Content

Gianni Bonvicini, Integrating Europe: Istituto Affari Internazionali and Institut für Europäische Politik: Cooperation between think tanks living in two different national environments in:

Prof. Dr. Hartmut Marhold im Namen des Vorstands des Instituts für Europäische Politik (Ed.)

Wegbegleiter der europäischen Integration, page 293 - 306

60 Jahre Institut für Europäische Politik

1. Edition 2019, ISBN print: 978-3-8487-6161-6, ISBN online: 978-3-7489-0283-6, https://doi.org/10.5771/9783748902836-293

Series: Europäische Schriften, vol. 98

Bibliographic information
3. Europäische Kooperationen Integrating Europe: Istituto Affari Internazionali and Institut für Europäische Politik: Cooperation between think tanks living in two different national environments Gianni Bonvicini The longstanding collaboration between the Istituto Affari Internazionali (IAI) and the Institut für Europäische Politik (IEP) began when the two organizations came together to launch a multilateral initiative: the creation, in 1974, of the Trans European Policy Studies Association (TEPSA). Alongside French colleagues from the Association Française d’Etudes pour l’Union Européenne (AFEUR) and the British Federal Trust, our two institutes, as well as setting up a new association, came into contact for the first time. From this moment on, the bilateral relationship between the two Institutes has been in constant development whether inside or outside TEPSA. The 1970s were especially interesting in terms of developing what was then the European Communities, mainly because for the very first time it was being enlarged. One of the main objectives in creating the TEPSA was to support the United Kingdom, one of the three new members together with Denmark and Ireland, in entering into the ‘community spirit’ and contributing to the development of European integration. Admittedly, in light of the current events surrounding Brexit this initiative was not successful. However, the contributions made by our British colleagues in terms of study and research into the actual functioning and future perspectives of the European Communities have been enormously important throughout the years. It is a shame that British politics did not go the same way. The 1970s were extremely important for the development of the process of European integration. Beyond the political impact and meaning of the first enlargement from six to nine members (in 1973), it is important to note the main changes related to new EC-wide policies. A summit held some years before the enlargement, on the 1st and 2nd of December 1969 in The Hague, had in fact produced a very ambitious political agenda. There were new social and regional policies, a move to experiment with monetary cooperation and, above all, the decision to extend the European Union’s activities into the field of foreign policy. 295 Furthermore, in the constructive spirit of the time, a new informal organ was created to direct the development of European integration strategies: the European Council (1974). In parallel, the future strengthening of the role of the European Parliament started to turn into reality, as did its political legitimization through direct election (which happened in 1979). The potential topics to be studied by two think tanks like the IAI and the IEP were thus numerous and important. At that time, moreover, there was a positive political condition at the level of bilateral cooperation between Italy and Germany: an especially close dialogue and consensus between two countries over the new European integration policies and the further developments in the supranational process. In fact, these two countries had already joined together in resisting French President Charles de Gaulle’s attempts to make intergovernmental changes to European Community procedures (the Luxembourg Compromise, 1966). In the beginning of the 1970s, they also intended to integrate the United Kingdom into the European Communities in a positive manner after it joined. Relations and cooperation between the IAI and the IEP were an indirect response to this political need: both institutes had Europe in their DNA. The first because it was founded by Altiero Spinelli, the second because of its proximity to the European Movement, in whose offices it had initially been located. Together with Wolfgang Wessels, we initiated an increasingly close bilateral cooperation. This cooperation, as mentioned earlier, frequently overlapped with the TEPSA’s activities, within which, its founding members, as well as other national institutes also operated and took part in studies directed by the IEP and the IAI. The directors, who succeeded Wessels, from Jörg Monar to Mathias Jopp, maintained this same approach. The way towards a European Foreign Policy? The birth of the European Political Cooperation Undoubtedly, one of the most important and interesting new developments to come out of the summit in The Hague was the European Political Cooperation (EPC) and its attempt to coordinate national foreign policies and make them applicable to the whole Community. It was thought that the EPC could aid the process of completing European integration, although the Treaty of Rome had made no mention of shared foreign policy. For this very reason, the EPC was created outside the Treaty and remained strictly intergovernmental. It was not an international agreement either, but simply a set of Reports (Luxembourg, 1970; Copenhagen, 1973; Lon- Gianni Bonvicini 296 don, 1981) that indicated objectives and methods of working. There was nothing truly binding for the member states and no rigid institutional structure for European foreign policy actions and positions. It is obvious how this rather undefined nature and the need to try out new forms of cooperation, different from those in place within the European Communities, attracted the attention of researchers like us. Because of this, the IEP and the TEPSA formed a group of researchers dedicated almost exclusively to the understanding of the new EPC and developing recommendations for obtaining the best results in terms of credibility and effectiveness. Several research projects were therefore pursued from 1976 onwards and involved, among others, Wolfgang Wessels, David Allen, Alfred Pijpers, Françoise de la Serre, Elfriede Regelsberger, Geoffrey Edwards, Reinhardt Rummel and Christopher Hill, as well as myself, representing the IAI. This small initial group was joined over the years by many other researchers and practitioners who made enormous contributions in spreading awareness and information of the nascent European foreign policy. Also of interest were theoretical reflections on the nature of the EPC, its complicated relationship with the parallel European Communities, and the first practical and political topics to be confronted together: among these were policies relating to the Mediterranean and Turkey, transatlantic relations and relations with Eastern Europe. As early as the end of the 1970s a first collected volume was published in German, Italian and English.1 As it has already been indicated, the uneasy co-existence of the EPC and the existing European Communities was one of the problematic issues tackled by the study group. In order to give credibility to still vague European foreign policy it was more necessary than ever to succeed in working together on the basis of the more solid structures of the European Commission and what was then the General Affairs Council. The EPC lacked financial resources, permanent organs in Brussels and clearly defined decision-making procedures. More research was carried out on this topic, both through a book edited by Wessels and Rummel2 and through various pa- 1 See: Gianni Bonvicini: La politica estera dell’Europa. Autonomia o Dipendenza?, Bologna 1980. 2 See: Gianni Bonvicini: Der Dualismus zwischen EPZ und Gemeinschaft, in: Reinhardt Rummel/Wolfgang Wessels (Eds.): Die Europäische Politische Zusammenarbeit, Bonn 1978, pp. 73-96. Integrating Europe 297 pers and articles in the magazines of the IAI and the IEP.3 It was only in the following years, first with the Single European Act (1985-1986), when the EPC was included within a Treaty (Article 30) and then with the Maastricht Treaty (1991-1993), that the problem of the coexistence of the EPC and the European Communities was tackled to some extent if not completely resolved. In the meantime a steering group was created around the IEP focusing on ‘European Foreign Policy Making’, and further volumes of research studies were published.4 New enlargements and the acquis politique Perhaps one of the most original topics studied during the long cooperation between the IAI and the IEP over aspects of the EPC was the impact of the enlargement of the European Communities on the EPC and vice versa. In particular, Wessels and myself focused our attention on the third expansion of the European Communities (after three new members joined in 1973 followed by Greece in 1981): the inclusion of Portugal and Spain. The question was whether, beyond the traditional acquis communautaire to which new member states were obliged to conform, the same discourse could exist in the field of European foreign policy, which could already build on the ‘legacy’ of almost fifteen years’ experience. In other words, it was necessary to evaluate the need for Spain and Portugal to adapt to the positions developed over the years by the ten members of the European Communities, the so-called acquis politique. In fact, especially in the case of Spain, the divide was considerable: from the nonrecognition of the State of Israel to the explicit opposition to NATO. The research was carried out in situ, with the participation of researchers from the two countries, including Katlyn Saba a Spanish researcher working at the IAI. The results were published in 1985 in several research papers5 and led to an interesting European debate on the need for the two new members to adapt themselves to the EPC’s new acquis politique. The indica- 3 See: Gianni Bonvicini: European Political Cooperation: More than Traditional Diplomacy, in: The International Spectator 3/1986, pp. 19-25. 4 Among other publications: See: Christopher Hill (Ed.): National Foreign Policies and European Political Cooperation, London 1983. 5 On Spain, Portugal and EPC, several papers had been published in November 1985 at the occasion of the final conference in Bonn titled “From Six to Twelve – European Political Cooperation – A new Approach to European Foreign Policy?”. Gianni Bonvicini 298 tions of this research were then confirmed by facts, when the two countries eventually aligned with the EPC’s shared positions on world affairs. More generally, the case study of the two new candidates’ adhesion gave rise to questions about the relevance of an EPC that was more and more present and prominent in the European Communities’ agenda. The ‘Summitry method’ outside and inside the European Communities During the same period, the IAI and the IEP opened up a new research field on the emerging phenomenon of the so-called ‘summitry’: the tendency to place responsibility for directing multilateral organizations or even ‘supranational’ institutions, such as the European Communities, in the hands of those holding the highest positions in each country, such as presidents of the republic or prime ministers. The focus was on the G7 and the European Council. Our two institutes from the mid-1980s tackled both these issues, in which the French President Valéry Giscard d’Estaing took particular interest in the beginning of the 1970s. In terms of the G7, the question was explored by Cesare Merlini of the IAI in collaboration with the European Institute of Public Administration (EIPA).6 Within the more general multilateral context and practice of the G7, researchers also began considering the role of the European Council under two main aspects: its official presence and role in the G77 and its status as a new European ‘institution’ responsible for coherence between decisions relating to EC policy and the management of foreign policy issues of the EPC.8 These beginnings generated an important series of studies and ideas, continuing to the present days, focusing on the role and evolution of the European Council via the modifications inserted into the various treaties and in view of its everyday political practice. This research topic has been 6 Cesare Merlini (Ed.): Economic Summits and Western Decision-Making, London 1984. 7 Gianni Bonvicini/Wolfgang Wessels: The European Community and the Seven, in: Cesare Merlini (Ed.): Economic Summits and Western Decision-Making, London 1984, pp. 167-191. 8 Gianni Bonvicini/Elfriede Regelsberger: The Decision-Making Process in the EC’s European Council, in: The International Spectator 3/1987, pp. 152-176. Integrating Europe 299 mainly promoted and directed by Wessels both within the IEP and outside of it, from the first collected volume published in 19889 and onwards. European Union’s institutional evolution and the new Treaties The institutional issues linked to the creation of the EPC and the birth of the European Council highlighted the importance that the IEP and the IAI had always attached to the European Communities’ old and new decisionmaking procedures and mechanisms. It is not surprising, that particular attention was also paid to the direct elections to the European Parliament in 1979 and to its possible political and institutional strategies, in terms both of democratic legitimization and of powers, starting with powers over the budget. This resulted in initiatives beginning on the eve of the second European Parliament election in 1984 via an evaluation by several researchers and practitioners of the European Parliament’s results and prospects after its first five years. Among other aspects taken into consideration was an analysis of the European Parliament’s role in relation to the EPC, an area in which the European Parliament had demonstrated great dynamism despite the fact that the EPC did not fall within its direct field of responsibility.10 The IEP’s and IAI’s interest in the political and institutional evolution of the European Communities did not lose sight of the extensive reforms carried out in the mid-1980s on the old Treaty of Rome. The absorption of the EPC into the Single European Act in 1985 and the creation of a small permanent secretariat in Brussels confirmed already made suggestions by the two institutes on the need to further integrate the two aspects of the European Communities’ and EPC’s activities. Naturally, this tendency was strengthened by the birth of the European Union in 1992 with the Maastricht Treaty, which established the presence of a second institutional pillar dedicated to the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). Following an initiative by the IAI, this gave rise to the first common evaluation exercise in the wake of the revision of the Maastricht Treaty: it consisted of a biannual report on the Treaty’s application in the member states and on any modifications proposed by them. For Germany the body managing 9 See: Jean-Marc Hoscheit/Wolfgang Wessels (Eds.): The European Council 1974-1986: Evaluation and Prospects, EIPA, Maastricht 1988, pp. 155-210. 10 See: Symposium organised by College of Europe and IEP on: The European Parliament on the Eve of the Second Direct Election: Balance Sheet and Prospects, Bruges 16/06/1983-18/06/1983. Gianni Bonvicini 300 the national report was, naturally, the IEP. This exercise lasted for four years, from 1993 to 1997, when the new Treaty of Amsterdam was signed by the member states. After that, study of the European Union’s reform processes continued with various initiatives launched alternately by the IAI and the IEP along with other institutes in the TEPSA framework. The modifications emerging from the Treaty of Nice in 2001 were also analysed in this context, especially those relating to European defence.11 Furthermore, the role of the Convention in relation to a draft treaty establishing a European Constitution (2004) was studied, as was its transformation into the following Treaty of Lisbon (2009) after the Constitutional Treaty was rejected by the French and Dutch referendums in 2005. Institutional issues continue to remain one of the core interests for both Institutes: starting with a large-scale network on strengthening cooperation between institutions of higher education and research in Europe called “LISBOAN” launched by the University of Cologne in 2010 until the most recent (2018) new Horizon 2020 project “EU IDEA – Integration and Differentiation for Effectiveness and Accountability” project on differentiated integration led by the IAI with the participation of the IEP and other relevant European partners. The challenging topic of European Security and Defence A large part of the IAI’s and IEP’s activities has also focused on the important emerging issues of European security and defence. Initially, attention was concentrated on the EPC’s foreign policy with only an indirect focus on security issues, including the Genscher-Colombo Plan, which led to the Solemn Declaration on European Union (1983) and Article 30 of the Single European Act, in which political and economic aspects of common security were cited as elements falling within the sphere of the EPC.12 After the Treaties of Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon formalized the will to proceed more quickly towards a common European Security and Defence Policy (the ESDP), studies and initiatives in this field multiplied. When Mathias Jopp took over as head of the IEP, the opportunities 11 See: Institut für Europäische Politik/Trans European Policy Studies Association: Conference on: New Dynamism for the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) – The Impact of the Nice Treaty, Brussels 13/09/2001-14/09/2001. 12 Gianni Bonvicini: The Genscher-Colombo Plan and the “Solemn Declaration on European Union” 1981-1983, in: Roy Pryce (Ed.): The Dynamics of European Union, Trans European Policy Studies Association, Kent 1987, pp. 174-187. Integrating Europe 301 for cooperation with the IAI, which had been interested in European defence issues for many years, increased considerably. Here we will look back on just a couple of these research interests. The first initiative was concentrating on a rather unusual issue, at least for an Italian institute: the Northern Dimension of the CFSP. Launched by Tapani Vaahtoranta, director of the Finnish Ulkopoliittinen Instituutti (UPI) in Helsinki, in collaboration with Jopp and Wessels, this study aimed to assess perceptions of security in Northern Europe, especially in Russia, the Baltic states (which were not yet members of the European Union) and the rest of the then Community of Independent States. It was clear from the start that it was logical to include the IAI in order to understand how these particular dimensions of European security were understood from the standpoint of the South of the European Union, and how these differed from Mediterranean interests. For this reason the project’s closing conference was held in Rome in December 2000 where we tried to compare both dimensions of security as reflected by the title “Northern and Southern Dimensions of Europe: Challenges for the CFSP”. The final publication on the Northern Dimension of European security thus included also several chapters on perceptions of security in the principle Southern European countries, in an attempt to identify a link between security requirements in the northern and southern European Union.13 The close collaboration between the IEP and the IAI on European security issues had an initiative at its heart which the IEP started in 2004 with a complex programme of research and training entitled “European Foreign and Security Policy Studies” (EFSPS). This initiative had the unique objective to spread and increase awareness of a European topic still largely ignored by the academic community: the CFSP/ESDP. The aim was also to train a new cohort of highly competent young experts to join the emerging European security and foreign policy institutions (for example the European External Action Service (EEAS)). A Selection Committee was thus created which would identify twenty candidates each year who, through ‘on-the-job training’ at both institutes and other centres linked to the initiative, would perfect their knowledge and research expertise relating to a variety of aspects concerning the CFSP. Another important feature of the initiative was the direct involvement and financial support from three major European foundations: VolkswagenStiftung (Hannover), Compagnia 13 Gianni Bonvicini/Tapani Vaahtoranta/Wolfgang Wessels (Eds.): The Northern EU: National Views on the Emerging Security Dimension, Ulkopoliittinen Instituutti/Institut für Europäische Politik, Helsinki/Berlin 2000. Gianni Bonvicini 302 di San Paolo (Turin) and Riksbankens Jubileumsfond (Stockholm). These were years of great enthusiasm and considerable commitment on the part of both the institutes and the foundations involved: the good results in terms of research and participation by young people from all over Europe and the success of the annual Young Faces Conferences demonstrated the value of the activity. Today, many of those young people are working in major European research centres or EU institutions. The programme officially ended in December 2006 with the Turin Young Faces Conference, but in subsequent years it continued to bear fruit thanks to the meetings and studies it engendered, often involving young experts from the CFSP who had gone through the programme’s training course.14 The need for positive relations between Italy and Germany on European Union Affairs The good results that sprang from the cooperation between the IEP and the IAI in the various initiatives briefly described here created the basis for a close dialogue on bilateral relations between Germany and Italy, which have always been among both institutes’ main interests and research objectives. In the past there had already been occasional opportunities to assess the progress and direction of the two countries in the process of European integration, both through seminars and ad hoc studies.15 However, from 2002 onwards, the institutes tried to make such assessments more formal and regular by launching a series of German-Italian Expert Meetings between delegations of German and Italian researchers and practitioners. The topics studied were those that were most important at the time, but they were always treated within the perspective of cooperation between the two countries with a view to reinforcing the process of European integration. Examples include “The Future of the EU – The European Policy of Germany and Italy after the 11th of September 2001 and the Laeken European 14 Among others: 3rd Autumn Seminar and Final Conference of the First Cohort on: A Common European Foreign and Security Policy in the Making? Competences, Institutions and National Interests, Brussels, 17/10/2007-21/10/2007. And the following IEP-IAI Conference on: The EU in Conflict Prevention and Civil-Military Crisis Management – The Quest for Effectiveness and Legitimacy, Turin, Villa Abegg, 25/06/2009-26/06/2009. 15 Just to mention one of the very first conferences on bilateral relations promoted by IEP: Germany and Italy on the Road towards a New Europe. Challenges and Conditions of Integration Policies, Villa Vigoni, 23/11/1995-25/11/1995. Integrating Europe 303 Council”, which took place in Berlin in December 2002, and few years ago in Rome “Germany and Italy: Partners in Constructing Europe”, in January 2015. More specifically, in the many bilateral seminars organized in the last fifteen years, the ‘Leitmotiv’ has been the two countries’ contribution to the development of European foreign and defence policy, a field on which, as demonstrated above, the IAI and the IEP had developed a high level of knowledge and expertise. Above all, though, the main reason for these bilateral meetings was to push the political classes of both countries to help make the European Union a more effective global player, not only in economic and commercial terms but also in what is today the far more important aspect of foreign policy: security and defence. The European Union in time of crisis and the role of think tanks This brief overview of a collaboration that has lasted for nearly fifty years and is a rare example of such a longstanding relationship between two research institutes also provides the opportunity for more general reflection on the evolution of European integration, which has always been central to the research interests of the IAI and the IEP. They have always shared the aim to analyse this subject and therefore to indicate possible ways of bolstering member states’ commitment to continue with the various stages of integration. In particular, scrutiny of the CFSP and ESDP has highlighted the conviction that, without a certain dimension of ‘external’ policy, the process of integration could not claim to be able to advance and complete the final aim of a political union as described in the Treaties. The success of this, however, also depended to a great extent on compatibility between EU (or supranational) procedures and those of a more intergovernmental nature, which never completely gave way to truly communitarian procedures in the context of the CFSP and ESDP. On the contrary, with the growing power and role of the European Council, which increased quickly during the 2008 financial crisis (far beyond the rule prescriptions contained in the various treaties), the pendulum of EU rules over decision-making swung towards greater control by national governments over the whole integration process. The resulting weakening of the original EU institutions, the European Commission and the European Parliament, only accelerated the European Union’s credibility crisis not only among governments (who are really responsible for the European Union’s current difficulties) but also in European public opinion. The Brexit referendum is today’s proof of this, as are growing anti-liberal feelings in the Visegrád Group and the fast emerging of Eurosceptic groups in Europe, Gianni Bonvicini 304 abetted by the egotism with which individual states tackle EU issues. It is easy, therefore, to blame the European Commission or the weakness of the European Parliament for the crisis, but the real problems are born of the gradual degeneration towards the present intergovernmental nature of EU decision-making processes. The long battle fought by our institutes in insisting on the need for increased European integration would appear to be lost, even though there are still efforts to remedy the current state of paralysis through new proposals for differentiated integration. But to achieve this, enough governments must believe in it, first and foremost Italy and Germany, two of the founders of the European Union. However, while the two institutes have always enjoyed a straightforward and natural collaboration, the same cannot be said of Italy and Germany. In the past, starting in the middle of the 1970s after the first EC enlargement, Italy has traditionally suffered from a certain degree of marginalization, both in presence of the so-called ‘Franco-German engine’ and during the periods in which there seemed to be a trio in charge: Germany, France and the United Kingdom. There was, however, a fundamental difference. In actual fact, regarding the first of these two scenarios, is the acknowledged need for a prior agreement between Paris and Berlin for any new proposal relating to European integration, Italy could support such an agreement and help make it ‘community-wide’, extending to all members of the European Union. When it came to the second aspect, however, Rome has always feared the risk of being excluded from the trio of the ‘big three’ and not being recognized for its own status as one of the European Union’s founder countries, on a par with France and Germany. This was exactly what happened several times, particularly in case of major international initiatives, such as, for example, the ‘5+1’ group, which guided difficult nuclear negotiations with Iran and from which Italy was excluded despite having a good relationship with Iran itself. This is not to say IAI and IEP have a direct role to play in relation with the bilateral problems between Italy and Germany: it is in itself evident that in purely political matters the institutes’ initiatives could never have any real impact. They could, however, throw light on the different perspectives of the two countries and, above all, express the need to be more courageous and cooperative in the push to integrate national politics into one European context, especially in the field of the CFSP and ESDP. Unfortunately, as discussed above, this did not happen despite the improvements introduced by Title V of the Lisbon Treaty on the European Union’s external activities and the subsequent launch of the ambitious 2016 EU Global Strategy. Integrating Europe 305 The Italian and German positions were still made less coherent by the great currency crisis and increasing internal political difficulties, first in Italy with its long series of changes of governments and more recently also in Germany, with the weakening of Angela Merkel’s political influence. Italy’s large public debt and the difficulty of maintaining commitments to economic convergence set out in the Maastricht Treaty and the Fiscal Compact have greatly undermined Italy’s role within the European Union, making it a less credible partner for future progress in European integration. The 2018 national election of an extremely EU-sceptic government has only accentuated this tendency. At the same time in Germany, the long period of political inactivity, before and after the last national election, and the appearance of German anti-EU forces have not helped to make the current state of the European Union more stable or reassuring. All this with what is already an enormously difficult and complex moment for the European Union, caught as it is between Brexit negotiations, disagreements with the Visegrád Group, the rebirth of Russian power and looser ties to the USA. The current landscape does not allow the European Union to make big steps forward that would make its internal politics and international role more effective and credible. Within this picture of potential fragmentation of the European Union, the IAI’s and the IEP’s capacity to function ‘against the tide’ is more important than ever. Bringing rational thinking and prospects for growth to EU politics is not only a very worthy topic of research and study but above all a civil duty: that is, to strengthen the perspective of multilateral politics in the world and to promote the greatest political project of the last seventy years, the European Union. Gianni Bonvicini 306

Chapter Preview

Schlagworte

Wolfgang Wessels, Politisches Bildung, Römische Verträge, Europäische Union (EU), Auswärtiges Amt, Europäische Kommission, Europäische Politik, EU, Europäische Integration, Europapolitik, Föderalismus, Zivilgesellschaft, Politikberatung, Governance, Ökonomie, Außenpolitik, Internationale Beziehungen, Politikwissenschaft, European Union, Europäische Union, Zentralasien, Gesellschaft, Europa, Deutschland, Recht, Politik, Integration, Geschichte

Keywords

Central Asia, European politics, civil society, European Commission, history, Germany, political science, policy, European policy, European integration, Europe, law, federalism, European Union (EU)

References

Abstract

For 60 years, the Institute for European Politics (IEP) has studied Europe—containing contributions on all the eras of its history and fields of work by 23 authors involved in shaping this unique think tank, this book reflects the history of the IEP’s rich experience of research into politics and civil society.Rooted in the post-WWII Euro-federalist movements, the IEP has gained a reputation in Germany as a forward-thinking, advisory and agenda-setting think tank through interdisciplinary research and multiple publications, conferences and training courses, and Master’s and PhD programmes. The authors of this volume offer insights into historical evolutions and fields of research extending from the options for Europe at the time of the Rome Treaties to the EU’s Central Asia Strategy today, from the efforts to bind Central Europe into the European integration process after 1989 to challenges like further democratisation and increasing the efficiency of the EU’s system.With contributions byDr. Katrin Böttger, Dr. Gianni Bonvicini, Dr. Wolf-Ruthart Born, Elmar Brok, Dr. Vladimír Handl, Dr. Gunilla Herolf, Dr. Werner Hoyer, Prof. Dr. Rudolf Hrbek, Prof. Dr. Mathias Jopp, Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. mult. Beate Kohler, Prof. Dr. Michael Kreile, Dr. Barbara Lippert, Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Wilfried Loth, Prof. Dr. Hartmut Marhold, Prof. Dr. Jürgen Mittag, Prof. Dr. Dr. iur. habil. Dr. h.c. mult. Peter-Christian Müller-Graff, Ph.D. h.c., MAE, Dr. Elfriede Regelsberger, Axel Schäfer, Dr. Otto Schmuck, Dr. Franz Schoser, Dr. Funda Tekin, Dr. Jürgen Trumpf, Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Wessels

Zusammenfassung

Seit 60 Jahren wird im Institut für Europäische Politik (IEP) Europa gedacht – dies ist die Bilanz internationaler Forschung und Kommunikation für Politik und Zivilgesellschaft, mit Beiträgen aus allen Epochen und Arbeitsbereichen, von 23 Autoren und Autorinnen, die das IEP mitgestaltet und begleitet haben. Hervorgegangen aus den euro-föderalistischen Bewegungen der Nachkriegszeit hat sich das IEP als Thinktank in Deutschland durch interdisziplinäre Wissenschaft und Forschung, durch Publikationen und Veranstaltungen, durch Schulungs- und Lehrprogramme in der deutschen Europapolitik einen Namen gemacht als Vordenker, Ratgeber und Agenda-Setter.Die in diesem Band präsentierten Entwicklungen und Forschungsfelder reichen von den Optionen, die sich zu Zeiten der Römischen Verträge boten, bis zur Zentralasienpolitik der Europäischen Union heute, über die Einbindung Mitteleuropas in die europäische Integration nach der Wende von 1989 bis zu Fragen der Demokratisierung des EU-Systems.Mit Beiträgen vonDr. Katrin Böttger, Dr. Gianni Bonvicini, Dr. Wolf-Ruthart Born, Elmar Brok, Dr. Vladimír Handl, Dr. Gunilla Herolf, Dr. Werner Hoyer, Prof. Dr. Rudolf Hrbek, Prof. Dr. Mathias Jopp, Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. mult. Beate Kohler, Prof. Dr. Michael Kreile, Dr. Barbara Lippert, Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Wilfried Loth, Prof. Dr. Hartmut Marhold, Prof. Dr. Jürgen Mittag, Prof. Dr. Dr. iur. habil. Dr. h.c. mult. Peter-Christian Müller-Graff, Ph.D. h.c., MAE, Dr. Elfriede Regelsberger, Axel Schäfer, Dr. Otto Schmuck, Dr. Franz Schoser, Dr. Funda Tekin, Dr. Jürgen Trumpf, Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Wessels

Schlagworte

Wolfgang Wessels, Politisches Bildung, Römische Verträge, Europäische Union (EU), Auswärtiges Amt, Europäische Kommission, Europäische Politik, EU, Europäische Integration, Europapolitik, Föderalismus, Zivilgesellschaft, Politikberatung, Governance, Ökonomie, Außenpolitik, Internationale Beziehungen, Politikwissenschaft, European Union, Europäische Union, Zentralasien, Gesellschaft, Europa, Deutschland, Recht, Politik, Integration, Geschichte

Keywords

Central Asia, European politics, civil society, European Commission, history, Germany, political science, policy, European policy, European integration, Europe, law, federalism, European Union (EU)