicisation – a phenomenon that the Treaty of Lisbon struggles to encapsulate and conciliate with the
culture of consensus and compromise inherent to its institutional structures. As a result, we observe a bias towards policy
stability – and even failure – that affects the legitimacy and democratic standards of the European Union. In a context of
polycrisis, the difficulty to find compromises – especially in highly normative issues – leads to the de-politicisation of the
EU and reinforces the gap between EU institutions and its citizens. The COVID-19 pandemic is a window of opportunity
for the EU, in which to choose between integration and disintegration; between values and inaction.

Journal of European Integration, 2021

Drawing on the Core State Power framework, this paper assesses Germany’s ambiguous role in EU asy... more Drawing on the Core State Power framework, this paper assesses Germany’s ambiguous role in EU asylum policies from signing of the Maastricht Treaty to the present. It demonstrates that Germany has neither taken on the role of a leader nor pursued any consistent course regarding the institutional setup or content of EU asylum policies. However, this does not mean that Germany does not have any preferences in this area. Overall, German governments have supported whatever policy would decrease the country’s share of asylum-seekers vis-à-vis other European countries, in order to achieve two core goals: first, to avoid the material costs resulting from high numbers of asylum-seekers, a preference that is common among state elites; and second, to avoid audience/electoral costs resulting from the comparatively restrictive preferences of the public, especially when these are mobilised by right-wing populist parties.

Journal of European Public Policy, 2021

This special issue brings together seven original contributions on actors involved in trilogue ne... more This special issue brings together seven original contributions on actors involved in trilogue negotiations whose role has largely been neglecled: the Commission, the Council, the Court, the Ombudsman, national parliaments, organised interests and Eurosceptic groups. This introduction outlines the setup and work processes of trilogues, and highlights the key findings of the issue’s contributions, namely how actors at the edge of the negotiations can shape power relations in trilogues and how micro-behaviour shapes macro-processes of inter-institutional bargaining. It also discusses the ongoing tension between transparency and efficiency, notably when it comes to institutional oversight mechanisms and the legitimacy of trilogues.

Journal of European Integration, 2020

The uncoordinated closing down of internal borders, lock-downs and quarantines have limited the f... more The uncoordinated closing down of internal borders, lock-downs and quarantines have limited the freedom of movement in Europe as never before. How have EU institutions framed this unprecedented immobility and what lessons can be drawn for Schengen as a highly politicized instrument of governance? Adopting a social constructivist approach, we study how between March and July 2020, the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Council/European Council have framed the debate around immobility in Europe. This article shows that the emergence of the public health frame has mostly been linked by EU Member States to traditional notions of internal security, demonstrating continuity with prior crises. Appeals to a functional-solidarity frame involving more coordination and non-discrimination were made by the European Commission, mainstream Members of European Parliament (MEPs) as well as some countries such as France and Germany. Justified by the public health emergency and compensated by innovative solutions such as the ‘green lanes’ – proving the adaptability of the EU -, the reintroduction of internal border controls has nonetheless been normalised, raising questions about the future of transnational solidarity.

Journal of European Public Policy, 2021

With higher levels of polarization in the European Parliament (EP), mainstream groups increasingl... more With higher levels of polarization in the European Parliament (EP), mainstream groups increasingly face the trade-off between engaging and dismissing Eurosceptic challenger parties. Therefore, this article proposes a model to understand the strategies of mainstream and Eurosceptic groups in legislative work. It uses content analysis of legislative amendments to explain under what conditions these two sets of actors decide to engage with or disengage from each other. We compare two legislative packages, the more technical Circular Economy Package with the highly politicized Asylum Reform Package to assess how the choices of mainstream and Eurosceptic groups influence the survival of amendments and the success of the EP in trilogues. The comparison shows that politicization leads to more polarization and, subsequently, increases the chances that mainstream groups will collaborate with and copy soft-Eurosceptics along a left-right divide. At the same time, we also demonstrate that disengagement from Eurosceptic groups is closely related to their small size and limited resources. Finally, although the cordon sanitaire is systematically used to exclude hard Eurosceptics, it is not effective when it comes to isolating radical populist amendments proposed by soft-Eurosceptics and mainstream groups.

Politique européenne, 2020

The refugee ‘crisis’ has been presented as a failure of the EU’s asylum policy. Yet, which kind o... more The refugee ‘crisis’ has been presented as a failure of the EU’s asylum policy. Yet, which kind of failure are we actually talking about? Is it a failure to deal with the external pressures that saw the number of asylum-seekers raise drastically or rather a failure to build a fully-functioning common asylum system? This article examines the strategies of policy-makers to frame the crisis either ‘as threat’ or ‘as opportunity’, concentrating on the failed proposal to relocate asylum-seekers across EU member states. The analysis looks at whether causes are framed as exogenous or endogenous to the EU and where blame is principally attributed. It seeks to develop existing models of policy failure and make them better suited to the EU’s particular institutional setting by drawing on strategic framing models and the Multiple Streams Framework. This new approach allows us to go deeper into the causes of ‘crises’ and to better understand the mechanisms linking ‘crises’ with policy solutions.

Journal of Contemporary European Research, 2019

The European elections of May 2019 have been labelled 'a fateful election for Europe'. Although t... more The European elections of May 2019 have been labelled 'a fateful election for Europe'. Although the outcome was disappointing for Eurosceptic and populist forces, polarisation and politicisation will make life in the ninth (2019-2024) European Parliament (EP) more complicated. The article shows that, while the EP might not be more Eurosceptic after the elections, it is certainly more complicated. First, hard Eurosceptics became the fifth political force in the EP, falling just behind the Greens, which is likely to give them a stronger voice and more leeway in parliamentary life. Second, polarisation makes it more difficult to build stable coalitions, which has a direct impact on the EP’s chances to be effective in inter-institutional negotiations. Third, although mainstream parties continue to use the 'cordon sanitaire' to exclude those deemed 'undesirable', with the increase of populist forces inside mainstream groups, it has become more difficult to define who belongs to this group. Finally, it considers the implications of polarisation for the role of the EP within the broader political system of the EU, especially now that it has ceased to be a phenomenon unique to Parliament. Polarisation poses a major challenge for the future life of the European Union and prompts us to think in terms of partisan alliances across EU institutions rather than see institutions as monolithic black boxes.

Politics and Governance, 2019

Trilogues have become 'normal' structures in European Union (EU) decision-making but their functi... more Trilogues have become 'normal' structures in European Union (EU) decision-making but their functioning, based on secluded decision-making, makes it difficult to understand how institutional positions are formed and managed and which actors are better positioned to influence policy outputs. These are, however, important questions because, first, a coherent position in trilogues (one that withstands the scrutiny of the Council) enhances the European Parliament's (EP) chances of achieving a favourable outcome following negotiation; second, because it has become more complicated to find a common position within the EP due to increased levels of politicisation and polarisation (especially in the form of Euroscepticism) in EU policy-making. Therefore, this article focuses on preparatory bodies preceding trilogues and the role they play in building Parliament's positions. With the shift of political conflict from plenary to committees and now to shadows meetings, the latter have become de facto decision-making bodies. Not only do they serve to mediate intra-institutional conflict but also to anticipate Council and Commission positions. This article compares the use of shadows meetings in politicised and non-politicised issues. With the use of ethnographic data provided by participant observation and elite interviews, we aim to provide explanations on how these new instruments serve to informally manage politicisation, focusing in particular on the advantages of insularity in highly publicised negotiations.

Journal of European Integration, May 16, 2019

One of the main proposals to solve the ‘asylum crisis’ of 2015–2016 was to reform the Common Euro... more One of the main proposals to solve the ‘asylum crisis’ of 2015–2016 was to reform the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) and, in particular, the Dublin regime. However, the European Council conclusion of June 2018 exposed the failure to find an agreement on the CEAS reform. This article examines the conditions for policy failure – focusing on how crises affect inter-institutional negotiations and the role played by the European Parliament (EP) in particular. It shows how the EP successfully managed to form a united position and frame the crisis as a failure of previous CEAS reforms, but that this was not sufficient to break the deadlock among member states. Therefore, it demonstrates how the ‘shadow of hierarchy’ cast by the European Council may be a sufficient condition to explain policy failure, which may potentially lead to the gradual disempowerment of the EP in EU policy-making.

West European Politics, 2019

Trilogues have been studied as sites of secluded inter-institutional decision making that gather ... more Trilogues have been studied as sites of secluded inter-institutional decision making that gather the Council of the European Union, the European Parliament (EP) and the European Commission. Trilogues, however, are not exempt from formal and informal party-political dynamics that affect intra- and inter-institutional contestation. The increase in Eurosceptics in the 2014 EP elections offers an opportunity to investigate their efforts to shape the position and behaviour of the EP negotiating team in trilogues. Therefore, this article investigates to what extent Eurosceptic party groups participate in trilogue negotiations and how mainstream groups deal with their presence. The analysis shows that the opportunities to participate in trilogues and shape the EP’s position are higher for those perceived as soft Eurosceptic MEPs, while mainstream groups apply a ‘cordon sanitaire’ to those perceived as being part of hard Eurosceptic groups – which reduces the chances of MEPs from those groups being willing to participate in parliamentary work.

JCMS Journal of Common Market Studies, Dec 4, 2018

The malfunctioning of the Common European Asylum System can be traced back to the principle of re... more The malfunctioning of the Common European Asylum System can be traced back to the principle of responsibility established by the Dublin regime. To attenuate its problems, the EU has delegated regulatory competences to Frontex and the European Asylum Support Office (EASO), which have been given a ‘right to intervene’ in those Member States that put the system at risk. This article expands Majone's typologies of agents and trustees to explain why and how power has been delegated and the resulting consequences. It includes cases of failed delegation and argues that, although Frontex and EASO should operate as trustees – to prevent co-operation from breaking down – they have not been provided with enough autonomy, which exposes them to capture by particular interests. The reforms show that EU agencies are likely to be used as proxies by a group of strong Member States to monitor and intervene in weaker Member States.

Journal of European Public Policy, Jan 19, 2018

European Union (EU) asylum and immigration politics and policies have witnessed a major change si... more European Union (EU) asylum and immigration politics and policies have witnessed a major change since their communitarization in the early 2000s. Studies on EU migration, however, do not agree on the impact that EU institutions now have on policy outputs and outcomes. While some argue that supranational institutions are able to impose ‘liberal constraints’ on member states, other studies consider them unable to shift the ‘policy core’ of EU migration policies. Many of these disagreements stem from unspecified theoretical assumptions and very different methods to assess influence and change. This research agenda demonstrates how drawing on new institutionalism and policy analysis literature can generate new insights in three important areas of migration policy research: the dynamics of preference formation of member states and EU institutions, the relative power and influence of member states and EU institutions, and their impact on the domestic politics and policies of member states.

German Politics, 2017

A history of totalitarian governments and state surveillance appear to have made Germans sensitiv... more A history of totalitarian governments and state surveillance appear to have made Germans sensitive towards the uses of personal data. Because of such concerns, Germany often acted as an obstacle to security measures requiring personal data at the EU level. However, there has been a recent sea-change in Germany over EU Passenger Name Records (EU-PNR), a measure that requires the personal data of airline passengers for security purposes. Many in Berlin have moved from lukewarm at the time of the first EU-PNR proposal in 2007 to advocating it in 2014. The article draws on Kingdon's Multiple Streams Framework (MSF) to examine this change in position, comparing two government coalitions – the CDU/CSU–FDP (2009–13) with the CDU/CSU–SPD (2013–) – to show how actors within the CDU/CSU have acted as policy entrepreneurs to ensure agreement on EU-PNR. It is argued that the composition of governmental coalitions can act as a central condition that facilitates or hinders the success of policy entrepreneurs. While the position of the FDP blocked any progress on EU-PNR in the former coalition, policy entrepreneurs used the willingness of the SPD to show voters their support for tougher security measures, thereby ensuring Germany’s support for EU-PNR.

This article proposes an explanation as to why institutional change – understood as more competen... more This article proposes an explanation as to why institutional change – understood as more competences for the European Union's supranational institutions – has rarely led to policy change in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ). It draws attention to the constraints that newly empowered actors have faced in the wake of introducing the co-decision procedure. If the key principles of a given AFSJ sub-policy – its ‘policy core’ – were defined before institutional change occurred, the Council (as the dominant actor of the early intergovernmental co-operation) has found it easier to prevail in the altered structural environment and to co-opt or sideline actors with competing rationales. The article compares the importance of the new decision-making procedure with two alternative pathways potentially leading to policy change, namely, the power of litigation and the impact of unexpected external events.

Journal of European Public Policy, Vol. 21, Issue 8, pp. 1142-1162, Jun 2014

This article examines whether the empowerment of the European Union's (EU) supranational institut... more This article examines whether the empowerment of the European Union's (EU) supranational institutions has had an impact on the development of EU asylum. By systematically investigating EU asylum law before and after ‘communitarization’, it argues that its ‘policy core’ has maintained a high degree of continuity. An advocacy coalition under the leadership of the interior ministers managed to co-opt pivotal actors in the newly empowered European Commission and European Parliament. By contenting themselves with changes of secondary order, these EU institutions accepted and institutionalized the restrictive and weakly integrated core of EU asylum set by the Council in the first negotiation round. Their role and decisions were driven not only by the negotiation dynamics and political expediency, but also by new inter- and intra-institutional norms fostering consensual practices.

Journal of European Public Policy, vol. 21(4), pp. 568-586, Mar 21, 2014

After the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the European Parliament (EP) can give or with... more After the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the European Parliament (EP) can give or withdraw its consent to most international agreements. This new scenario calls for theoretical models that help us to better understand the roles and strategies of European Union (EU) institutions in international negotiations. Departing from ‘two-level-games’ and principal–agent models, this article examines three interrelated elements (levels of negotiations; decision-making stages; and strategies) to explain the first international negotiations under the consent procedure (SWIFT Agreement). This case shows how the EP made use of day-to-day decision-making to informally expand its formal veto powers. The EP is now capable of controlling the EU negotiator during both the agenda-setting and the negotiation stages. Its informal involvement is set to transform its relationship with the Council and their collective capacity to influence and control the Commission.

Politics and Governance, 2024

JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 2022

Politics and Governance , 2022

Politics and Governance, 2021

Política Y Sociedad, 2021

Journal of European Integration, 2021

Journal of European Public Policy, 2021

Journal of European Integration, 2020

Journal of European Public Policy, 2021

Politique européenne, 2020

Journal of Contemporary European Research, 2019

Politics and Governance, 2019

Journal of European Integration, May 16, 2019

West European Politics, 2019

JCMS Journal of Common Market Studies, Dec 4, 2018

Journal of European Public Policy, Jan 19, 2018

German Politics, 2017

Journal of European Public Policy, Vol. 21, Issue 8, pp. 1142-1162, Jun 2014

Journal of European Public Policy, vol. 21(4), pp. 568-586, Mar 21, 2014

Justice and Home Affairs is one of the fastest expanding areas of research in European Studies. T... more Justice and Home Affairs is one of the fastest expanding areas of research in European Studies. The European response to security concerns such as terrorism, organised crime networks, and drug trafficking as well as to the challenge of managing migration flows are salient topics of interest to an increasing number of scholars of all disciplines, the media and general public. This handbook takes stock of policy development and academic research in relation to justice and home affairs and analyses the field in an unprecedented thematic depth.
The book comprehensively investigates the field from the perspective of the three dimensions central to European integration: the sectoral (policies), the horizontal (states, regions) and the vertical (institutions, decision-making) dimensions. It also discusses the most important theoretical approaches used in this research area and provides the reader with a state of the art picture of the field.
By adopting such a comprehensive and broad-based approach, the handbook is uniquely positioned to be an important referent for scholars, practitioners and students interested in the area of justice, home affairs and European politics.

This broad-ranging text examines the political dynamic of the European Parliament (EP), showing h... more This broad-ranging text examines the political dynamic of the European Parliament (EP), showing how the EP is a key component of the political system of the EU. It looks at how, and how effectively, the parliament translates citizen demands into policies, and, in so doing, contributes to wider debates around democracy and legitimacy in the EU.

The EU plays an increasingly important role in issues such as the fight against organised crime a... more The EU plays an increasingly important role in issues such as the fight against organised crime and the management of migration flows, transforming the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) into a priority of the EU’s political and legislative agenda.

This book investigates whether institutional change - the gradual communitarisation of the AFSJ - has triggered policy change, and in doing so, explores the nature and direction of this policy change. By analysing the role of the EU’s institutions in a systematic, theory-informed and comparative way, it provides rich insights into the dynamics of EU decision-making in areas involving high stakes for human rights and civil liberties. Each chapter contains three sections examining:

the degree of policy change in the different AFSJ fields, ranging from immigration and counter-terrorism to data protection

the role of EU institutions in this process of change

a case study determining the mechanisms of change.

The book will be of interest to practitioners, students and scholars of European politics and law, EU policy-making, security and migration studies, as well as institutional change.

The Institutions of the European Union, 2021

The European Parliament (EP) symbolizes many of the struggles that characterize the process of Eu... more The European Parliament (EP) symbolizes many of the struggles that characterize the process of European integration and is at the core of many theoretical and empirical debates about representation, accountability, and legitimacy. This chapter draws on a variety of theoretical approaches to explain the complex role the EP plays in the political system of the European Union (EU). It starts with a brief overview of the history and functions of the assembly, followed by a theoretical explanation of its empowerment over time. Then, it determines the extent to which the EP is capable of influencing policymaking, both in legislative and non-legislative domains, as well as for the appointment of the Commission. It presents the political structure of the assembly and underlines the role of parliamentary groups and committees. It discusses the representativeness of the EP and the democratic quality of its internal functioning. Finally, it addresses current and future challenges for the EP.

European Parliament’s Political Groups in Turbulent Times, 2022

The rise in Eurosceptic and populist parties has put pressure on mainstream centre-right parties ... more The rise in Eurosceptic and populist parties has put pressure on mainstream centre-right parties and often leads to difficult choices between staying in the centre and moving farther to the right. Given the second-order nature of European Parliament (EP) elections, these shifts have direct consequences for the balance of power on the right of the political spectrum. Increased levels of polarisation in the past legislative periods have put the European People’s Party (EPP) under pressure and led to more ideological diversity. With a content analysis of legislative amendments from two files—the Eurodac Regulation (2016/0132/COD) and the Qualifications Regulation (2016/0223/COD)—the chapter examines whether and under which conditions the positions of the EPP can be clearly delimited from those of far-right Eurosceptic and populist parties. These two files compare dynamics of cooperation and competition in the area of migration, a classical bone of contention between radical- and centre-right parties.

Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics, 2020

Since the crisis of 2015/2016, asylum has become the focus of attention in the European Union (EU... more Since the crisis of 2015/2016, asylum has become the focus of attention in the European Union (EU). The right to seek refuge raises issues of sovereignty and control of the territory; hence, with the gradual integration of European member states into a single area free of internal borders, there has been a functional pressure to harmonize domestic asylum policies. However, this process of integration continues to be highly contested on two main axes: the extent of harmonization (how much should the EU do in the area of asylum) and the content of the policies (should the emphasis lie on territorial security or individual rights). The tension between this “core state power” status and the EU’s international obligations has shaped both policy developments and academic debates since the emergence of asylum as an EU policy field in the mid-1990s.

The integration of asylum policies is intimately linked to the emergence of Schengen as a borderless zone. Indeed, the idea that, in a Europe without borders, member states cannot control the flow of migrants led national governments to find common rules on ascribing responsibility for international protection claims. The rules agreed in the Dublin Convention of 1990 have become the core pillar that structures the Common European Asylum System (CEAS). This system aims to harmonize the definition of a refugee and the procedures and rights that need to be followed when considering asylum requests, as well as the conditions for receiving asylum seekers (e.g., housing, access to healthcare, and the job market). This process of harmonization has not been uncontested: while the first legislative phase (2001–2005) remained highly intergovernmental and was characterized by little progress being made in the approximation of domestic asylum systems, the second phase (2008–2013) showed an increased reluctance of member states to strengthen the powers of the EU in this field. As a result, the CEAS has been epitomized by faulty implementation and weak approximation—especially among those member states that did not have strong asylum systems in place before integration began. These gaps have left the CEAS in a dangerous position, since they have created incentives for those who benefit the least from EU cooperation to bypass their obligations. There, the principles underpinning the Dublin regime have been at the core of the functional crises that have recurrently emerged in the EU. The so-called “asylum crisis” has shown the weaknesses of the CEAS as well as the incapacity of member states to reform the system and find a solution that addresses the current imbalances. The main solutions have come via externalization, whereby the EU has sought to strengthen the responsibility of third countries like Turkey and Libya.

These trends have also been the focus of attention in this highly interdisciplinary field. Debates have generally concentrated on either the internal or the external dimension of EU policy-making. When it comes to the internal dimension, early scholarship centered on the process of integration and the development of asylum into a new policy field. They showed how the major drivers of integration followed functional logics of spillover from the single market and Schengen—but that the nature of this policy area called for different political dynamics. This process remained highly intergovernmental until the early 2000s, which gave interior ministers the power to escape domestic constraints (e.g., civil society, national parliaments, and courts) and shape EU policies in relative isolation. This does not mean, however, that this intergovernmental process was uncontentious. Indeed, it has been shown how the core principles of EU asylum respond to a public goods logic, whereby member states try to shift their responsibility for asylum seekers away from their territory and onto that of their neighbors. Although the idea of “burden-sharing” (and hence a generalized negative perception of asylum) is shared by most member states, the processes of uploading and downloading policies between the domestic and the EU level have been more complicated than just building a “Fortress Europe.” Among those who were traditional recipients of asylum seekers and had strong asylum systems, there has been a clear game of regulatory competition that has sometimes led to a race to the bottom. In comparison, those that had no experience with international protection and lacked a strong asylum system have generally struggled to adapt to EU standards, which has reinforced the imbalances and weaknesses of the Dublin regime. Given these dynamics, most scholars expected the shift to a fully supranational decision-making process to produce far-reaching policy changes and have a rights-enhancing effect. The outcomes have not always fulfilled expectations, which underlines the importance of opening up the black box of preference formation in the EU institutions and member states. What scholars do agree on is that policy outputs on the EU level have often failed to materialize into policy outcomes on the domestic level, which has led to processes of informal adaptation and the strengthening of EU operational agencies like Frontex and the European Asylum Support Office (EASO). In addition, these internal failures have pushed the EU to externalize border controls as well as push the responsibility for international protection toward third countries. There has been a clear case of policy diffusion toward neighboring countries, but also an increased dynamic of policy convergence among hosting countries like Australia and the USA. These policies tend to emphasize exclusionary practices, notably extraterritorial processing and border control—leading to major questions about the survival of asylum as an international human right in the years to come.

These trends show that asylum continues to be a highly contested EU policy both in its internal and external dimensions. We need, therefore, to look more closely at the impact of polarization and politicization on EU policy-making as well as on how they might affect the role played by the EU and its member states in global debates about migration and the right to seek asylum.

Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics, 2020

Justice and home affairs (JHA) is one of the most salient policy fields at European Union (EU) le... more Justice and home affairs (JHA) is one of the most salient policy fields at European Union (EU) level. It deals with issues closely related to the sovereignty of member states including immigration, borders, and internal security. This article takes stock of the policy’s development and current academic debates. It argues that EU justice and home affairs is at a crossroads. Most EU actors underline the value added of European cooperation to tackle transnational threats such as terrorism and organized crime as well as the challenge of international migration. Indeed, the EU has increased its operational cooperation, data-sharing and legislative activities. The EU home affairs agencies, notably the European Police Office (Europol) and European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex), have been substantially empowered. Yet JHA has also become a playing field for those attempting to politicize the European integration process. Therefore, recent years have seen major conflicts emerge that risk fragmenting the EU. These include controversies over the distribution of asylum seekers within the EU and the upholding of rule of law standards in some Eastern European states. Scholars have followed these developments with interest, contributing to a multifaceted and rich literature on aspects such as the dynamics of EU decision-making and the policy’s impact on the member states’ respect for fundamental rights and civil liberties. Promising avenues of further research include the implications of the politicization of the field and the consequences of ever more interconnected internal security databases and technologies.

Brexit and Internal Security: Political and Legal Concerns on the Future UK-EU Relationship, 2019

Oxford Bibliographies in Social Work, 2019

Justice and home affairs (JHA) has grown into a relevant and complex field of research. It encomp... more Justice and home affairs (JHA) has grown into a relevant and complex field of research. It encompasses European Union (EU) policies of high political salience including asylum, migration, border control, counterterrorism, and police cooperation, as well as criminal and civil law. The processes of European integration and “communitarization” have drawn the attention of the academic community. In the 1990s, the EU’s cooperation on JHA expanded when it embarked on the objective of creating an Area of Freedom, Security, and Justice (AFSJ). It implied that the member states lifted competences that touch upon core features of the state—notably, the capacity to control the territory and to exert the use of legitimate force—to the EU level. From the outset, this was too intrusive for some member states such as the United Kingdom, which gained far-reaching “opt-out” rights. As a matter of fact, JHA encompasses a range of highly sensitive policies and has become increasingly politicized since the 2000s. Questions of security, civil liberties, and belonging are now at the forefront of the political and media agenda. There is an intense struggle over how to define identities in an increasingly diverse European society and how to distinguish “oneself” from an external “other.” Having a clear stance on these questions can determine whether governments win or lose elections. The EU’s cooperation and role in JHA are therefore interlinked with the debate over the meaning of nationhood in the interconnected world of the early 21st century. To what extent can and should European states be free to decide on issues such as immigration? JHA has also become a defining factor in the EU’s relations with the rest of the world. It is a challenge for the EU to define—and implement—immigration regimes for third-country nationals as well as to cooperate with (at times authoritarian) third countries on counterterrorism and other JHA issues. This contribution offers a summary of the main literature in the JHA field. It is important to note that there are specialized debates and discussions in some subfields of JHA (for instance, migration studies). We only touch upon these policy debates and focus on studies looking at EU JHA more generally. Our approach is to offer a description of classic literature with newer JHA research. We start by looking at books discussing the development of JHA in the EU. We then outline the main debates in JHA research (e.g., security versus liberty), followed by an analysis of the main dynamics of EU decision-making. We also reflect upon different debates in the literature on the external dimension of EU JHA policies. The contribution ends with a discussion on data sources and networking opportunities.

The Routledge Handbook of the Politics of Migration in Europe, 2018

Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics, May 31, 2018

The European Parliament (EP) has grown from a “talking shop” to a fully-fledged legislative body ... more The European Parliament (EP) has grown from a “talking shop” to a fully-fledged legislative body in the European Union (EU)’s bicameral system. This process of communautarization and parliamentarization has generated considerable attention in the academic field. Furthermore, in today’s political environment—characterized by the polarization of public opinion, Brexit, the lingering effects of the Eurozone crisis, and the steady rise of Euroskeptical and radical forces throughout Europe—the role of the European Parliament (EP) is perhaps more critical to understand and assess than ever before. An overarching question in the literature is how “normal” the EP has become. Drawing on David Easton’s political systems approach, we examine this condition in three sub-literatures: the literature on inputs (demands), the literature on withinputs (inter-institutional processing of inputs), and the literature on outputs (EP decisions and actions, and the impact thereof). Building on this literature and contributing to the ongoing debate on the nature and significance of the EP, we propose to conceptualize the EP as “a normal parliament in a polity of a different kind.” This paradoxical conceptualization reflects abundant insights that, despite the EP gaining comprehensive lawmaking powers that are quite unparalleled in the world of international politics, its functioning and significance remain profoundly, distinctly, and probably durably, shaped by the multilevel nature of EU politics.

There is no other EU institution that has changed its shape and functions as much as the European... more There is no other EU institution that has changed its shape and functions as much as the European Parliament (EP). From a consultative assembly composed of representatives of national parliaments, it has grown into a veto power able to shape the outputs of EU laws and international agreements. This chapter reviews this process of empowerment and examines the effects that institutional changes have had on the positions and behavior of the EP in justice and home affairs. It looks at the evolution of academic research, which has progressively moved away from ‘grand’ theories of European integration and focused on the role of the EP as part of a wider political system. Institutionalist theories have allowed us to better understand why the EP has stopped acting as a vocal advocate of liberal policies and adopted a more ‘realistic’ behavior that lends itself to finding compromises with the Council.

Asylum was the first EU policy to become a field for intensive research in justice and home affai... more Asylum was the first EU policy to become a field for intensive research in justice and home affairs (JHA). The area has been characterized by a tension between the international norms constraining the EU and the wish of member states to restrict the number of and conditions for asylum-seekers. The intergovernmental legacy of its initial years has left strong imprints on the construction of a Common European Asylum System (CEAS). Despite its communitarization in 2005, member states continue to play an important role especially when implementing common standards, as witnessed in the aftermath of the 2015 ‘refugee’ crisis. Research has centered on burden-sharing and processes of integration versus re-nationalization, considering whether the content of these policies has been securitized. Future research should strengthen theoretical and methodological foundations and focus on the shift towards foreign and defense policy. The current re-nationalization of asylum and refugee policies should be used to compare national policies and to learn from different member states’ experiences.

This chapter introduces the basic ideas and some of the key discussions within this handbook. It ... more This chapter introduces the basic ideas and some of the key discussions within this handbook. It discusses which ‘academic communities’ are doing research on EU justice and home affairs (JHA) and how they approach the field (e.g. normative vs. non-normative approaches). It also reflects upon the state of the art of the academic debate and presents avenues for further research in three areas: (1) the dynamics of European decision-making and the role of EU institutions; (2) research on JHA policy change, impact and implementation; and (3) the external dimension of JHA.

Privacy, Data Protection and Cybersecurity in Europe

The European Union as an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, Dec 2016

published in: Julia Dahlvik, Christoph Reinprecht and Wiebke Sievers (2013): Jahrbuch der Migrations- und Integrationsforschung in Österreich. Vienna: Vienna University Press, pp. 319-333.

The Institutions of the European Union

Journal of Contemporary European Research, 2009

I would like to thank Jörg Monar and Paul Taggart for their support and comments, as well as Amy ... more I would like to thank Jörg Monar and Paul Taggart for their support and comments, as well as Amy Busby for her feedback and linguistic help. I would also like to thank the Editor of JCER, the editors of this special issue and the anonymous referees for their insightful comments and suggestions.

The recent structural changes introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon exemplify the dynamic and consta... more The recent structural changes introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon exemplify the dynamic and constantly evolving nature of the European Union (EU)'s institutional system. Given the gradual empowerment of EU institutions, this Special Issue focuses on bringing agents and agency into the study of EU politics and influence. The objective is to explore the roles and activities of specific groups of actors inside the institutions and investigate actors' capacity to influence (policy-making) processes beyond the analysis of outcomes. To enhance our understanding of influence inside the EU institutions, we believe it is necessary to go beyond outcome-focused formal modelling and quantitative research. We propose an innovative range of theoretical approaches based on qualitative methods, which enable a detailed and indepth exploration of EU institutions, processes, and the role of actors. This introduction proposes new avenues to conceptualise agency and influence inside the EU institutionsby paying more attention to hidden actors and processes of decision-and non-decision-making. We argue it is particularly important to open up and pursue a new research agenda now that the economic crisis has further underlined citizens' lack of knowledge of and declining trust in the EU institutions. * We would like to thank the authors of this Special Issue for their contributions. Also thanks to the anonymous reviewers for their comments and to Guido Schwellnus and Maja Rasmussen for their insights, which helped us greatly in the earlier stages of this project.

Perspectives on European Politics and Society, 2011

Abstract Since the 1970s, the European Parliament (EP) has been active in the area of data protec... more Abstract Since the 1970s, the European Parliament (EP) has been active in the area of data protection, even though it lacked the legislative power to have significant impact. The EP favoured strong data protection controls within the EU and it demonstrated this in the case ...

Journal of European Public Policy, 2013

An increase in the European Parliament's (EP) powers is generally equated with more democrati... more An increase in the European Parliament's (EP) powers is generally equated with more democratic and legitimate law-making. However, analysis of the Data Retention Directive – negotiated by means of both consultation and codecision – suggests that although the EP has been empowered under codecision its capacity to translate citizens' demands into democratic and transparent outputs has been reduced. Against expectations, the EP did not use its new veto powers in the data retention case to maximize its policy preferences because the content of these preferences did not fit with the wider need to be seen as a ‘responsible’ legislator. An institutionalist approach drawing upon rational choice and constructivism helps to explain this seemingly anomalous outcome in the highly politicized Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ).

Journal of European Public Policy, 2014

ABSTRACT After the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the European Parliament (EP) can giv... more ABSTRACT After the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the European Parliament (EP) can give or withdraw its consent to most international agreements. This new scenario calls for theoretical models that help us to better understand the roles and strategies of European Union (EU) institutions in international negotiations. Departing from ‘two-level-games’ and principal–agent models, this article examines three interrelated elements (levels of negotiations; decision-making stages; and strategies) to explain the first international negotiations under the consent procedure (SWIFT Agreement). This case shows how the EP made use of day-to-day decision-making to informally expand its formal veto powers. The EP is now capable of controlling the EU negotiator during both the agenda-setting and the negotiation stages. Its informal involvement is set to transform its relationship with the Council and their collective capacity to influence and control the Commission.

Journal of European Public Policy, 2014

The Social, Political and Historical Contours of Deportation, 2012

Journal of European Public Policy, 2017

German Politics, 2016

Theorizing Internal Security in the European Union, 2016

European Security, 2010

Abstract The entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon has raised new expectations in the area of ... more Abstract The entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon has raised new expectations in the area of freedom, security and justice (AFSJ). The extension of co-decision increases the capacity of the European Parliament (EP) to have an influence on decision-making. This article ...

JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 2016

Revue D Integration Europeenne Journal of European Integration, 2012

The introduction of co‐decision has transformed the European Parliament (EP), changing the patter... more The introduction of co‐decision has transformed the European Parliament (EP), changing the patterns of behaviour inside the institution, especially its committees. The entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon extends the use of co‐decision; thus, more EP committees will have to adapt to the new patterns of behaviour set out by the new decision‐making rules. In order to understand

Vol. 54 (6), 1417–1432.

This article proposes an explanation as to why institutional change – understood as more competen... more This article proposes an explanation as to why institutional change – understood as more competences for the EU’s supranational institutions – has rarely led to policy change in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ). It draws attention to the constraints that newly empowered actors have faced in the wake of introducing the co-decision procedure. If the key principles of a given AFSJ sub-policy – its ‘policy core’ – were defined before institutional change occurred, the Council (as the dominant actor of the early intergovernmental cooperation) has found it easier to prevail in the altered structural environment and to co-opt or sideline actors with competing rationales. The article compares the importance of the new decision-making procedure with two alternative pathways potentially leading to policy change, namely the power of litigation and the impact of unexpected external events.

In 2008, the European Parliament and the Council approved a new directive that sought to regulate... more In 2008, the European Parliament and the Council approved a new directive that sought to regulate and harmonise the standards of deportation. The „Returns‟ directive raised criticisms from various fronts but it also confirmed the European Parliament as a new actor in the field. The EP, thanks to its new co-legislative powers, became an active promoter of EU-wide policies seeking to remove irregular immigrants from the territory. Interestingly, before turning into a co-legislator the EP had led a sustained opposition to the policies formulated by the Council in this field, with a clear bias towards security: a preference for legislating in the area of irregular immigration at the expense of regular immigration as well as securitising external borders has turned the EU into a circle of exclusion where entrance is pre-empted and deportation promoted. The „Returns‟ directive, is in this sense a perfect example to analyse the effects of co-decision. A double-edged sword, co-decision has eliminated a direct source of contestation and made it more difficult to stop proposals feeding this circle; however, it has also given a chance to introduce subtler constraints on Member States, making the end result slightly more favourable for third-country nationals than what it might have been otherwise.

study commissioned by the …, Jan 1, 2008

Perspectives on Politics, 2022

Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft, 2021