Advertisement

The European Parliament in Legislation

  • Adrienne HéritierEmail author
  • Katharina L. Meissner
  • Catherine Moury
  • Magnus G. Schoeller
Chapter
Part of the European Administrative Governance book series (EAGOV)

Abstract

This chapter examines the driving forces of the EP’s formal and informal institutional power gains in the EU’s legislative process. Over a period of around fifty years, the institutional rule went from giving the EP a merely consultative role in the legislative procedure to establishing it as a coequal legislator with the Council of Ministers under the ordinary legislative procedure. We assess the extent to which this development was accelerated by the EP itself and analyse which of its strategies succeeded or failed in widening the EP’s powers. The strategies of unilateral action, arena-linking and alliance are found to be most important in bringing about this outcome.

Keywords

Arena-linking Alliance European Parliament Legislation Ordinary legislative procedure 

References

  1. Agence Europe. (1991, November 23). Europe, Bulletin Quotidien, Luzembourg, No. 5615.Google Scholar
  2. Ariès, Q. (2016, July 14). EU’s Public Watchdog Calls for More Lawmaking Transparency, Politico. http://www.politico.eu/article/eus-public-watchdog-calls-for-more-lawmaking-transparency/. Accessed 19 Sept 2017.
  3. Armstrong, K. A., & Bulmer, S. (1998). The Governance of the Single European Market. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Beach, D. (2005). The Dynamics of European Integration, Why and When European Institutions Matter. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  5. Boucher, S. (2006). Exploring Leadership Effectiveness: The Presidency of the European Commission. Florence: European University Institute.Google Scholar
  6. Budden, P. M. (1994). The United Kingdom and the European Community 1979–1986: The Making of the Single European Act. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Committee on Institutional Affairs, Bourlanges/Martin Report (1995). 17.5.1995. Dury/Maij-Weggen Report, 13.3.1996.Google Scholar
  8. Corbett, R. (1993). The Treaty of Maastricht: From Conception to Ratification: A Comprehensive Reference Guide. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
  9. Corbett, R. (1998). The European Parliament’s Role in Closer EU Integration. Basingstoke: MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Corbett, R., Jacobs, F., & Shackleton, M. (2000). The European Parliament (4th ed.). London: Harper.Google Scholar
  11. Devuyst, Y. (1998). Treaty Reform in the European Union: The Amsterdam Process. Journal of European Public Policy, 5(4), 615–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. EP. (2017). Legislative Train 03.2017: Union of Democratic Change. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/legislative-train/pdfs/legislative-train-schedule-theme-union-of-democratic-change-03-2017.pdf. Accessed 24 Oct 2017.
  13. EP Activity Report. (2004). EP Activity Report.Google Scholar
  14. EP & European Commission Framework Agreement. (2010). Framework Agreement on Relations Between the European Parliament and the European Commission. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:304:0047:0062:EN:PDF. Accessed 14 Dec 2017.
  15. Farrell, H., & Héritier, A. (2003). Formal and Informal Institutions Under Codecision: Continuous Constitution Building in Europe. Governance, 16(4), 577–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gazzo, M. (1985). Towards European Union: From the “Crocodile” to the European Council in Milan. Brussels: Agence Europe.Google Scholar
  17. Gazzo, M. (1986). Towards European Union II: From the European Council in Milan to the Signing of the European Single Act. Brussels: Agence Europe.Google Scholar
  18. Héritier, A. (2007). Explaining Institutional Change in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hix, S. (2002). Constitutional Agenda-Setting Through Discretion in Rule Interpretation: Why the European Parliament Won at Amsterdam. British Journal of Political Science, 32(2), 259–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lodge, J. (1998). Negotiations in the European Union: The 1996 Intergovernmental Conference. International Negotiation, 3(3), 481–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Maurer, A., & Wolf, M. C. (2017). Informal Leadership and Agenda-Shaping in the European Parliament—The Process, Institution and Impact of Own-Initiative Reports (1999–2016). Paper Presented at the Council for European Studies’ 24th International Conference Sustainability and Transformation, 12–14 July, Glasgow.Google Scholar
  22. Moravcsik, A. (1998). The Choice for Europe: Social Purposes and State Power from Messina to Maastricht. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  23. National Parliaments Etats de la reflexion sur la conference intergouvernementale. (1996, February 14). Etat de la reflexion des parlements nationaux sur la conference intergouvernementale de 1996. Brussels.Google Scholar
  24. Panizza, R. (2015). EU Administrative Law. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2015/519207/IPOL_ATA(2015)519207_EN.pdf. Accessed 24 October 2017.
  25. Ponzano, P., Hermanin, C., & Corona, D. (2013). The Power of Initiative of the EC: A Progressive Erosion? Brussels: Notre Europe.Google Scholar
  26. Poptcheva, E. (2013). Parliament’s Role in Anti-crisis Decision-Making. Brussels: Library Briefing.Google Scholar
  27. Rasmussen, A. (2007). Challenging the Commission’s Right of Initiative? Conditions for Institutional Change and Stability. West European Politics, 30(2), 244–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rittberger, B. (2003). The Creation and Empowerment of the European Parliament. Journal of Common Market Studies, 41(2), 203–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rittberger, B. (2005). Building Europe’s Parliament: Democratic Representation Beyond the Nation State. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Roos, M. (2017). Far Beyond the Treaties’ Clauses: The European Parliament’s Gain in Power 1952–1979. Journal of Contemporary European Research, 13(2), 1055–1075.Google Scholar
  31. Ross, G. (1995). Jacques Delors and European Integration. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Schiffauer, P. (2004). Die Gestaltungskraft des Europäischen Parlaments im Prozess der Entstehung einer Verfassung der Europäischen Union. In Institut für Europäische Verfassungswissenschaften (Eds.), Die Europäische Union als Verfassungsordnung. Berlin: Berliner Wissenschaftsverlag.Google Scholar
  33. Shackleton, M. (2000). The Politics of Codecision. Journal of Common Market Studies, 28(2), 325–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. UK White Paper. (1996, March 12). Note on Quality of Legislation.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adrienne Héritier
    • 1
    Email author
  • Katharina L. Meissner
    • 2
  • Catherine Moury
    • 3
  • Magnus G. Schoeller
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Political and Social Sciences and Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced StudiesEuropean University InstituteSan Domenico di Fiesole, FlorenceItaly
  2. 2.Centre for European Integration Research, IPWUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria
  3. 3.Universidade Nova de LisboaLisbonPortugal
  4. 4.Centre for European Integration Research, IPWUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations