Religion, politics and law in the European Union: an introduction

EU enlargement - to countries in Central and Eastern Europe in 2004, the inclusion of Bulgaria and Romania in 2007, and increasing debates on Turkey’s membership - has dramatically transformed the European Union into a multi-religious space. Religious communities are not only shaping identities but are also influential factors in political discourse. This edited volume examines the activities of religious actors in the context of supranational European institutions and the ways in which they have responded to the idea of Europe at local and international levels. By bringing together scholars working in political science, history, law and sociology, this volume analyses key religious factors in contemporary EU architecture, such as the transformation of religious identities, the role of political and religious leaders, EU legislation on religion, and, the activities of religious lobbies. This book was published as a special issue of Religion, State and Society.

Religion, politics and law in the European Union

EU enlargement - to countries in Central and Eastern Europe in 2004, the inclusion of Bulgaria and Romania in 2007, and increasing debates on Turkey’s membership - has dramatically transformed the European Union into a multi-religious space. Religious communities are not only shaping identities but are also influential factors in political discourse. This edited volume examines the activities of religious actors in the context of supranational European institutions and the ways in which they have responded to the idea of Europe at local and international levels. By bringing together scholars working in political science, history, law and sociology, this volume analyses key religious factors in contemporary EU architecture, such as the transformation of religious identities, the role of political and religious leaders, EU legislation on religion, and, the activities of religious lobbies.

A study of performance and regulation in telecommunications in the European Union

This thesis looks at two issues. Firstly, statistical work was undertaken examining profit margins, labour productivity and total factor productivity in telecommunications in ten member states of the EU over a 21-year period (not all member states of the EU could be included due to data inadequacy). Also, three non-members, namely Switzerland, Japan and US, were included for comparison. This research was to provide an understanding of how telecoms in the European Union (EU) have developed. There are two propositions in this part of the thesis: (i) privatisation and market liberalisation improve performance; (ii) countries that liberalised their telecoms sectors first show a better productivity growth than countries that liberalised later. In sum, a mixed picture is revealed. Some countries performed better than others over time, but there is no apparent relationship between productivity performance and the two propositions. Some of the results from this part of the thesis were published in Dabler et al. (2002). Secondly, the remainder of the tests the proposition that the telecoms directives of the European Commission created harmonised regulatory systems in the member states of the EU. By undertaking explanatory research, this thesis not only seeks to establish whether harmonisation has been achieved, but also tries to find an explanation as to why this is so. To accomplish this, as a first stage to questionnaire survey was administered to the fifteen telecoms regulators in the EU. The purpose of the survey was to provide knowledge of methods, rationales and approaches adopted by the regulatory offices across the EU. This allowed for the decision as to whether harmonisation in telecoms regulation has been achieved. Stemming from the results of the questionnaire analysis, follow-up case studies with four telecoms regulators were undertaken, in a second stage of this research. The objective of these case studies was to take into account the country-specific circumstances of telecoms regulation in the EU. To undertake the case studies, several sources of evidence were combined. More specifically, the annual Implementation Reports of the European Commission were reviewed, alongside the findings from the questionnaire. Then, interviews with senior members of staff in the four regulatory authorities were conducted. Finally, the evidence from the questionnaire survey and from the case studies was corroborated to provide an explanation as to why telecoms regulation in the EU has reached or has not reached a state of harmonisation. In addition to testing whether harmonisation has been achieved and why, this research has found evidence of different approaches to control over telecoms regulators and to market intervention administered by telecoms regulators within the EU. Regarding regulatory control, it was found that some member states have adopted mainly a proceduralist model, some have implemented more of a substantive model, and others have adopted a mix between both. Some findings from the second stage of the research were published in Dabler and Parker (2004). Similarly, regarding market intervention by regulatory authorities, different member states treat market intervention differently, namely according to market-driven or non-market-driven models, or a mix between both approaches.

The Legitimation of authority in the European Union

The founding Treaties of the European Union (EU) provide the Commission with bureaucratic structures and functions, and the authority to take a political leadership role in the integration process. However, the legitimacy of the Commission's authority to act either as a bureaucracy or as a political institution is periodically contested, as is the authority and leadership of its President. Max Weber's theory of the legitimation of authority suggests itself in this context as a working tool for assessing the nature of institutional and individual authority and leadership in the Commission and the broader EU context. Weber's typology of authority offers both an understanding of the changes in the Commission's fortunes within the 'would-be polity' of the European institutions, and an appraisal of claims to authority at the individual level by the Commission President. When applied to two contrasting moments in the Commission's life during the presidency of Jacques Delors (the generating of the White Papers of 1985 and 1993), Weber's typology provides an explanation for the evolution of the legitimation of these forms of authority in terms of, first, the Union's imperfect provisions for legitimate claims to leadership authority on 'charismatic' grounds and, second, the absence in the Union of resources for leadership legitimacy based on 'traditional'-type authority, such as explicit, popular, or party political European-wide support for the project of European union. These are resources which, if present in the EU, would legitimise calls to reform the EU's institutions in the direction of more integration and a more federal polity. The case studies offer an appraisal of the functioning and malfunctioning of authority within the Union, as well as a critical assessment of the applicability of the Weberian model to the legitimation of authority in the EU.

Poland's power and influence in the European Union:the case of its eastern policy

This paper seeks to assess the degree to which Poland exercises power and influence in the European Union. It employs Poland's policy towards its eastern neighbours as a case study, and, in doing so, contributes to two wider scholarly debates on how EU policy towards Russia, Ukraine and Belarus is made, and also the broader question of the evolving nature of the relationship between the European Union and its Member States. In doing so, it employs a synthetic framework that brings together the approaches for studying the power and influence of a given Member State that were developed by Wallace et al (2005), Tallberg (2008) and Moravcsik (1991, 1993, 1998). It concludes that Polish influence has been low. © 2010 Macmillan Publishers Ltd.