Abstract
The European Space Policy (ESP) may seem as a self-evident necessity to stakeholders, experts or enthusiasts of European cooperation, but to most Europeans it is an obscure policy area. Few people know what the ESP does, and even fewer how it works. This is problematic. A policy area that is or appears to be unknown, irrelevant or unpopular will find it difficult to flourish in the short run and consequently it will have a hard time surviving in the long run.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
In 2012 only 38 % of Europeans had heard of GMES (recently relabeled Copernicus) and 57 % of Galileo (Flash Eurobarometer no. 355). Up to date data are unfortunately not available.
- 2.
Laffan, Brigid (1996) “The Politics of Identity and Political Order in Europe”, Journal of Common Market Studies 34 (1): 81–102.
- 3.
Startin, Nick and André Kruwel (2013) “Euroscepticism Re-galvanized: The Consequences of the 2005 French and Dutch Rejections of the EU Constitution”, Journal of Common Market Studies 51 (1): 65–84.
- 4.
Sigalas, Emmanuel (2012) “The Role of the European Parliament in the Development of EU Space Policy”, Space Policy 28 (2): 110–117.
- 5.
Napel, Steffan and Mika Widgrén (2006) “The Inter-institutional Distribution of Power in EU Codecision”, Social Choice Welfare 27 (1): 129–154.
- 6.
Sandholtz, Wayne and Alec Stone Sweet (1998) European Integration and Supranational Governance, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- 7.
Whilst the EP’s latest (Standard Eurobarometer 82) trust rate is not impressively high (42 %), it remains higher than public trust toward the Commission (38 %) or the Council of the EU (33 %).
- 8.
The interested reader may wish to consult Corbett, Richard, Francis Jacobs and Michael Shackleton (2011) The European Parliament, London: John Harper.
- 9.
Sigalas, Emmanuel (2015) “Europe in Space: The European Parliament’s Justification Arsenal”, in T. Hoerber and P. Stephenson (eds.) The European Space Policy, London: Routledge.
- 10.
Ibid.
- 11.
A more detailed analysis of the EP resolutions and of the methodology I used in my analysis can be found in Sigalas (2015).
- 12.
Ibid.
- 13.
The text corpus contains all the quasi-sentences (part or whole sentences containing a single argument) of the 22 resolutions addressing the imaginary question ‘why should action on space matters be taken’.
- 14.
Sigalas, Emmanuel (2015) “Europe in Space: The European Parliament’s Justification Arsenal”, in T. Hoerber and P. Stephenson (eds.) The European Space Policy, London: Routledge.
- 15.
During the Kosovo War (1998–1999) the US cut the GPS signal making European policy-makers painfully aware of the risks associated with depending on a foreign government for the availability of a crucial technology such as the GPS [Jones, Seth (2007) The Rise of European Security Cooperation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 164].
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer-Verlag Wien
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sigalas, E. (2016). Legitimising the European Space Policy. In: Al-Ekabi, C., Baranes, B., Hulsroj, P., Lahcen, A. (eds) Yearbook on Space Policy 2014. Yearbook on Space Policy. Springer, Vienna. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7091-1899-3_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7091-1899-3_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Vienna
Print ISBN: 978-3-7091-1898-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-7091-1899-3
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)