|
Sessions Infos pratiques Congrès organisé en partenariat avec
|
Section Thématique 43
Le Parlement européen, acteur international et institution parlementaire internationale (IPI): exemples et comparaisons avec d'autres IPIs
The European Parliament as an international actor and as an IPI (International Parliamentary Institution): examples and comparisons with other IPIs
Responsables
Stelios STAVRIDIS (ARAID/Universidad de Zaragoza, Espagne) dr.stelios.stavridis@gmail.com
Olivier COSTA (Centre Emile Durkheim-Sciences Po Bordeaux) o.costa@sciencespobordeaux.fr
Présentation scientifiqueDates des sessions Programme Résumés Participants
La fin de la guerre froide en 1989-1991 et la “sécuritésation“ des relations internationales post-septembre 2001, l´émergence lente, difficile et souvent violente d´un nouvel ordre international, guidée par une globalisation d´abord financière et économique et ensuite politique et sécuritaire, accompagnée d´un nouveau régionalisme (Volgy, Šabič, Roter, Gerlak 2009), ainsi que de liens interrégionaux, l´apparition des BRICS ou le début des “Printemps arabes“ contribuent tous à l´apparition ou consolidation d´acteurs non-traditionnels (Reinalda 2011) desquels les institutions parlementaires ne font pas exception (Beetham 2006; Malamud, Stavridis 2011).
Alors qu´il y a quelques années, le concept même de “diplomatie parlementaire“ (Stavridis 2002 ; Eloriagga 2004; Fiott 2011) était contesté, de nos jours la presque-totalité des sites internet des parlements et autres assemblées parlementaires le mentionne constamment, et la plupart des parlementaires le considère comme faisant partie de leurs vies quotidiennes. Il y a également une prolifération d´assemblées parlementaires régionales et internationales, groupées sous le générique de ”IPIs”: institutions parlementaires internationales (Cutler 2001; Puig 2008; Šabič 2008; 2013; Kissling 2011; Costa, Dri, Stavridis 2013), en partie crées pour construire un système global démocratique. Les questions de contrôle démocratique, d´efficacité et de légitimité sont en effets importants si nous voulons l´émergence d´un nouvel ordre international supérieur à l´actuel.
La question essentielle de recherche de cette section thématique sera d´évaluer le rôle des parlementaires et des institutions parlementaires de tout ordre dans l´émergence d´un système de gouvernance globale. En particulier, cette section adressera ce thème du point de vue d´un coté du rôle international du Parlement européen et de l´autre du rôle des IPIs.
En effet, en combinant la recherche sur le Parlement européen en tant qu´acteur international avec celle sur les IPIs, nous créons une synergie nouvelle, riche et prometteuse pour mieux comprendre l´influence et l´impact sur les relations internationales tant des IPIs en géneral que du Parlement européen en particulier. Une telle approche (Cofelice, Stavridis 2014) nous permet d´étudier les assemblées interparlementaires de l´Union européenne (pays ACP, Méditerranée, Amérique latine, ou voisinage est-européen), qui représentent entre autres choses, des IPIs au sein d´une IPI. Elle permet également de développer les théories de nouveau régionalisme et des relations interrégionales. Ainsi que de faciliter les études comparées, en particulier empiriques, sur ces sujets.
Cette ST inclue des communications tant théoriques et conceptuelles que pratiques et empiriques.
Les langues de travail sont le français et l´anglais avec une publication postérieure prévue.
Following the seminal events of 1989-1991 and the “securitization” of world politics since September 2001, non-traditional actors have developed their role in world politics: parliamentary institutions and parliamentarians are no exception. The main research question will be what role can – and should - parliamentarians and parliamentary institutions of all sorts and kinds play in the emergence of a Global Governance system: i.e. to assess what kind of parliamentarization of the world system is actually taking place by focusing on two key issues of Global Governance: accountability and legitimacy.
Yet, the proliferation of parliamentary actors in the post-Cold War international system remains an under-studied academic area of research. There is a clear “academic” gap between practice and theory. This panel intends to bridge that gap, by focusing on a number of international parliamentary institutions (IPIs) and in particular on the European Parliament.
The panel considers both theoretical and conceptual contributions as well as empirical studies, be they comparative or in-depth individual ones.
The working languages are French and English and a publication will result from this panel in the longer term.
Les travaux de la Section Thématique se dérouleront sur les sessions suivantes :
Session 3 : mardi 23 juin 9h00 – 12h00
Session 4 : mercredi 24 juin 14h00
– 17h00
Lieu : voir le planning des sessions
Axe 1
Chair & Discussant: Olivier Costa (Centre Emile Durkheim-Sciences Po Bordeaux)
Axe 2
Président et Discutant: Stelios Stavridis (ARAID/Universidad de Zaragoza, Espagne)
Peter Bajtay (European Parliament, Brussels)
Shaping and controlling EU foreign policy: the parliamentary actors and tools
Antonios Vlassis (Chargé de recherche-FNRS & CEFIR/Center for International Relations, Université de Liège)
Le Parlement européen à l’épreuve des normes internationales: la mise en oeuvre de la Convention sur la diversité des expressions culturelles
Abdelwahab Biad (Université de Rouen)
La diplomatie parlementaire: quelle contribution pour la stabilité et la paix en Méditerranée ?
Bento Rodrigo Pereira Monteiro (UnB) & Dr. Denilson Bandeira Coêlho (UnB)
Measuring Parliaments: Construction of Indicators of Legislative Oversight
Governmental accountability is an obligation that different levels of government must fulfill nowadays. In order to accomplish this, different levels of government and different powers, not only the Executive, must disclosure information regarding the use of public resources and the goods and services delivered to the people. Although there are several goods that can be easily measured, others cannot. Those provided by the Parliaments lies in that last category. The results delivered by the legislative branch are highly abstract. Brazil´s House of Representatives represents the people (representation function), legislates on matters of national interest (legislation function) and audits the use of public resources (oversight function). The studies analyzing principal-agent theory on legislative oversight and the use of fire alarms and policy patrol were not able to identify these indicators so far. This study aims to construct objective indicators of legislative performance, when exercising their oversight function. The research is empirical, and was divided in two phases. Initially, to elucidate the main indicators of oversight function performance, interviews were conducted with key bureaucrats from the Brazilian and European Parliaments. In addition, data was gathered in order to measure these indicators and to test their validity. The study is a first step towards a model to measure Parliamentarian performance and their effectiveness. Through their results a model to evaluate oversight function is proposed and must be stressed in the future in order to allow works on comparative research on Parliamentarian performance.
Elena Griglio (Italian Senate) & Nicola Lupo (LUISS, Rome)
Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats of inter-parliamentary cooperation in the EU
Inter-parliamentary cooperation in the EU represents a highly controversial issue. Opponents of this practice accuse it of being ineffective and useless. In contrast, its supporters praise IPC as a mechanism suited to ensure greater levels of transparency, participation and legitimacy to the EU decision-making.
The discussion has acquired growing relevance after the establishment, in 2012 and 2013, aside the traditional COSAC, of two new inter-parliamentary Conferences respectively competent on the common foreign, security and defence policies and on the economic (and financial) governance. The format was implemented to satisfy increasing expectations of democratic oversight in subjects deemed to be executive-centered.
The proposed paper aims at promoting a new approach to the issue, based on the so called "SWOT analysis" derived from the marketing studies. This methodology will be developed in two stages: firstly, the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats of IPC will be analysed and confronted; secondly, a conversion strategy, turning Weaknesses or Threats into Strengths and Opportunities, will be defined, focusing on the role of the three existing inter-parliamentary Conferences.
This analysis will lead us to consider as highly recommendable a re-orientation of the IPC practice towards a more pragmatic approach, directed at fostering an inter-parliamentary confrontation on the proposals of the Executive, to be considered as instrumental to the scrutiny/oversight activities implemented by the national parliaments and by the European parliament in their respective domain. This approach reveals itself fully consistent with the perspective of the 'euro-national parliamentary system' (Manzella-Lupo, 2014).
Valentin Kreilinger (Hertie School of Governance, Berlin)
Varying degrees of Cooperativeness among EU Parliaments related to the Inter-parliamentary conference on Economic and Financial Governance
In the area of Economic and Financial Governance, inter-parliamentary cooperation between national parliaments and the European Parliament takes place in an inter-parliamentary conference which was established on the basis of Article 13 of the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance. It would allow them to work together, to discuss, exchange information and even exercise joint control. However, the relationship between the two parliamentary levels is (still) characterised by conflict, rather than cooperation, as the first meetings of the new conference show: some EU parliaments are more cooperative than others.
This paper compares the European Parliament and four national parliaments (Denmark, France, Germany, Lithuania): Their behaviour towards inter-parliamentary cooperation in Economic and Financial Governance both inside and outside the arena of that conference (agenda-setting, participation in ad-hoc meetings and inter-parliamentary conferences, written contributions and amendments with respect to the draft Rules of Procedure) is analysed in order to examine which parliamentary actors take the initiative and/or participate in activities related to this inter-parliamentary conference. The following classification of parliamentary actors (and parliaments) as inward-looking, passively cooperative or actively networking that is developed in this paper, contributes to understanding the challenges of inter-parliamentary cooperation even beyond Economic and Financial Governance.
Yoav Shemer-Kunz (Université de Strasbourg, France & Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands)
Under Pressure: the European Parliament, National Parties, and International Trade
In recent years there is a growing interest in the internationalization of parliamentary democracy in a comparative perspective, with new research on the role of International Parliamentary Institutions (IPIs) and inter-parliamentary coordination in international politics. However, this research is often institutional, focused on the formal arrangements of the developing IPIs and inter-parliamentary tools, often studied as unitary actors within a institutional environment. This paper seeks to explore the role of key actors within IPIs, national political parties, and their linkage with actors in civil society. The article explores how bottom-up pressure from domestic civil society organizations on national parties impact decision-making in the European Parliament on international trade, which became a politicized issue in a global context. By in-depth process tracing on three case-studies, ACTA, ACAA and TTIP, the article reveals a multilevel dynamics, in which intensive interactions between domestic civil society organizations and national parties is combined with expertise and lobbying in the European Parliament, as well as transnational exchanges beyond Europe.
Peter Bajtay (European Parliament, Brussels)
Shaping and controlling EU foreign policy: the parliamentary actors and tools
In the post-Cold War international system, parliaments have gained a particular place in the dense network of international relations, traditionally monopolized by executives. Parliaments are increasingly expected to contribute to resolving complex foreign policy and international issues impacting more and more on citizens’ lives. In the past twenty years, the European Parliament’s ambition and attitude resulted in the need to maximise parliamentary authority in order to make full use of the acquired powers for the sake of bringing European integration forward also in a field traditionally dominated by Member States.
The presentation will reflect on the gradual parliamentarization of a particular realm of the EU polity: foreign policy. It will analyze the nature of the European Parliament’s actornes in international relations, the EP’s emerging role in EU foreign policy as well as the tools and instruments available to exert influence on the Union’s decisions and relations. It will finally respond to whether EU foreign policy can become efficient and democratic at the same time in the process of building an EU “representative democracy”.
Antonios Vlassis (Chargé de recherche-FNRS & CEFIR/Center for International Relations, Université de Liège)
Le Parlement européen à l’épreuve des normes internationales : la mise en oeuvre de la Convention sur la diversité des expressions culturelles
Adoptée par l’UNESCO en 2005 et entrée en vigueur en 2007, la Convention sur la diversité des expressions culturelles (CDEC) a reçu à ce jour l’adhésion de 134 Etats et de l’Union européenne (UE) et devient un mécanisme majeur de la gouvernance mondiale des industries culturelles. Notre communication envisage la mise œuvre de la CDEC du point de vue des nouveaux destinataires majeurs – tels que le Parlement européen – qui sont très peu étudiés par les approches théoriques dominantes en Relations Internationales. Nous optons donc un institutionnalisme centré sur les acteurs en vue de comprendre comment le Parlement européen – considéré comme institution désincarnée – pense, agit et interagit à l’épreuve des normes internationales. Il s’agit d’analyser son rôle dans la mise en œuvre de la CDEC sous le prisme de trois questions majeures : a. étudier pourquoi et comment les normes de la CDEC influencent le comportement du Parlement européen, leur permettant de justifier certaines décisions ; b. mettre en lumière les liens que le Parlement européen entretient avec d’autres nouveaux destinataires majeurs, tels que les administrations des organisations régionales (Mercosur, Union africaine) et du Groupe d’Etats ACP (Afrique, Caraïbes, Pacifique) dans le cadre de la mise en œuvre de la CDEC ; c. montrer le rapport que le Parlement européen entretient avec des assemblées parlementaires de deux organisations régionales (Mercosur, Union africaine) et mettre l’accent sur la façon dont ils cherchent à légitimer ou délégitimer la CDEC, retraduisant ses normes en fonction des contextes et des rapports de force.
Abdelwahab Biad (Université de Rouen)
La diplomatie parlementaire: quelle contribution pour la stabilité et la paix en Méditerranée?
L’Assemblée parlementaire Euro-méditerranéenne (APEM) s’est imposée depuis sa création en décembre 2003, et sa session inaugurale à Amman, en septembre 2006 comme la dimension parlementaire du Partenariat euro-méditerranéen (maintenant l´Assemblée Parlementaire de l´Union pour la Méditerranée/UpM). L’APEM est amené à donner, les impulsions politiques nécessaires à la mise en oeuvre de projets concrets da coopération entre les deux rives. Mais, la dimension parlementaire peut-elle aider à sortir le Processus de Barcelone de la léthargie dans laquelle il se trouve depuis plusieurs années ? En quoi la diplomatie parlementaire peut-elle soutenir la diplomatie classique qui a révélé ses limites dans le règlement des crises et des conflits dans la région ?
Pour répondre à ces questions, il faut d’abord tenter d’évaluer la contribution de la dimension parlementaire de la coopération euro-méditerranéenne, sans prétendre à l’exhaustivité, compte tenu de l’ampleur de l’exercice. Cette évaluation permettra dans un deuxième temps de tracer quelques pistes, de proposer des recommandations en vue de renforcer le rôle de l’interparlementaire dans la réalisation de l’objectif de construire en Méditerranée un «espace partagé de paix, de sécurité et de prospérité».
Bajtay Peter peter.bajtay@europarl.europa.eu
Bandeira Coêlho Denilson denilsonbc@unb.br
Biad, Abdelwahab biad.abdelwahab@univ-rouen.fr
Costa Olivier o.costa@sciencespobordeaux.fr
Griglio Elena egriglio@gmail.com
Kreilinger Valentin v.kreilinger@phd.hertie-school.org
Lupo Nicola nlupo@luiss.it
Monteiro Bento Rodrigo Pereira bentomonteiro@yahoo.com
Shemer-Kunz Yoav yoav.shemer@gmail.com
Stavridis Stelios dr.stelios.stavridis@gmail.com
Vlassis Antonios antonios.vlassis@gmail.com
13ème Congrès de l’AFSP à Aix-en-Provence du 22 au 24 juin 2015 à Sciences Po Aix
© Copyright 2014 Association Française de Science Politique (AFSP)
27 rue Saint-Guillaume 75337 Paris Cedex 07 France
Téléphone
: 01 45 49 77 51
Courriel
: afsp@sciencespo.fr
