Institut for Statskundskab

The Commission and the Council Secretariat in the 2000 IGC

Publikation: Bidrag til bog/antologi/rapport/proceedingBidrag til bog/antologiForskning

Standard

The Commission and the Council Secretariat in the 2000 IGC. / Beach, Derek.

The Treaty of Nice. red. / Finn Laursen. 1. udg. Leiden : Martin Nijhoff Publishers, 2006. s. 369-408.

Publikation: Bidrag til bog/antologi/rapport/proceedingBidrag til bog/antologiForskning

Harvard

Beach, D 2006, The Commission and the Council Secretariat in the 2000 IGC. i F Laursen (red.), The Treaty of Nice. 1 udg, Martin Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden, s. 369-408.

APA

Beach, D. (2006). The Commission and the Council Secretariat in the 2000 IGC. I F. Laursen (red.), The Treaty of Nice (1 udg., s. 369-408). Martin Nijhoff Publishers.

CBE

Beach D. 2006. The Commission and the Council Secretariat in the 2000 IGC. Laursen F, red. I The Treaty of Nice. 1 udg. Leiden: Martin Nijhoff Publishers. s. 369-408.

MLA

Beach, Derek "The Commission and the Council Secretariat in the 2000 IGC". Laursen, Finn (redaktører). The Treaty of Nice. 1 udg., Leiden: Martin Nijhoff Publishers. 2006, 369-408.

Vancouver

Beach D. The Commission and the Council Secretariat in the 2000 IGC. I Laursen F, red., The Treaty of Nice. 1 udg. Leiden: Martin Nijhoff Publishers. 2006. s. 369-408

Author

Beach, Derek. / The Commission and the Council Secretariat in the 2000 IGC. The Treaty of Nice. red. / Finn Laursen. 1. udg. Leiden : Martin Nijhoff Publishers, 2006. s. 369-408

Bibtex

@inbook{5d8905b0e3f311dabee902004c4f4f50,
title = "The Commission and the Council Secretariat in the 2000 IGC",
abstract = "This chapter investigates {\textquoteleft}what went wrong{\textquoteright} for the two institutions in the 2000 IGC, and how these institutions, nevertheless, were able to gain some influence on the margins. A theoretical framework is first put forward that details how supranational influence is contingent upon both the context and actual strategies employed by supranational actors<!--[endif]--> in an IGC. Following this, the chapter will first review the preferences of the two supranational actors in the 2000 IGC, showing that they do not always reflect Member State government preferences. Thereafter, the chapter looks at the bargaining resources that the Commission and the Secretariat had in the 2000 IGC which could potentially be translated into influence through the negotiation process. Next, the analysis will investigate the context of the IGCs, showing the contextual factors which limited the range of opportunities available to the two actors. Finally, the empirical analysis details the actual strategies used by the two actors in their relatively unsuccessful attempts to gain influence upon the final result. The sources used for this analysis include a series of interviews with high-level civil servants in the two institutions, and with civil servants in both the United Kingdom and Denmark, along with relevant primary and secondary literature. In the conclusion, these results are compared against the relative influence of the two institutions in other IGCs, and with the parallel negotiation of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.<!--[endif]-->",
author = "Derek Beach",
year = "2006",
language = "English",
isbn = "1871-4110",
pages = "369--408",
editor = "Finn Laursen",
booktitle = "The Treaty of Nice",
publisher = "Martin Nijhoff Publishers",
edition = "1",

}

RIS

TY - CHAP

T1 - The Commission and the Council Secretariat in the 2000 IGC

AU - Beach, Derek

PY - 2006

Y1 - 2006

N2 - This chapter investigates ‘what went wrong’ for the two institutions in the 2000 IGC, and how these institutions, nevertheless, were able to gain some influence on the margins. A theoretical framework is first put forward that details how supranational influence is contingent upon both the context and actual strategies employed by supranational actors<!--[endif]--> in an IGC. Following this, the chapter will first review the preferences of the two supranational actors in the 2000 IGC, showing that they do not always reflect Member State government preferences. Thereafter, the chapter looks at the bargaining resources that the Commission and the Secretariat had in the 2000 IGC which could potentially be translated into influence through the negotiation process. Next, the analysis will investigate the context of the IGCs, showing the contextual factors which limited the range of opportunities available to the two actors. Finally, the empirical analysis details the actual strategies used by the two actors in their relatively unsuccessful attempts to gain influence upon the final result. The sources used for this analysis include a series of interviews with high-level civil servants in the two institutions, and with civil servants in both the United Kingdom and Denmark, along with relevant primary and secondary literature. In the conclusion, these results are compared against the relative influence of the two institutions in other IGCs, and with the parallel negotiation of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.<!--[endif]-->

AB - This chapter investigates ‘what went wrong’ for the two institutions in the 2000 IGC, and how these institutions, nevertheless, were able to gain some influence on the margins. A theoretical framework is first put forward that details how supranational influence is contingent upon both the context and actual strategies employed by supranational actors<!--[endif]--> in an IGC. Following this, the chapter will first review the preferences of the two supranational actors in the 2000 IGC, showing that they do not always reflect Member State government preferences. Thereafter, the chapter looks at the bargaining resources that the Commission and the Secretariat had in the 2000 IGC which could potentially be translated into influence through the negotiation process. Next, the analysis will investigate the context of the IGCs, showing the contextual factors which limited the range of opportunities available to the two actors. Finally, the empirical analysis details the actual strategies used by the two actors in their relatively unsuccessful attempts to gain influence upon the final result. The sources used for this analysis include a series of interviews with high-level civil servants in the two institutions, and with civil servants in both the United Kingdom and Denmark, along with relevant primary and secondary literature. In the conclusion, these results are compared against the relative influence of the two institutions in other IGCs, and with the parallel negotiation of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.<!--[endif]-->

M3 - Book chapter

SN - 1871-4110

SP - 369

EP - 408

BT - The Treaty of Nice

A2 - Laursen, Finn

PB - Martin Nijhoff Publishers

CY - Leiden

ER -