Reflections on the institutional balance, the Community Method and the interplay between jurisdictions after Lisbon. Research Papers in Law, 04/2012

[Introduction.] Over the last two years, not only inside but also outside the framework of the EU treaties, far reaching measures have been taken at the highest political level in order to address the financial and economic crisis in Europe and in particular the sovereign debt crisis in the Euro area. This has triggered debates forecasting the “renationalisation of European politics.” Herman Van Rompuy, the President of the European Council, countered the prediction that Europe is doomed because of such a renationalisation: “If national politics have a prominent place in our Union, why would this not strengthen it?” He took the view that not a renationalisation of European politics was at stake, but an Europeanization of national politics emphasising that post war Europe was never developed in contradiction with nation states.1 Indeed, the European project is based on a mobilisation of bundled, national forces which are of vital importance to a democratically structured and robust Union that is capable of acting in a globalised world. To that end, the Treaty of Lisbon created a legal basis. The new legal framework redefines the balance between the Union institutions and confirms the central role of the Community method in the EU legislative and judiciary process. This contribution critically discusses the development of the EU's institutional balance after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, with a particular emphasis on the use of the Community Method and the current interplay between national constitutional courts and the Court of Justice. This interplay has to date been characterised by suspicion and mistrust, rather than by a genuine dialogue between the pertinent judicial actors.

Why the Open Method of Coordination (OMC) is bad for you: a letter to the EU. Research Papers in Law, 5/2006

From the Introduction. The aim of the present “letter” is to provoke, rather than to prove. It is intended to further stimulate the – already well engaged – scientific dialogue on the open method of coordination (OMC).1 This explains why some of the arguments put forward are not entirely new, while others are overstretched. This contribution, belated as it is entering into the debate, has the benefit of some hindsight. This hindsight is based on three factors (in chronological order): a) the fact that the author has participated himself as a member of a national delegation in one of the OMC-induced benchmarking exercises (only to see the final evaluation report getting lost in the Labyrinth of the national bureaucracy, despite the fact that it contained an overall favorable assessment), as well as in a OECD led exercise of coordination, concerning regulatory reform; b) the extremely rich and knowledgeable academic input, offering a very promising theoretical background for the OMC; and c) some recent empirical research as to the efficiency of the OMC, the accounts of which are, to say the least, ambiguous. This recent empirical research grounds the basic assumption of the present paper: that the OMC has only restricted, if not negligible, direct effects in the short term, while it may have some indirect effects in the medium-long term (2). On the basis of this assumption a series of arguments against the current “spread” of the OMC will be put forward (3). Some proposals on how to neutralize some of the shortfalls of the OMC will follow (4).

Investigation of punchability tests for electrical steels. [Final report on development of a punchability rating method for electrical steels, for the Research Fund of American Society of Tool and Manufacturing Engineers,

Cover title.

A new method for providing continuous high-temperature air flow for hypersonic research,

"AFOSR-TN-56-236."

Living on the ground research: Steps towards white women researching in collaboration with indigenous people

De Ishtar discusses ways in which Whites could develop research epistemologies and methodologies which responded to and reflected those being developed by Indigenous researchers across Australia and around the world. She details her own explorations in developing a methodology which enabled her to work in collaboration with a group of Indigenous women elders from Western Australia's Great Sandy Desert. She stresses that if collaborative research with Indigenous women is to be possible, White feminists must learn how to do research which is culturally unobtrusive, and that means taking responsibility for their own cultural practices, attitudes and values.

Finding common ground in team-based qualitative research using the convergent interviewing method

Research councils, agencies, and researchers recognize the benefits of team-based health research. However, researchers involved in large-scale team-based research projects face multiple challenges as they seek to identify epistemological and ontological common ground. Typically, these challenges occur between quantitative and qualitative researchers but can occur between qualitative researchers, particularly when the project involves multiple disciplinary perspectives. The authors use the convergent interviewing technique in their multidisciplinary research project to overcome these challenges. This technique assists them in developing common epistemological and ontological ground while enabling swift and detailed data collection and analysis. Although convergent interviewing is a relatively new method described primarily in marketing research, it compares and contrasts well with grounded theory and other techniques. The authors argue that this process provides a rigorous method to structure and refine research projects and requires researchers to identify and be accountable for developing a common epistemological and ontological position.

On being thrown into phenomenological research: a book review of J.A. Smith, P. Flowers & M. Larkin (2009) Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis: Theory, method and research. London: Sage.

Book review