Evolving Roles of NGOs in Member State Decision-Making in the UN System

2013 ◽  
pp. 107-127
Author(s):  
Chadwick F. Alger
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Member State

Piercing the Corporate Veil: The Responsibility of Member states of an International Organization

2011 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 291-347 ◽  
Author(s):  
Odette Murray
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Member State ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Good Faith ◽  
International Organization ◽  
Member States ◽  
Draft Article ◽  
Legal Limit ◽  
Primary Rule

AbstractThis paper applies two manifestations of the principle of good faith – pacta sunt servanda and the doctrine of abuse of rights – to the complex relationship between member states and international organizations. The paper argues that these existing doctrines operate as a legal limit on the conduct of states when creating, controlling and functioning within international organizations. The paper begins by exploring an innovative provision in the International Law Commission's recently finalised Draft Articles on the Responsibility of International Organisations – Draft Article 61 – according to which a member state will bear international responsibility for the act of an international organization where the member state uses the organization to circumvent its own international obligations. Examining the development of Draft Article 61 and the jurisprudence upon which it is based, this paper argues that the principle which the Commission in fact seeks to articulate in Draft Article 61 is that of good faith in the performance of treaties. As such, being based on a primary rule of international law, this paper queries whether Draft Article 61 belongs in a set of secondary rules. The paper then considers the role of states in the decision-making organs of international organizations and argues that the widely held presumption against member state responsibility for participation in decision-making organs can and should be displaced in certain cases, in recognition of the various voting mechanisms in international organizations and the varied power which certain states may wield. The paper argues that the doctrine of abuse of rights operates as a fundamental legal limit on the exercise of a member state's voting discretion, and thereby forms a complementary primary obligation placed on states in the context of their participation in international organizations.

The German Länder: From Milieu-Shaping to Territorial Politics

2003 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charlie Jeffery
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Member State ◽  
European Integration ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
Collective Rights ◽  
German Länder ◽  
Territorial Politics ◽  
Over Time ◽  
The Eu

This chapter looks at Europeanization through the lens of how the German Länder have responded to challenges posed by European integration since 1985. It does this by conceiving of ‘Europeanization’ as a two-way process in which the EU imposes adaptational pressures on, but is also subject to adaptational pressures from, the Länder. The chapter also uses the timescale of fifteen years to explore the dynamics of Europeanization. It finds that the Länder have persistently sought to minimize any perceived ‘misfit’ between the EU decision-making process and their domestic role as constituent units of the German federation. The nature of the misfit, and ideas on its resolution, have, however, changed over time as both the EU and Germany have adapted to the post-Cold War era. An initial concern for winning collective rights of access to a deepening EU is now being supplanted by a concern to protect individual Länder autonomy within the framework of the German member state from what is increasingly perceived as an unnecessarily interventionist EU.

EU Acts and Member State Acts in the Negotiation, Conclusion, and Implementation of International Agreements

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan Dashwood
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Member State ◽  
External Action ◽  
International Agreements ◽  
International Agreement ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
Treaty Of Lisbon ◽  
Procedural Code ◽  
The Eu

The new institutional balance resulting from the Treaty of Lisbon is being tested nowhere as sharply as in the field of the exercise of the EU’s powers of external action. There is a wealth of recent litigation clarifying aspects of the procedural code, now set out in Article 218 TFEU, which governs the negotiation, conclusion, and implementation of international agreements concluded on behalf of the EU. This chapter explores issues connected with the adoption of acts within the framework of Article 218, including the designation of the Union negotiator, the choice of legal basis for decisions on the conclusion of agreements and the enhanced role of the European Parliament in such decisions. Also discussed are certain controversial developments in the procedure that applies for determining the Union’s position in a decision-making body established under an international agreement, and other issues including the legality of so-called ‘hybrid acts’.

A Multi-Level Governance Approach to Residence Rights of Migrants and Irregular Residence in the EU

2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 182-204
Author(s):  
Kevin Fredy Hinterberger
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Member State ◽  
National Level ◽  
Legal Literature ◽  
Legal Situation ◽  
Multi Level ◽  
Different Levels ◽  
Legislative Decision ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Do So

Abstract This contribution analyses residence rights of migrants and irregular residence from a conceptual viewpoint. In the pertinent legal literature, it is argued that every Member State still decides autonomously if the residence of a migrant is permitted; in other words, if he or she is found to be irregular. I question this view, since it ignores the multi-layered character of decision-making in the EU. To do so, I differentiate between migrants who have privileged residence rights (e.g. Union citizens) and those who have not. In depicting the legal situation of migrants with privileged residence rights, I am able to identify three different levels among which the legislative decision-making power in the EU is distributed (international, EU and national level). Consequently, I challenge the ‘statist assumption’ in showing that legislative decisions with regard to residence rights of migrants have been partly taken out of the exclusive domain of Member States in the EU.

scholarly journals The European Commission’s Shifting Climate Leadership

2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 84-104 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jon Birger Skjærseth
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Member State ◽  
Crucial Role ◽  
Strategic Behavior ◽  
Member States ◽  
International Context ◽  
Climate Targets ◽  
Climate Policies ◽  
Supranational Institutions ◽  
State Preferences

The European Commission has played a crucial role in promoting ambitious EU climate targets and policies that boost the credibility of EU leadership-by-example efforts internationally. The approach has gradually shifted from leadership toward more strategic behavior that reflects the preferences of the member states. Reduced uncertainty concerning member-state preferences and solutions accounts for much of the change in leadership. Uncertainty has decreased as climate policies have become more mature and member states have gained experience from implementing them. Asymmetries in member-state preferences, decision-making procedures, and impatience caused by the international context are all important conditions for the European Commission’s leadership. These observations lend support to apparently contradictory theories that have seen EU climate policy as propelled either by autonomous supranational institutions or by increasingly ambitious member states.

scholarly journals The Covid-19 pandemic: collective action and European public policy under stress

2020 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mitja Kovac
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Collective Action ◽  
Member State ◽  
Comparative Advantage ◽  
Policy Response ◽  
Negative Externalities ◽  
European Continent ◽  
The Public ◽  
European Public

AbstractThe European continent faces an apocalyptic pandemic that poses mortal danger to millions of citizens. This paper seeks to address the role played by European public policy in addressing the Covid-19 pandemic. Currently, each Member State across Europe is applying its own measures to deal with the coronavirus; namely, decentralised decision-making that could trigger political tensions among the states. The paper argues that European public policy must change rapidly and fundamentally if these tensions are to be successfully managed; otherwise, such policy might simply cease to exist. Moreover, the known and notorious problem of collective action, information asymmetries, irrationality, negative externalities and the related free-riding phenomenon persistently are distorting the Member States’ combined efforts, resulting in deficient attempts to contain the spread of Covid-19. The paper also argues that the current unprecedented outbreak of this superspreading virus calls for a bigger EU-wide coordinated response. We argue that the Covid-19 pandemic is a good example of an area in which the central EU level holds a comparative advantage over lower levels of government. In addition, the paper offers several substantive insights into ways to improve the public policy response in the ‘war’ against Covid-19.

scholarly journals A Review of the Evidence on Attitudes, Perceived Impacts and Motivational Factors for European Member State Collaboration for Pricing and Reimbursement of Medicines: Time for the EEA Member States to Apply Their Experience and Expertise in Evidence-Based Decision Making to Their Current Pharmaceutical Policy Challenges

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patricia Vella Bonanno ◽  
Vincent Cassar ◽  
Brian Godman
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Member State ◽  
Motivational Factors ◽  
Pharmaceutical Policy ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Member States ◽  
Perceived Impacts ◽  
European Member State ◽  
Pricing And Reimbursement ◽  
Evidence Based Decision Making

In 2018/2019 there were a number of initiatives for collaboration between Member States in the European Economic Area (EEA) and the European Commission published a Proposal for a Regulation on Health Technology Assessment. In view of the perceived benefits from collaboration, the experiences and challenges of these collaborative initiatives and the possible implications of the proposed legislation, a study of the evidence on attitudes, perceived impacts and the motivational factors towards European Member State collaboration regarding the pricing and reimbursement of medicines was conducted. This study adopted an evidence–based management approach by Barends and Rousseau. The main findings showed that Member States differed in their motivation for collaboration for different pharmaceutical activities. Member States favoured voluntary co-operation for all activities of pricing and reimbursement except for relative effectiveness assessments where Member State authorities had divergent attitudes and prioritised activities related to the sustainability of their healthcare systems and access to medicines. Contrastingly pharmaceutical companies strongly favoured mandatory cooperation for evaluation. Member States motivation for collaboration was highly dependent on the purpose, political will, implementation climate and cultural factors. Currently, with the experiences of ongoing collaborations, following the progress of the discussion at Council, and with a number of inititatives for new pharmaceutical strategy and policy, it is proposed that Member States use their trust, expertise and knowledge of application of evidence-based decision making for pricing and reimbursement of medicines and apply it to decide the future model for Member State collaboration. The applicability of principles of evidence-based management to pharmaceutical policy can be used as a starting point.

The National Co-ordination of EU Policy: The Domestic Level. Edited by Hussein Kassim, B. Guy Peters, and Vincent Wright. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. 269p. $72.00.

2002 ◽  
Vol 96 (3) ◽  
pp. 691-692
Author(s):  
Maria Green Cowles
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
European Integration ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Top Down ◽  
Eu Policy ◽  
Oxford University ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Domestic Level

In recent years, scholars of the European Union (EU) have looked increasingly at the impact—administrative, institutional, legal, societal—of European integration on the member states. Some of this earlier literature on “Europeanization” viewed the Brussels–member state relationship in a rather static, one-way, top-down dimension. For this reason, the editors of The National Co-ordination of EU Policy take pains to eschew Europeanization as an organizing concept. But perhaps the editors doth protest too much. The National Co-ordination of EU Policy, in fact, fits nicely in the current literature on Europeanization, which views the Brussels–member state relationship in more dynamic terms. Indeed, the book provides a welcome and valuable addition by examining the domestic coordination processes through which “governments arrive at the position that they defend in EU decision making” (p. 235).

scholarly journals Bierne i czynne prawo wyborcze w wyborach przedstawicieli pracowników do rady nadzorczej spółki dominującej koncernu. Glosa do wyroku Trybunału Sprawiedliwości (Wielka Izba) z dnia 18 lipca 2017 r. w sprawie Konrad Erzberger przeciwko TUI AG (C-566/15)

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 401
Author(s):  
Aneta Giedrewicz-Niewińska
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Supervisory Board ◽  
Voting Rights ◽  
European Market ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
A Company

<p>The commentary is partially critical. Mr Konrad Erzberger is a shareholder of the TUI concern, based in Germany, operating worldwide. Half of the TUI supervisory board is made up of shareholder representatives and half of the representatives appointed by the employees. In the judgement, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) answered the question, whether it was compliant with Articles 18 and 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) stating that a Member State should grant active and passive voting rights in the elections of employee representatives to the supervisory board of a company to those employees only who are employed at the company’s premises or in the group’s enterprises on the national territory. The analysis of the arguments presented by the CJEU conducted in the commentary, pointing to e.g. the lack of objective and clear criteria for restricting the freedoms of the European market, is partially critical. It has been postulated that employees employed in a group of companies should enjoy the same rights to participate in decision-making, regardless of where their workplace is located.</p>

Limiting or liberating? The influence of parliaments on military deployments in multinational settings

2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 84-103 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Schade
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Member State ◽  
Security Policy ◽  
Military Deployments ◽  
Military Operations ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Defence Policy ◽  
Political Traditions ◽  
Executive Decision Making

Multilateral contexts often complicate parliaments’ efforts to scrutinise and influence security policy, as parliaments usually work in a national setting. This article explores how the internationalisation of security policy has altered parliamentary constraints on executive decision-making. It focuses on cases where multilateral decision-making is particularly advanced and studies military deployments under the auspices of the European Union’s (EU’s) Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). Using the examples of France, the United Kingdom and Germany, the article examines how the policy’s location at the intersection of decision-making on security and EU matters creates new opportunities for member state parliaments to scrutinise it. Yet, as an analysis of three CSDP military operations shows, these opportunities do not always translate into increased scrutiny practice and vary in line with factors such as national troop contributions, distinct political traditions and an operation’s salience.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document