Jaime Sanmartin y Ane Marquinez

International Organizations and Institutions

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND INSTITUTIONS

UNIT 1: MAIN CONCEPTS

IOs are the essential actors of the world which are expected to rebuild societies, help those who
need it and achieve international peace, among others. Indeed, IOs find themselves working in
almost every international issue, the so-called Annan.1 Eventually, this makes them be in a
constant state of adaptation due to the changing global context. IOs are also part of a complex
global institutional landscape today that includes states, nongovernmental organizations
(NGOs), multinational corporations… actors that impact how decisions are made and problems
are solved.
Understanding the role of IOs in global politics has become even more important in recent years
as policymakers and scholars grapple with the concept of global governance2. The idea is that
all the actors mentioned above must interact so as to solve global problems and they shouldn’t
solve them alone.
The huge challenge to global governance is who is doing that governing. Governors may be
states, IOs, corporations, advocacy groups, and other actors, all of whom are involved in a
dynamic political process in which they are exercising power across borders to have an impact
on policy. In addition, “character of the relationship” between the governors and the governed is
important to understanding global politics.
- What is an IO?
No clear definition, but the most general one is that an IO is a formal organization with
members from three or more states that pursues a specific set of goals. International
organizations can also be defined by political scientists as persistent and connected
sets of rules and practices that prescribe behavioral roles, constrain activity, and shape
expectations, the rules that help to goven world politics. (Europol)
There are two categories:
➔ Intergovernmental organizations (IGO), established by an intergovernmental
agreement and whose members are represented by their governments (UN,
NATO, WB…). In practice, talking about IOs, we mainly refer to this category.
➔ International NGOs whose members are individuals, groups or associations.
What distinguishes traditional NGOs from IGOs is that members of the former do
not officially represent governments. (IOs are not NGOs. They are usually state
actors, not the government itself).
➔ Even if there are just two categories, we could also mention the hybrid
organizations, with members of both inside and outside of the governments.
Distinction between institutions/regimes and organizations: the latter are seen as
institutions with walls and bureaucrats. As an example, the Bretton Woods system was
set up in 1944 as a regime, which nowadays is centered in an international organization
(IMF). The distinction may sound like a trivial one, but it is analytically important when

1
Annan: problem without passports, deals with problems without boundaries.
2
To govern: to exercise authority or sovereignty.
Governance: has to do with administering, ruling, exercising authority, and exerting leadership, and
providing leadership, legitimacy and coherence.

1
 there is a need to separate a particular organization from the broader issues to which it
is linked.
- Brief history and evolution
The modern IOs have their roots in the middle of the 19th century and were mainly
created in Europe, so as to cooperate on a focused set of issues (Central Commission
for Navigation of the Rhine, established in 1815). The diplomacy by conference3 was a
precursor to the modern IO, as was the development of IL. Firstly, created to deal with
technical problems, in other words, not political problems. They needed organizations
among states due to the beginning of globalization.
The 19th century developments were mixed in terms of their success. Collaboration
often failed, the conference system functioned sporadically, and it did not produce
permanent institutions. All this is mainly referring to the Concert of Europe, which was
considered as an orchestra without regular rehearsals.
In the aftermath of WWI, many IOs and NGOs were born, among them the League of
Nations (first IO to deal with political issues), forerunner of the UN. Consequently, a large
number of private and public efforts to help design a post-war order arose. However the
League was unable to check the aggressive behavior of Japan, Italy and Germany, and
therefore slow or halt the inevitable steps leading toward World War II.
Today’s most powerful IOs were born in the waning days and aftermath of World War II.
The UN, World Bank and IMF, among others. They were created above all as grand,
dramatic experiments to help avoid future world wars, even though individual countries
may have had additional reasons for participating.
- Difference between global governance and IO
● Global governance includes many actors (state and non- state actors), NGOs
and other actors play a key role in issues proposed to global governance. These
are the ones who deal with the annan for example. On the other hand, IOs don’t
have so many actors as they are composed of states, IOs do not include NGOs.
● IOs are formal organizations with formal rules while global governance includes
both formal and informal mechanisms.
Definition of global governance: “the sum of many ways individuals and institutions,
public and private manage their common affairs. It is a continuing process through which
conflicting or diverse interests may be accommodated and cooperative action may be
taken. It includes formal… as well as informal arrangements that people and institutions
have agreed to or perceive to be in their interest” ( Commission of Global Governance,
1995)
Actors: states, IOs, NGOs, civil society, multinational corporations, (informal) networks
(experts, activists…).
However, the existence of global governance doesn’t mean the overcome or defeat of
international anarchy. Global governance can be defined as“collective arrangements

3
Conference diplomacy can be defined as that part of the. management of relations between
governments and of relations between. governments and intergovernmental organizations that take place
in inter- national conferences.

2
 can help to address transboundary problems, even though there is no overarching global
authority”.
- Range of IO goals
The policy cycle describes the way
in which an issue develops from
initial ideas,
through implementation phases to
fruition, evaluation and the framing
of new agendas.

It consists of five main phases,

namely, agenda setting, policy
formulation, policy adoption,
implementation, and evaluation.

Although the policy cycle may appear to be an ordered process that begins at one point
and ends at another, policy-making can begin or be abandoned or altered at any point
of the cycle

Policy formulation has two fundamental functions: - the forum function ( the most
important one), where states can meet regularly to debate and to accomplish goals.
The second function is creating knowledge; such as creating policies or rules.
Policy implementation: nobody can force you to do anything as states are the ones that
have the last word, so implementation is quite a difficult task in international relations.
That’s why we have monitoring. If a state is doing something different there are some
tools to enforce compliance with rules (anarchy) adjudicate disputes.
- Why do states create IOs?
States create IOs to pursue a variety of common interests and to serve a variety of
functions that states cannot achieve individually.
An IO provides a forum where states can meet (it provides a place of reunion), so as to
ease communication. It also helps to implement and monitor the actions carried out by
states. Therefore, IOs help to coordinate global responses and the global rules
themselves, and they monitor and enforce actors’ compliance with those rules.
In addition, IOs also provide states the ability to coordinate their actions by pooling
financial, technological, and analytical resources to accomplish common goals.
Not only that but, states trust IOs in more legislative actions, by delegating their authority
and power, such as drafting laws, building scientific networks, rebuilding war-torn states,
and helping to create new democracies. Nonetheless, they never lose sovereignty,
leading the results to end up with a contradictory quality.
IOs also have important symbolic value for states, which could also be seen from a
negative perspective. A clear example of this was the NATO and the Warsaw Pact.
Moving on, states also join IOs to show they are in favor of the IO goals, even if they

3
 really are pursuing policies that clearly clash with those goals, as scapegoats. A clear
example of that is the nationalist movement of the United Kingdom with the final Brexit.
Another example is Spain's entry in the European Union in 1986; in order to modernize
and adapt fully to the values of liberal democracy. There could also be domestic political
reasons that have little to do with broader issues of international cooperation.
Moreover, IOs play many other roles for states. IOs are increasingly involved in broad
agenda setting exercises that bring together diverse groups of actors to create policy
networks, and develop soft law, action plans, or other guiding documents aimed at
addressing specific international problems. These activities give IOs the ability to create
and spread norms, ideas, and standards of behavior in a growing number of issue areas.
Finally, states have created IOs to adjudicate their disputes (ICJ) and as means to pool
their sovereignty (The EU).
The UN's World Tourism Organization locates its headquarters in Madrid in Spain. This is
symbolic and quite important because it may certify that Spain is a model or an example
of tourism, the main economic activity of the country ( Spain is the second most popular
tourist destination in the world). This demonstrates that Spain is important at a global
level.

UNIT 2: IR THEORIES OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

According to which theory/theories do IOs are merely the tools of the actors that create them?
The obvious theory that explains IOs and that they are the tools of the key power is realism, as it
supports the preservation of the states.
Neo-liberal institutionalism is important due to the fact that they defend the interests of actors.
However, it is not merely the tools of the actors that create them. It’s quite ambiguous.
Constructivism has to do with values, norms, not with the question we are answering to.
Critical theories and neo-gramscian theories are based on marxist theories. The idea is that IOs
are created to preserve the economic interests of the most powerful states. Indeed, it answers
the question.

Marxist theories and IOs:

Global governance, hence IOs, is the tool of capitalists to legitimize and sustain the dominant
economic system (imperialism as a use of force and consent); serve to maintain the hegemony.
It’s managed by the US, so as to dominate, not just America, but mainly the whole world. The
tools used by this country are some IOs (wto as an example) and big corporations like nafta or
Mcdonalds. Marxist theories highlight how the Washington Consensus4 gives power to
capitalist countries. It is considered as a form of imperialism (based on force and consent).

Realism and IO:

4
The Washington Consensus is a set of ten economic policy prescriptions considered to constitute the
"standard" reform package promoted for crisis-wracked developing countries by Washington, D.C.-based
institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank and United States Department of the
Treasury.

4
Global governance reflects the balance of power. They are based on the self-interested
calculations of the great power: their goal is to quest for power (achieve more power). So the
very term global governance is misleading. Depending on the balance of power, the shape of
global governance may change.
Mearsheimer (1995): ‘institutions have no independent effect on state behavior (anarchy). They
matter only on the margins’. Institutions do not overcome anarchy.
IO’s play a small role in international organizations which in many cases deal with cooperation
(no influence in states). Cooperation can occur. However, it faces two problems: a concern over
relative games and an interest in absolute games ( zero-sum games; a state’s amount of power
in relation to others). There is a general lack of mutual trust if states have the same power in the
international arena according to realism. What’s missing in an IR system is trust. As we are in an
anarchy (lack of higher authority), we still live in a state of nature. There is always a possibility of
cheating, we will always have doubts. There is a particular case in which there is cooperation
(even if it is a self interest context), the situation of hegemony in which one state controls
another due to its power. A clear example is the Western bloc after the Cold War.
Realism conceives international organizations as tools of great states for developing their
interests and gaining more power. Some examples are the Security Council with the right to veto
or the 5 permanent members and the IMF with its particular voting procedure, which is
extremely beneficial for the most powerful countries.

Neo-institutionalism and IO:

States can cooperate but in anarchy there is a fundamental problem of collective action (mixed
motives games), hence the importance of IOs (Ex: non-proliferation, global tax rules… ).
The common situation in IR is the prisoner's dilemma: two actors say that they will do this, but
due to the lack of trust, one actor cooperate and the other does not cooperate; in this situation
the actor that cooperate has no benefits, but the actor that doesn’t cooperate had all the
benefits in the situation-. If they cooperate, have the same benefits

A clear example of that situation was the nuclear disarmament between the US and the USSR.
Other examples are the non-proliferation, the global tax rules…

5
IOs, institutions and rules can foster cooperation to overcome PD situations. How? They reduce
uncertainty and transaction costs [costs associated with cooperation: finding partners, agreeing
on goals and rules, signing a contract, monitoring implementation,…], stabilize states’
expectations towards one another, among other things by providing reliable information.
Besides, repeated interactions reduce uncertainty and create trust.
Keohane (1984): role of the International Energy Agency (1974) to mitigate the impact of the
second oil crisis ( 1979) due to the dramatic effects of the oil crisis in Iran ( 1973).
International Atomic Energy Agency: Importance of inspections to ensure that all states are
complying with their commitments to elaborate transparent and reliable information ( rather
than a coercive mechanism), in order to create mutual trust.

Constructivism and IO:

Logic of expected consequences (Cost and benefits) vs Logic of appropriateness ( what are
appropriate and what are not appropriate). This explains why IOs are created in the first place;
IOs are created because of same values and norms and not because of cost and benefits( e.g.,
nuclear weapons is wrong)
Which constructivist idea is reflected in this new item?
IOs as “diffusers” or “teachers” of norms. They are also a place for debate and forum. For
constructivism, IOs both reflect and shape existing norms. Norms and rules are not only part of
institutional structures that constrain the action of actors but they constitute an ideational
structure which in turn constitutes actors’ interests.
They emphasize the emergence of mutual trust and collective identities out of positive
experiences with cooperation, intensifying dialogue and social learning. IOs do not only facilitate
cooperation but also contribute to socializing states into common values and Norms.

Normative Idealism
Its starting point is the premise that societies are the central actors of international politics and
not states. They believe human beings are moral actors so in international politics societies, as
they are made from human beings, orientate themselves towards the maintenance of power but
are guided by their ideals, values…
Even if different societies have different values and ideals, societies with competing values can
find common normative ground. This is because they believe in the possibility of living in peace
which is considered to be stable when all states are democratically constructed.
They view IOs both as the representatives of an order of values supported by the societies of
their member states and as the advocates of the norms which constitute this order. They
believe world peace is born from liberal societies whose values are represented by IOs.

Transactionalism
They hold that intensive inter-state and inter society transactions and communications lead to
the creation of security communities that differ from each other according to the integration of
their members, in which the threat or use of force between states become unthinkable.
They give a lot of importance to the density and quality of communication and transactions

6
across borders in the creation of security communities.

Social Constructivism
They emphasize the emergence of mutual trust and collective identities out of positive
experiences with cooperation, intensifying dialogue and social learning. IOs do not only
facilitate cooperation but also contribute to socializing states into common values and norms.
They believe that social actors do not only act rationally according to their selfish interests but
also in response to shared values and norms. They ask themselves what gains may derive
from their action but also what is expected of them on the basis of the ideals, values and
norms of their society.
They think IOs creation depends on whether there is a consensus over values and norms. They
are likely to emerge whenever the values and norms they represent are widely shared in the
participating societies. They draw attention to the cognitive agreement that takes place when it
comes to the creation of IOs acknowledging that the problems to be tackled are frequently
perceives differently in societies. That is why is very important for the participating societies to
share basic perception of the problems.
They focus on the role of social groups that function as norm entrepreneurs that persuade
states to agree on and adhere to specific norms and call attention to issues with the aim of
convincing states to embrace new norms within the context of IOs. This means that they
attribute key roles to non-state norm entrepreneurs as well as epistemic communities and
advocacy networks.
Consensual values and norms are not only important doe the creation of IOs but also or their
institutional design. As its usually seen as reflecting of global values and norms.
They underline the dual work of IOs as they both reflect the values and norms of the
participating states and influence these values and norms. This is why they impact on their
interest and identities and may shape the action of states depending on the configuration of
their interests. However they will also influence the interests and identities of states and as a
consequence, the structure of the international system.
IOs plan an important role in constituting the “international society” as according to scholars
international norms and rules transform the international system into an international society.
IOS may influence the values and norms of their member’s societies through three
mechanisms:
- IOs offer organizational platforms and sites for civil society actors that seek to persuade
states to adhere to global norms.
- IOs can be seen as sites where persuasion and discourse within negotiations among states
may lead to shifts in actors' interests.
- It is the bureaucracies of IOs themselves which promote the respective values and norms but
engaging in persuasive communicative action with member states and by supporting these
NGOs and the social groups represented by them.

Theories Of Bureaucratic Culture

They argue the power of international organizations is not based on delegated and easily
revocable competencies but derives from their own bureaucratic authority.
IOs develop a distinct life of their own with a behavioral logic determined by bureaucratic
properties.
They reject idealist notions of the effectiveness of IOs and point to bureaucracies' dysfunctional
ties and resilience to reform.

Critical Theories

7
They conceive the IOs as reflections and vehicles of not only material but also in material power
structures and, as a consequence, IOs are expressions of transitionally hegemonic ideas,
values and interests.
They believe that the hegemony of prevailing social constructs should be contested and that
IOs may also turn into sites of discursive struggle over adequate norms and ideas.

Neo-Gramscian
IOs are created if there is a transnational elite consensus that international organizations are
conducive to the advancement of the neo liberal hegemonic project.
The stabilization of a neo liberal world order as well as its negative effects on workers and
political and economically weak social actors are important problematic effects of IOs.

Feminist Theories
They argue that gender must be introduced as a category of analysis into the study of IOs in
order to shed light on how they deal with and are engaged in global gender politics.
The policy choices and activities of IOs are often shaped by stereotypical ideas about gender
and sex. IOs produce gender policy choices.

Green Theory
They analyze the role of IOs in promoting or hindering global environmental justice and
articulate alternative avenues for “greening” international organizations.

EXERCISE: INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

WHAT IS THE OTHER ASPECT IN AN IOs THAT CAN TELL US THE IMPORTANCE OF
THE IOs OR THE SEPARATION IT HAS FROM THE US
- The ARBITRATION MECHANISM: The Organization of American States VS The UK
Court of Human Rights
If you are fed up with the organization, you either BLOCK IT (not pay the fees – pull the
plug) or NOT LET IT WORK CORRECTLY

Unit 3: THE UNITED NATIONS

The creation of the United Nations: President Roosevelt; 1942: “Declaration by United Nations”.
Goal: defend the “four freedoms: freedom of speech, of want, of religion and from fear. Also
self-determination.
There were a lot of projects at the end of WWII to create an organization that would substitute
the League of nations. The first time this idea was with Roosevelt's speech in 1942: Declaration
by the UN. The nations were united against the nazi regime.
The creation of the UN:
Two emerging Great powers: US and USSR. Both recognize the importance of their leadership to
maintain peace in international relations. But different interests (US and the shape of the new
world order, for the USSR, prestige and security guaranteed).
Which Great Powers? China (before the Communist China) is championed by the US:
counter-balance Japan and the USSR. France was defended by Great Britain as a
counter-balance against Germany and an ally to defend colonial rule. Yet skepticism of the
USSR. The USSR saw France as defeated by the nazi regime, but the UK was concerned about

8
Germany so France was considered as a Great Power too. In addition, if Great Britain supported
France, colonialism would survive as both countries had the remaining colonies.
The idea of the UN maintained by the great powers. The USSR knew that was going to be the
enemy of the US, that’ s the reason why the Soviet Union cooperated in the creation of the UN,
so as not to convert the Cold War into a military war.
San Francisco conference (1945): a key moment in the history of IR. It was a convention of
delegates from 50 Allied nations that took place from 25 April 1945 to 26 June 1945 in San
Francisco, California, United States. The convention resulted in the creation of the United
Nations Charter, which was opened for signature on 26 June, the last day of the conference.
Two documents and a half:
UN charter: Very short document with very few and specific goals and points; its preamble said
that: ``to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has
brought untold sorrow to mankind,’ defend human rights and justice, ‘promote social progress”.
No specific reference to democracy as it would come later. How? ‘living together in peace with
one another as good neighbours,’ ‘uniting our strength to maintain international peace and
security,’ and rejecting the use of force.
Chapter 1:
Articles 1-2: Purposes and principles
Article 2.7( non-intervention/principle of sovereignty): Nothing contained in the present Charter
shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the
domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to
settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of
enforcement measures under Chapter Vll’. Key principle and it is one of the main issues
nowadays
The structure of the UN:
The UN Charter outlines a clear division of powers between 6 organs:

9
Trusteeship doctrine: Organ that supervised the administration of ‘trust territories’ (remaining
mandates of the LoN (former territories of the countries defeated in WWI) and territories taken
from Axis powers after WWII). The goal for these territories was to achieve self rule or gain
independence. The Trusteeship Council has been inoperative since 1994.
3.1 The Security Council
Role: maintenance of peace and international security.
It investigates any dispute or situation which might lead to international friction; recommends
methods of adjusting such disputes; determines the existence of a threat to peace or an act of
aggression and recommends what action should be taken (measured not involving the use of
force and, as a last resort, military action). Its decisions are binding on all member states (art.
25).
The idea was to concentrate power in a small organ within the UN, which indeed decided and
had the last word in the main global issues.
It reflects the responsibilities granted to the victors of WWII. 5 permanent members (P-5) + 6
non-permanent members (2-year mandate) – 10 ( due to decolonization) since 1965 (E-10).
Rotating Presidency (one month). As far as the presidency is concerned, it is not really
important as it does not have any impact on the agenda. The secretary general is the only one
that has that impact. Criteria for E-10: ‘contribution of Members to the maintenance of
international peace and security and to the other purposes of the Organization’ and ‘equitable
geographical distribution’ (all continents should be included in a fair geographical
representation, not 8 countries from Africa and 2 from Asia). Any affected state may participate
(not vote) in the debates of the SC. Not regular meetings: ‘the SC shall be so organized as to be
able to function continuously’.
The security council: Veto (article 27)
Difference between permanent and non-permanent members (just the first ones can use the
veto)
Article 27: 1 Each member of the Security Council shall have one vote.
2. Decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters ( this means that there is a limit to
this veto) shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members.
3. Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of
nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members”.

During the Cold War, only two military actions were authorized: Korea (1950) and Congo
(1960s). As an alternative, the rise of peacekeeping. Return of Great Power rivalry and 2 blocks
since the start of the war in Syria and then the Ukraine crisis: Russia-China vs. US-UK-France.
Reasons: more assertive foreign policy of China and Russia; conflicts in regions where the Great
Powers have competing interests ( Middle East, Ukraine etc). 2011-2019: 8 Russian-Chinese
vetoes (only 1 between 1971-1990). Common defense of sovereignty and non-intervention;
balance against US; international prestige.
Most important division according the article 27; P-5’s vetogracy vs E-10
Are the P5’s capable of doing anything in the United Nations?

10
The majority is 9 votes out of 15. A coalition of 7 non-permanent members may block the
initiatives of P-5, but this has never happened. E-10 only has an impact on the agenda and
functioning of the SC.
Each time one of the P5 wants to submit a draft resolution for the discussion by the SC, a
consensus has already been reached with the other 4 veto members. The E10 has little room to
amend it. And the initiative always comes from the US, GB or France.

3.2 General assembly

Deliberative forum
All member states + 1 country - 1 vote (except when in arrears – art 19) => democratic
representation and decision-making (though only recommendations) Most decisions are
adopted by a simple majority (2/3 for ‘important questions’ – art. 18). Yet in practice,
consensus.
It is the embodiment of the principle of sovereignty (one state one vote) and it is approved by
simple majority. Nothing to do with the SC.
Key articles:
Art. 10: ‘The GA may discuss any questions or any matters within the scope of the present
Charter or relating to the powers and functions of any organs provided for in the present Charter,
and, except as provided in Article 12 [‘disputes or situations’], may make recommendations to
the Members of the UN or to the SC or to both on any such questions or matters’. They can’t
give solutions, only recommendations.
=> Aim = avoid direct confrontation between the SG and the SC (League of Nations). But largely
ignored: the AG expresses its opinion about current crises. They can't give solutions to conflicts,
only recommendations.
Each plenary session starts with the Annual Debate about the state of the world (September) =>
Heads of State.
Functions:
Though the GA can ask the SC to have a debate about a particular ‘dispute or situation’, only the
SC makes decisions. The SC is only required to keep the GA informed and it may request its
opinion. The GA can commission reports with a view to making recommendations about the
promotion of the goals of the UN. It also discusses the annual and special reports of the SG and
SC. The GA approves the UN’s budget and expenses just technical about how the budgets work
in the organization, not in the whole world). It can create subsidiary organs (e.g., HRs Council),
funds and programs.
The hands of the UNGA are tied as they can just make recommendations, not really give
solutions.
So the AG is a modest counterbalance to the SC and the other organs:
- Supervises the work of ECOSOC (coordination of international economic cooperation)
- Supervises the Secretariat (approves its budget and staff regulations)
- Participates in the selection of the judges of the ICJ
- Role in the reform of the UN Charter

11
So in addition to being a forum, the AG is the organizational overseer of the UN (mainly it
focuses on the functioning of the organization).
Just like political parties provide order and coherence to the work of Parliaments, in the GA this
function is performed by regional groups. Important to build coalitions. It’s not a situation of
anarchy.
Regional groups: Other multilateral groups
- African Group (54) - Group of 77 (ca. 132)
- Asia Pacific Group (55) - Association of southwest asian
- Latin America and Caribbean Group nations (ASSEAN) (10)
(33) - Non Aligned movement (ca. 120)
- Western European and Others Group - Organization of islamic cooperation
(29) (57)
- Eastern European Group (23) - Nordic group (5)
- European Union (28)

Since the end of the Cold War the AG has been weakened as a consequence of the divisions
among non-Western states: model of economic development, ideology, culture/religion,
geopolitical interests, interests of the BRICS, … Pb5 of the sheer number of resolutions, including
‘ritual resolutions’ that will not be translated into action.
=> Much lower profile than during the Cold War.
The only change to the UN charter was in the 60s, due to the decolonization process, shifting
the security council’s non-permanent members from 6 to 10.
The GA elects the non-permanent members for two-year terms. Immediate reelection is
prohibited).
Resolution 1991A of 17 December 1963: The GA introduced an official regional distribution for
non-permanent SC seats: 5 seats from African and Asian states (3+2); 1 from Eastern European
States; 2 from Latin American States; 2 from Western European and other States.
Many proposals since the end of the Cold War. Main aspects: composition, veto ( the ⅔- 9/15
majority is usually not challenged) and working methods.
More representation but according to what criteria? Geography, population, economic power,
political and military power, contribution to the UN (budget, peacekeeping operations…)
Trade of legitimacy ( representation, transparency, accountability) vs. efficiency. You want
something that has representation but at the end of the day you need to get things done one
way or another
Dorfler and Hoslu (2013): if the UNSC was created today ( early 2010s); the criteria was based
on population, GDP and number of UN Conventions to which a country is a party).

5
Pb = the agenda of the AG includes far too many items. Its role was to legitimize norms, rules, and
actions, but it is no longer the case. The reform of the AG is long overdue.

12
Mains obstacles to reform the UNSC: P5 and their privileges + the procedures to amend the UN
Charter ( art.108 and 109- never used): ⅔ majority at the GA + ratification by ⅔ member states,
including P5.
General assembly: potentially significant influence on any reform;
Regional groups: a two-thirds majority threshold =129 votes.
Alternatively, a blocking minority=65 states.
The SC may only be reformed over the long term and very gradually
3.3. Main proposals for changing SC
Group of 4 vs. “Uniting for Consensus” coalitions ( led by Italy, includes Spain).
L69 Group: 6 new permanent + 6 new non-permanent (including one for small island developing
states and other small states across regions). Claims that the right to veto should be abolished
but defends that as long as it exists it should be extended to all permanent members.
Other ideas:
- Semi-permanent members (longer mandates)
- Increased role and representation for regional organizations (African Union)
- 2 or even 3 vetoes required to reject a resolution (Not one)
- Use of the veto limited to Chapter VII resolutions.
- The veto cannot be used when mass violations of human rights are occurring
(france-mexico)

3.4 The UN secretary general:

Functions:
- UN representative and spokesperson.
- Guardian of the Charter. (S)he promotes the goals of the UN.
- Mediator between conflict interests and in crisis situations.
- Administrative head of the UN and chair of SC meetings.
UN SG as the “most impossible job in the world” (Trygve Lie).
He/she must be a diplomat, advocate, activist, mediator, broker in political crises and
bureaucrat; and many constraints.
A. The appointment of the UNSG
Chapter XV; art. 97: “the SG shall be appointed by the General Assembly upon the
recommendation of the Security Council”.
Informal norms:

13
 - The Secretary General is not a citizen of a P-5 country, (s)he serves two 5-year
terms ( 2 mandates). No rule about his/her geographical background or the
status of his/her country of origin.
- Not a very transparent and democratic process...
- 1 for 7 billion campaign (2014): the Secretary General should be elected on the
basis of his/ her merits and through a transparent and more inclusive process.

B. The UNSG in its history:

Trygve Lie (Norway)
Dag Hammarskjöld (Sweden, 1953-61)
U Thant (Burma)
Kurt Waldheim (Austria)
J. Pérez de Cuéllar (
Boutros Boutros-Ghali (Egypt 1992-96)
Kofi Annan (Ghana, 1997-2006)
Ban Ki-moon (South Korea, 2007-16)
Antonio Guterres 8 Portugal, 2016-)
Eastern Europe was not represented through the history of the UN, and there is no
woman.
His/ her profile shapes his/her leadership style and, eventually, his/her impact. See Dag
Hmmarskjöld. BUt (s)he is constrained by the geopolitical context, the relationship between the
main powers, and the existing procedures.
“The SG shall not seek or receive instructions from any government or from any other authority
external to the organization and vice versa” (Art. 100) .
The P-5 can veto aspirant SGs; preference for low-profile SGs. The mandate of assertive Sgs
may not be renewed (case of Boutros Boutros- Ghali). LOW PROFILE 🡪 BAN KI MOON (GOOD) /
BOUTROS BOUTROS-GHALI (TOO MUCH INVOLVEMENT – BAD)

C. Responsibilities of the UNSG

Key prerogative: Art.99: 2 the SG may bring to the attention of the SC any matter which
in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security”, this is
rarely used, but there is an example in Rwanda.
The SG presents an Annual Report to the GA, an important way of shaping the UN
Agenda.
SG as a promoter of norms: Sustainable development goals. Responsibility to protect;
R2P (theory of Kofi Annan).
In addition to his/her administrative duties and art.99: “ the SG shall perform such other
functions as are entrusted to him (sic) by the other organs” (art.98)
Over time several important functions have been transferred to the SG. In particular,
oversight of 100,000 peacekeepers. Overall, the SGs have had a key impact on the UN:
agenda-setting, administrative reform, growing number of issue-areas.

14
3.5 The UN secretariat
Administrative function of the SG: Head of the Secretariat. 38,000 civilian staff around the world
(New York, Geneva, Vienna, Nairobi). Though in theory independent, the staffing of the
Secretariat (top level) is highly politicized (P5 want “their” staff).
Two scandals fostered significant reform: Oil for Food programme (corruption) and sexual
abuses involving UN and non-UN peacekeeping staff => Creation of an Office of Internal
Oversight Services, Ethics Office, Whistleblower program
The reform of the institution is long overdue. But it is a politicised issue. Reforming various
technical issues (appointment criteria, human resources, budget) has political implications
(influence of member states).
Reluctance of non-Western states who fear that increasing the autonomy of the Secretariat
ultimately means increase Western influence

3.6 The International Court of Justice

The ICJ is governed by its own Statute to which all members of the UN are parties.
Art. 94: the decisions of the ICJ are binding. If states do not comply with their obligations, the
SC adopts the measures necessary to the enforcement of the Court’s decisions. But very rare.
The ICJ is one of more than 20 permanent (specialized) international courts (e.g., International
Tribunal for the Law of the Sea) => very limited number of cases
‘The International Court of Justice acts as a world court. The Court’s jurisdiction is twofold: it
decides, in accordance with international law, disputes of a legal nature that are submitted to it
by States (jurisdiction in contentious cases); and it gives advisory opinions on legal questions at
the request of the organs of the United Nations [not states], specialized agencies or one related
organization authorized to make such a request (advisory jurisdiction)’, its opinions are not
legally binding.
Main issues settled by the ICJ: land and maritime boundaries (e.g., Maritime Delimitation in the
Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean- Costa Rica vs. Nicaragua); protection of the
environments; immunity of government officials; state responsibility for violations of human
rights (Balkan Wars); violations of international law.
Advisory jurisdiction:
- 2004 opinion of the ICJ0s declaring illegal the construction by Israel of a wall in the
Occupied Palestinian Territory.
- 2010: Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence does not violate
74 states (including Spain) have accepted the ICJ’s jurisdiction but many of them contain
reservations, The US withdrew its acceptance in 1985 (Nicaragua)
States are still unwilling to submit themselves to the compulsory adjudication of an
international court: Iran (1979) and the US (1985) did not appear before the Court.
The rates of compliance with decisions vary widely depending on the subject matter.

15
UNIT4: THE EUROPEAN UNION
4.1 Council Of The EU
Similar logo for the European council that for the Council of the EU. But there are differences.
There is not a presidency for the European Union, but when we talk about the president, we
mean the president of the Council EU (which could create a confusion).
Meetings of ministers. There are 10 formations (issues/policy areas such as education): For
several formations, states are represented by more than one minister; it may make
decision-making more difficult.
All of the formations are presided by the country that is the council’s president in that moment,
except from the foreing policy’s formation that is a permanent member.
The merger treaty 1965/67:
Regarded by some as the real beginning of the modern European Union, the Merger Treaty fused
the executive bodies of the three European Communities: the ECSC( European Coal and Steel
Community), EEC ( European Economic Community) and Euratom ( European Atomic Energy
Community), creating a single Council and a single Commission (of the European
Communities).
The Presidency:
Rotating: 6-month periods. Not an individual: a national government; there is intergovernmental.
Drawback: more difficult to identify the institution even though it is very powerful.
Current troika or trio (07/20-12/21): Germany-portugal-Slovenia.
“Own priority”: Western Balkans (Albania, Bosnia, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia and
Serbia).
New troika (trio) (01/22-06/23): France, Czech Republic, Sweden
07-12/23: Spain
There are problems about the “illiberal Presidencies” of certain countries ( Hungary, Poland etc)

How the Council works:

16
COREPER: National delegation (Permanent Representation). Sort of embassies. Diplomats and
experts.
In addition to its formal functions, COREPER is a key site of socialization where Europe is
created.
• Council Committees: senior national officials.
• Working parties: review and analysis of proposals for legislation.
=> Both assist COREPER.

A. Main Function: Policy And Law-Maker:

Function shared with the Commission (submit proposals) and the European Parliament
(co-legislator).
Important exception: foreign and security policy

B. The Ordinary Legislative Procedure:

The most common legislative procedure (75-80% of EU legislation) is the co-decision
procedure introduced by the Maastricht Treaty (1992/93). It grants equal power to the EP
and the Council of the EU. Since Lisbon, it is called the Ordinary Legislative Procedure
(OLP).
The OLP simpified:
The ordinary legislative procedure. The full procedure is contained in:
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/infographic/legislative-procedure/index_en.html#step1

17
 Since the end of the 1990s the Commission, the EP and the Council of Ministers engage
in informal negotiations from the beginning of the legislative process => trilogues (not
successive steps involving a single actor). Goal = smooth and faster decision-making
process.
1st reading: fewer amendments. Legislation adopted in less than two years (average).
But lack of transparency

C. The Luxembourg Compromise (1966):

In the early 1960s France opposed the ambition to make the EC more supranational and
the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. In 1965 De Gaulle decided to boycott the
meetings of the Council and, therefore, to prevent the institution from performing its
function – ‘empty chair crisis’ => Luxembourg compromise: member states can veto any
decision that, in their view, affects their core national interests.
This veto was undermined in practice and in the treaties in the late 1980s and 1990s =>
extension of QMV.

D. Voting rules:
Most decisions are adopted by qualified majority voting (QMV)
Two criteria (‘double majority’):
- 55% of member states in favour (15/27)
- These states represent 65% of the EU population
Blocking minority: at least 4 member states representing at least 35% of the EU
population.
QMV under the Treaty of Nice:
Triple majority :
- Majority of member states
- 74% of the weighted votes (258/345)
- 62% of EU population (506 M.)
What may seem wrong with this system? (mirar gráficos ppts 16-18)

E. Decision Making Procedures:

In practice, until the mid-1980s member states preferred to take decisions by unanimity
=> more time to redesign proposals. Unanimity was abandoned: too long and ultimately
unsatisfactory decisions; unsustainable with more states and issue areas. Today, a vote
actually takes place in about 20% of the cases in which it is required. Decisions are taken
by consensus. So QMV fosters negotiation. But lack of transparency that fosters
EU-bashing: legislation is not imposed by Brussels, it is ultimately adopted by national
ministers and the European Parliament.
F. Conclusion

18
 The Council of the EU is a complex multi-function institution. Its very name (Council of
Ministers) is misleading => primarily legislative.
But it also has executive powers; it has intergovernmental and supranational aspects; its
organization is both permanent and rotating => the Council of the EU embodies
contradictory logics
And it is not a very transparent institution: most meetings are not public. Besides
COREPER and its work are particularly opaque.
3 main types of legislation proposed by the Commission:
- Directives: general frameworks that define minimum common goals. All member
states must meet them, but they enjoy some freedom to decide how they will do
so => transposition, or adoption of the goals of the goals of directives in national
law + adequate means to meet them.
- Regulations; are binding and directly applicable decisions. Usually narrow focus.
- Decisions: are binding but only for one or few states, EU institutions or any other
actor. Mainly administrative measures.
In terms of the directive and dealing with the Simulation:
Combatin terrorism; shared competence, not exclusive - either pf the EU (few of them) or
of member states.
=> Subsidiarity: “the Union shall act only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed
action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the MS, either ar central level or at regional and
local level, but can rather, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be
better achieved at Union level” (art.5(2) TEU).
=> Proportionality: “the content and form of Union action shall not exceed what is
necessary to achieve the objectives of the Treaties “ (art.5(3) TEU).
Subsidiarity and, to a lesser extent, proportionality are usually important legal grounds
used by States to challenge the proposals of the Commission.
G. Reading of the Council of the EU
➔ Introduction
The Council of the European Union, one of the most powerful (and intergovernmental) of
the EU’s institutions, is the forum in which government ministers from the member
states meet to make decisions on EU policies. It has both legislative and executive
functions. The only change made by thw Lisbon treaty has to do with the role of thd
General Secretariat (esta más adelante).
The Council of the EU is the forum in which national government ministers meet to make
decisions on EU law and policy. Once the Commission has proposed a new law, the
Council—in conjunction with the European Parliament (EP)—is responsible for accepting
or rejecting the proposal. The Council also approves the EU budget, a responsibility it
shares with the EP; coordinates the economic policies of the member states; champions
the Common Foreign and Security Policy; coordinates police and judicial cooperation on
criminal matters; and concludes international treaties on behalf of the EU.
It actually consists of several different groups of ministers, membership depending on
the topic under discussion.

19
 Before Lisbon, the Council of the EU and the European Council were both chaired by
government representatives occupying the presidency on a six-month rotation. But
Lisbon created a new position of president of the European Council, so now only
meetings of the Council of the EU are chaired through the rotating presidency. the
day-to-day work of the Council is overseen by COREPER.
➔ Evolution
The Council of the EU grew out of the Special Council of Ministers of the ECSC. The
ECSC Council provided an intergovernmental balance to the supranational qualities of
the High Authority (precursor to today’s European Commission). A separate Council of
Ministers was created for the EEC in 1958, where the idea of defending national interests
was taken a step further with a weighted system of voting designed to prevent the bigger
member states from overwhelming the smaller ones. The EEC Council had only six
member states, but among them they had seventeen votes. Simple majority voting.
As a result of the Merger treaty, a single Council of Ministers was created in 1967. Its
name was formally changed to the Council of the EU in 1993.
Two goals at first: safeguard the national interests of the member states and promote
the interests of the Community. It is dominated by national government ministers with
their own parochial concerns, so its work is ultimately the sum of those concerns. But
the search for compromise can also encourage ministers to reach decisions that
promote the broader interests of the EU.
Developments added to the power and influence of the Council: It increasingly adopted
its own nonbinding agreements and recommendations, which the Commission has
found difficult to ignore; as the interests and reach of the EU have spread, both the
Commission and the Council became involved in new policy areas not covered by the
original treaties; the presidency of the Council of the EU became an increasingly
important part of the EU decision-making system and the source of many key initiatives
on issues such as economic and monetary union and foreign policy
Power of the veto was introduced into the Council, it was rarely used, and decision
making became increasingly consensual and less nationalistic.
➔ Structure
The Council of the EU is based in the Justus Lipsius building in the European Quarter of
Brussels. Four main elements:
- The councils of ministers themselves: There are ten. Agriculture and Fisheries;
Competitiveness; Economic and Financial Affairs (Ecofin); Education, Youth,
Culture, and Sport; Employment, Social Policy, Health, and Consumer Affairs;
Environment; Foreign Affair; General Affairs Justice and Home Affairs; Transport,
Telecommunications, and Energy. They are supposedly equal in terms of their
status and powers, but some are more influential than others and have
better-defined identities. The most important is the General Affairs Council. The
most important ones meet often while the other meet 2-4 times per year. The
number of meetings is determined by the country holding the presidency. Most

20
 meetings are held in Brussels, but during April, June, and October they are held in
Luxembourg. Sessions usually last no more than one or two days.
In a perfect world, each of the councils would consist of the relevant and
equivalent ministers from each member state, but this does not always happen,
for two main reasons. First, member states sometimes send deputy ministers or
senior diplomats instead of their ministers. Second, not every member state has
an identical set of ministers, and each divides policy portfolios differently.
- The Committee of Permanent Representative: The ministers may be the most
visible element of the Council hierarchy, but its heart and soul is the powerful and
secretive Committee of Permanent Representatives (Coreper). Coreper is the
meeting place for the permanent representatives. It undertakes the detailed work
of the Council, attempting between meetings of the ministers to reach agreement
on as many proposals as possible. Thanks to Coreper, as much as 90 percent of
the work of the Council is resolved before the ministers even meet. 5 Only the
most politically sensitive and controversial sent to the ministers without a
decision having been reached.
Coreper was made in the Treaty of Paris even if it was finally recognized in the
1965 Merger treaty, by which time the growing workload of the Council had led to
a decision to create two committees: permanent representatives constitute
Coreper II and deal with broad issues coming before General Affairs, Ecofin, and
Justice and Home Affairs, and with the preparatory work of the European Council,
while their deputies constitute Coreper I and concentrate on the work of the other
councils. The permanent representatives act as a valuable link between Brussels
and the member states, ensuring that the views of the member states are
expressed and defended. They also play a key role in organizing Council
meetings by preparing agendas, deciding which proposals go to which council,
and deciding which of the proposals are most likely to be approved by the
Council with or without discussion.
There are several standing committees, each made up mainly of national
government officials but occasionally including representatives from interest
groups. The working parties are organized along policy lines.
- The presidency: presidency continues to be held not by a person but by a country,
with every EU member state taking a turn for a term of six months, beginning in
January and July each year. The only exception to this is that the Foreign Affairs
Council is chaired by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and
Security Policy, except when trade is on the agenda, in which case the rotating
presidency takes up the chair. The presidency has several responsibilities:
- it prepares and coordinates the work of the Council of the EU and sets the
agendas for about two thousand meetings, the most important of which
are those of the ministerial councils.
- It arranges and chairs meetings of the Council of the EU and Coreper and
represents the Council in relations with other EU institutions. An active

21
 presidency will lean heavily on Coreper to push its favorite proposals and
to ensure that agreement is reached.
- It mediates and bargains and is responsible for promoting cooperation
among member states and for ensuring that policy development has
consistency and continuity. Presidencies are measured according to the
extent to which they are able to encourage compromise and build a
consensus among the EU members and by how many agreements they
fail to broker.
The Council uses a troika system in which ministers from the incumbent
presidency work closely with their predecessors and their successors. Each
troika should reflect the diversity and geographical balance of member states
within the Union. Just how much one member state (or the troika) can actually
achieve is debatable, because despite the importance attached to the job by the
holder, and the grand plans that each member state typically has for its turn at
the top, much of what happens is outside the control of the presidency.
The main advantage of holding the presidency is that it allows a member state to
convene meetings and launch strategic initiatives on issues of particular national
interest, to try to bring those issues and initiatives to the top of the EU agenda,
and to earn prestige and credibility. The main disadvantage of the job is the sheer
volume of work involved, a burden that is especially onerous on member states
with limited resources and small bureaucracies. A member state can pass up its
turn as president and a member state can also ask another state to help bear
some of the workload.
Different states have different approaches to the presidency, depending upon a
combination of their national administrative and political cultures, their attitudes
toward the EU, and their policy priorities. The records of some recent
presidencies illustrate the often contrasting styles and priorities different
member states bring to the job, as well as the difficulties they have in achieving
their goals.
- The General Secretariat: This is the bureaucracy of the Council, consisting of
about three thousand staff members based in Brussels, most of whom are
translators and service staff. The office is headed by a secretary-general
appointed for a five-year term. The General Secretariat prepares Council
meetings, advises the presidency, provides legal advice for the Council and
Coreper, briefs every Council meeting on the status of each of the agenda items,
keeps records, manages the Council budget, and generally gives the work of the
Council some continuity. Used to be working in the High Representative for the
Common Foreign and Security Policy, not anymore.
➔ How the council works
The Council of the EU responsibilities, including overseeing attempts to coordinate the
economic policies of the member states, signing international treaties on behalf of the
EU, approving the EU budget, promoting the Common Foreign and Security Policy of the

22
EU, and coordinating cooperation between national courts and police forces on criminal
matters. Its primary responsibility, though, is to decide—in conjunction with
Parliament—which proposals for new European laws will be adopted and which will not.
What happens to a Commission proposal when it reaches the Council depends on its
complexity and urgency and on the extent to which problems have already been ironed
out in discussions between Council and Commission staff. The more complex proposals
usually go first to one or more of the Coreper working parties, which look over the
proposal in detail and identify points of agreement and disagreement. The proposal then
goes to Coreper itself, which considers the political implications and tries to clear up as
many of the remaining problems as it can, ensuring that meetings of ministers are as
quick and as painless as possible. The proposal moves on to the relevant Council; if
agreement has been reached by working parties or by Coreper, the proposal is listed as
an “A point,” and the Council will usually approve it without debate. If agreement has not
been reached, or if the item was left over from a previous meeting, it is listed as a “B
point.” The Council must discuss B points and try to reach a decision. The method of
voting in the Council of the EU has changed dramatically over the years: although
unanimity was once the rule and while a simple majority continues to be used for some
procedural or narrow policy issues, most issues are decided by qualified majority voting,
or QMV. The idea behind QMV in its various forms is to prevent big states from having
too much power and to encourage states to form coalitions. It also reduces the tendency
toward nationalism inherent in the way the Council of the EU is structured.
The delegations are seated at a table in order of the rotation of the presidency, with the
Commission delegation at one end and the delegations from the presidency and the
General Secretariat at the other. The member state holding the presidency not only
chairs the meeting but also has separate national representation. National delegations
are normally headed by the relevant minister, backed up by national officials and experts.
The performance of individual ministers is influenced by several factors, including
national interests, the ideological leanings of the minister, public opinion at home
(especially if an election is in the offing), and the individual personalities and
relationships in the room. In addition to general discussions, there are regular
postponements and adjournments, huddles of delegates during breaks, regular
communication with national capitals.When negotiations are becoming bogged down,
the president might use a device known as a tour de table, during which the heads of
delegations are asked in turn to give a brief summary of their positions on an issue.
Meetings of the Council are not open to the public except when Commission proposals
are sufficiently important that the Council decides to allow the public to watch and listen.
Once the Council is faced with having to make a decision, it has three main options
available:
1. Under the consultation procedure the Council asks Parliament for its opinion, and
Parliament can either accept or reject the proposal or ask for amendments. If
amendments are needed, they are made by the Commission, and the new

23
 proposal is sent to the Council, which then decides whether to accept or reject
the proposal.
2. Under the ordinary legislative procedure the Council shares legislative powers
with Parliament. Both institutions read and discuss the proposal twice and must
agree on a common final draft. If they fail, a Council-Parliament conciliation
committee is formed.
3. Under the consent procedure, Parliament must agree before a proposal is
passed. No amendments.
Its values are compromise, bargaining, and diplomacy.

4.2 History of the European Union:

The idea of an alliance of European states dates back to the Middle Ages: Christian states
against the Turks.
1710s: Abbot de Saint-Pierre: League of European states as an economic union with some
political institutions, Then Kant
Numerous projects that reflect various ideologies throughout the XIXth.
Unification of Europe (even if some authors such as Trotsky or Ortega y Gasset did not coincide
in the way the continent was unified).
The EC’S founding fathers:
- Konrad Adenauer
- Joseph Bech
- Johan Wiilliam Beyen
- Alcide De Gasperi (Italy
- Robert Schuman (France
- Paul-Henri ASpaak (Belgium)
Key role of the US after WWII: Marshall Plan but also Bretton Woods (free trade,
nondiscrimination, and stable rates of exchange).
1948: Organization for European Economic Cooperation (OEEC) to coordinate the Marshall plan
Later OECD (1960)
During and after WWII, several pro-Europeanist leaders and movements put forward various
proposals to unite Europe.
Churchill (Zurich speech,1946):; he proposed the “United States of Europe” operating under “ a
Council of Europe” with reduced trade barriers, free movement of people, a common military,
and a high court to adjudicate disputes. Key role for France and Germany not necessarily for
Britain
1949: Treaty of London
Council of Europe: intergovernmental.
For several pro-Europeanists, the CE is not ambitious enough. In 1949, French foreign minister
Robert Schuman and the head of the French national planning commission, Jean Monnet: (great
guy): Defend the idea of allowing the reconstruction of Germany within a wider association of
states 8 a sort of anti-Versailles). It would be controlled by an institution independent of
governments that would therefore be compelled to cooperate.

24
Coal and steel: control of the basis of German power; dismantling of national cartels => foster
industrial development and trade + avoid war.
A. The Schuman Declaration (1950) really important document so as to create peace and
served as a reconciliation between France and germany.
“Europe will ot be built at once as according to a single plan but only through nations of
Europe requires the elimination of the age-old opposition of France and Germany (...)
With this aim in view of the French Government proposes that Franco-German
production of coal and steel as a whole be placed under a common High Authority within
the framework of an organization open to the participation of the other countries of
Europe [This will be] a first step in the federation of Europe [and will make] war between
France and Germany not merely unthinkable, but materially impossible’
B. The ECSC (1951):
Only Italy and the Nenelux countries are enthusiastic about the project.
Few countries will be enthusiastic of the project but Italy and Benelux will be.
Institutions: zhigh authority (antecedent of the European Commission), council of
ministers, common assembly, court of justy, Basis of EU institutions,
The ECSC will not reach its economic objective but it demonstrates that cooperation
indeed works.
However, there were two failed projects in the 1950s:
- european defense community
- european political community
European states are not ready to give up an essential element of their sovereignty.
For Schuman, Europe should carry on with economic integration as it will gradually foster
political integration and, ultimately, curb nationalism.

C. The treaties of Rome (1957):

New impetus. Spaak Committee (1955). In 1957 the 6 ECSC members create the
European Economic Community (ECC) and the European Atomic Energy Community
(Euratom). Main goals and achievements:
● Creation of a single market within 12 years
● Reduction of barriers to the free movement of people, services and capital
● Common agricultural and transport policies.
● Creation of European Social Fund.
This led to the creation of the EEC (1957): New institution: an executive commission with
less power to impose decisions that then ECSC’s high authority: mainly initiate.

Economic integration will deepen throughout the 1960s.

- 1964-1967: Members of the EEC participate as a single actor in the Kennedy Round of
GATT negotiations.
- 1968: Common Agricultural Policy: a single market for agricultural products +guaranteed
prices for produce
Institutional Reforms (1960s): Merger treaty and Luxembourg compromise

25
Enlargements: French Veto in the 1960s with Charles de Gaulle; The UK joins the EC in 1973.
12 member states means much larger common market and more international influence. But
more complex decision-making process + regional inequalities

D. What economic integration?

Plants to develop economic and monetary coordination were designed in the late 1960s.
But end of the Bretton Wood system in 1971.
1973: European Regional Development Fund.
1979: European Monetary System. Zone of monetary stability, with governments taking
action to keep their currencies as stable as possible. Exchange Rate Mechanism
founded on European currency unit (ECU)
1989: decision to move towards a fices exchange rate and common currency. Getting
ready proved costly to members states (convergence criteria).
Their aim was completing the single market:
Single European Act (1986) to fulfill the goals of the treaty of Rome by 1992. Role of
Delor’s Commission. Major step forward.
- New policy areas for the EC (e.g., environment).
- More power given to the EP and the ECJ.
- Suspension of the Luxembourg Compromise: majority voting.
- Passport and customs controls are significantly eased
- Social “cohesion: structural funds + Charter of Fundamental Social Rights

Culminating in the SEA, the process of Integration could hardly ignore its political dimension any
longer.
Very modest stages towards cooperation of foreign policy (1970s): European Political
Cooperation (EPC)
Schengen Agreement (1985): gradual abolition of internal border check. 1990: common visa
policy.
The next member of the Schengen agreement is going to be Gibraltar.
E. Treaty of Maastricht (1992)
The End of the Cold War and unification of Germany led to the treaty of Maastricht
(1992). This is a project to move towards a federation vs. britain’s position; Danish No in
the ratification referendum and opt out (falta última palabra)
- From EC to Eu based on three pillars (strengthened EC, Common Security and
Foreign Policy; new policies and justice and home affairs ).
- Plan for the creation of a European currency.
- More cooperation on immigration and asylum, Europol.
- European Central Bank.
- New rights for EU citizens (residence, vote).

F. Eastern Enlargement
1993: Copenhagen conditions. Applicant states must:

26
 - Be democratic, with respect for human rights and the rule of law.
- Have a functioning free market economy.
- Be able to take on the obligations of the body of laws and regulations already
adopted by the EU.
The 2004 Eastern enlargement was controversial (economic, cultural, political
implications). Redefinition of Europeanness.
Among the candidate countries to enter in the EU, we can stand out Turkey, Albania,
Serbia, Moldova, Mazedonia, Montenegro (most of the Balkans countries).
The Eastern Partnership and the “Association Trio “ (created in 2021): crated for the
integration of Eastern countries in the EU and the coordination of it.

G. History of the European Union after Maastrich until today:

a) 1997-1999: Treaty of Amsterdam. Minor reforms.
b) 1999-2002. The adoption of Euro (not adopted by Britain, Denmark and Sweden).
Yet costs of adapting to the single currency (national differences).
c) 2001: Treaty of Nice, Laid the ground for enlargement. Irish No.
Early 2000s: decision to draw up a draft constitutional treaty designed to simplify
and replace all the treaties, give more powers to EU institutions and make the EU
more accountable and democratic Convention on the Future of Europe presided
by former French President Giscard d’Estaing.
In July 2003; there was a presentation of the EU’s draft Constitution. 8 countries
(including Germany, Italy and Spain) ratified it but Negative vote in referendums in
France and the Netherlands in 2005.
d) 2007: Treaty of Lisbon. Some aspects of the Constitution are adopted:
● Formalization of European Council + presidency
● High representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy
● More powers for the EP
● New Formula for qualified majority voting (Council of Ministers)
Once again, Irish No and new guarantees.
e) 2010s: crisis and deadlocks:
● No common foreign policy ( Balkan wars, invasion of Iraq, intervention in
Libya, war in Syria, annexation of Crimea by Russia, withdrawal from
Afghanistan,...)
● Financial and Eurozone crisis
● Refugees crisis
● Rise of Eurosceptic political forces
● Brexit
● Tensions between the EU and amd member states (e.g. Poland and
Hungary; Orbán)
However, actually there are positive notes like Post-Covid recovery plan.
f) In 2012; the Nobel Peace Prize was given to the EU and its bodies. This was a
controversial measure (as the Nobel for Obama).

27
4.3 The European Council:
Meeting of state leaders. Sort of board of directors of the EU. Initiative of France and Germany:
providing leadership to give direction to the European project and make the EU more effective.
Informal meetings institutionalized in the mid-1970s. But not included on the treaties until the
Single European Act; “unofficial”· influence of states (Video)
The European Council adopts the key political decisions; on the other hand, legislation is
adopted by the Council of the EU.
Since 2010s: Euro Summits too (state leaders of the Eurozone).
There is a leadership of the Franco-German axis.
A. Article 15 TEU (Treaty on European Union)
1. The European Council shall provide the Union with the necessary impetus for its
development and shall define the general political directions and priorities
thereof. It shall not exercise legislative functions.
2. The European Council shall consist of the Heads of State or Government of the
Member States, together with its President and the President of the Commission.
The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy shall
take part in its work.
3. The European Council shall meet twice every six months, convened by its
President. (When the agenda so requires, the members of the European Council
may decide each to be assisted by a minister and, in the case of the President of
the Commission, by a member of the Commission. When the situation so
requires, the President shall convene a special meeting of the European Council.)
4. Except where the Treaties provide otherwise, decisions of the European Council
shall be taken by consensus”; more emphasis on consensus, in an explicit way.
This is produced because there is related with the key political decisions that are
adopted in this Council (relation with China etc).

28
 5. The European Council shall elect its President, by a qualified majority, for a term
of two and a half years, renewable once. In the event of an impediment or serious
misconduct, the European
Council can end the President's term of office in accordance with the same
procedure.
6. The President of the European Council:
(a) shall chair it and drive forward its work;
(b) shall ensure the preparation and continuity of the work of the European
Council in cooperation
with the President of the Commission, and on the basis of the work of the
General Affairs
Council;
(c) shall endeavour to facilitate cohesion and consensus within the European
Council;
(d) shall present a report to the European Parliament after each of the meetings
of the European Council.
B. The President of the European Council
Until Lisbon, the President of the Euroean Council was the Head of Government of the
country holding the Presidency of the Council of the EU.Since 2009, (s)he is elected by
the members of the European Couuncil by QMV, qualified majority voting (in practice, by
consensus), the Presidents are the Former Heads of Government. It has a limited
mandate of two 2 ½ year terms.
2009-2014: Herman van Rompuy.
2014-2019: Donald Tusk. (actually, he is the leader of the principal center party in Poland,
which fight against the anti.europe parties)
2019- : Charles Michel.
Article 15 TEU
The President of the European Council shall, at his level and in that capacity, ensure the
external
representation of the Union on issues concerning its common foreign and security
policy, without prejudice to the powers of the High Representative of the Union for
Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. This is produced without prejudice to the powers of
the High Representative for FASP.
It is a really vagy mandate of the President. Hence the importance of the profile of the
President (van Rompuy and low profile, unlike Tusk with a more initiative and political
profile)). The profile of the President is important also owing to the possible overlaps
with the functions and activities of other EU institutions. Conflict of the negotiation with
Turkey; which is legitimized and capable to negotiate and deal with this, the Council of
Europe or the Heads of State with its president ( European Council).
C. Activities of the European Council.
Heads of government enjoy mch liberty to define the agenda.

29
 - Outlining the policy development of the EU (priorities, etc…). Esp. economic and
monetary policies ( response to the financial crisis):
- Institutional reform (e.g., following the rejection of the draft constitutional treaty):
- Role in several appointments: High Representative for FASP; President,
Vice-President and Executive Vorad of the European Central Bank; Commission
/after consent of the EP); in the most of cases consensus is necessary.
- Enlargements (esp.2000s). Setting requirements to join the EU; decisions to open
negotiations with applicants, etc…
- External relations: Defining the general direction of the CFSP; issuing declarations
(e.g., conflict Russia-Ukraine); cross-border matter such as environmental or
trade policy; the division of labour with other EU institutions is not clearly defined
- Brexit and the profile adopted with the UK.
- Sensitive domestic issues (e.g., immigration, counter-terrorism).

D. Conclusion
The European Council is an exclusively political forum and decision-maker. It is not a
legislator and it cannot initiative the legislative process. It is regulated by few and
general rules.
Authority + importance of the issues dealt with + consensus; symbol of
intergovernmentalism. The European Council has strengthened the role of member
states. Key role to deal with major crises. The European Council and Council of the EU
provoked a dual executive.
The Commission cannot ignore the European Council (proposals). The European
Parliament has no direct impact on the decisions adopted by the European Council.

4.4 The European Parliament:

Co-legislator of the EU. Only EU institution directly elected by citizens since 1979. And yet little
knowledge of its powers and rules. Its power to control the Commission has kept growing and it
has equal powers with the Council of the EU.
Very often, the EP plays the role of defender of the EU’s fundamental freedoms and principles.
Its views are much more authoritative than they were in the 1980s
The European Parliament was created in 1952; with the Common Assembly of the European
Coal and Steel Community. Only 78 members. No power in decision-making: nothing more than
a forum that provides advice and recommendations.
Treaties of Rome: creation of a single European Parliamentary Assembly (thus, not the Merger
Treaty). No legislative role yet.
Initially, the institution’s members were national members of Parliament appointed by national
Parliaments themselves => dual mandate. Being sent to Strasbourg as a second-best option +
national interests prevail.
The Treaty of Rome left the door open to direct elections, but opposition of member member
states until 1976 => first direct elections in 1979.

30
Initially, the European Parliament was granted more powers over the EU budget only. The
co-decision procedure (OLP since Lisbon) was introduced by the Maastricht Treaty.
Dealing with the composition, until 2020: 751 MEPs, with 5-year terms (renewable). Seats
allocated to member states depending on their population – but bigger states are
underrepresented (59 from Spain)

A. Political Groups
➢ European People’s Party: led by Donald Tusk (former President of the European Council);
controversy about membership of Viktor Orbán’s Fidesz (suspended in 2020, left the EPP
in 2021). (PP)
➢ Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats ( the president is Iratxe García Pérez).
(PSOE)
➢ Renew Europe: successor to the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE)
following the alliance with Macron’s party. Spanish members: Ciudadanos and PNV.
➢ European United Left/Nordic Green Left. Communsit and (far-) left parties. Spain:
Podemos, Izquierda Unida and Euskal Herria Bildu.
➢ Greens/European Free Alliance: alliance of Green and regionalist parties + Pirates
parties. Spain: ERC and Catalunya en Comú
➢ European Conservatives and Reformists: anti-federalist, rightwing. One of the founding
parties = British Tories. Ruling Law and Justice party (Poland). Vox.
➢ Identity and Democracy: far-right, Eurosceptics.
➢ Non Attached members

B. European Elections
Not the legitimizing process they are supposed to be: European citizens know little about
the EP, and although parties are EU-wide, the European elections are 27 different
elections that usually center on domestic issues (no EU-wide campaigns) that are used
as a way of expressing discontent + low turnout. The participation has decreased.

31
C. The President
Actually, David Sassoli. He/she is one of the 3 faces of the EU. But no political role.
MEP elected by his/her fellow MEPs. 2 ½ year terms. Agreement between the 2
most-voted parties (no absolute majority). There are 17 Presidents since 1979: Only 2
women; 3 Spaniards: Enrique Barón Crespo (1989-1992), José María Gil-Robles
(1997-1999), Josep Borrell (2004-2007).
D. The Ep’s Three Sites
Plenary sessions are held in Strasbourg; Parliamentary committees (where most of the
work is done) meet in Brussels; and the administrative secretariat is based in
Luxembourg.
=> Time-consuming and very costly institutions + partly explains why many MEPs do not
attend the plenary sessions, which does not help the EP acquire more legitimacy.
Problem is France and, to a lesser extent, Luxembourg, do not want to lose ‘their’ site and
oppose the EP’s right to decide its own working methods.

E. Main Powers
In addition to co-legislator:
- Together with the Council of the EU, it approves the EU budget
- Can produce documents and vote resolutions to invite the Commission to
propose new legislation
- Can submit questions to the Commission and the Council of the EU
- Must approve and can remove the Commission => resignation of the Santer
Commission (1999)
- Can veto international agreement (EU-China Comprehensive Agreement on
Investment blocked in 2021)
- Can veto the Council of the EU’s decision to accept new MS.
- Can file a complaint to the Court of Justice of the EU against other EU institutions
if they fail to comply with their obligations => last month the EP decided to sue
the Commission after the latter's repeated refusal to activate a new conditionality

32
 mechanism that can freeze EU funds for member states suspected of breaching
EU law (attacks on fundamental rights in Poland and Hungary).
Yet the EP cannot initiate legislation, and it cannot raise taxes (‘no taxation without
representation’)
F. Main Organs Of Control Of The Eu
- The Court of Justice of the EU:
- Interpretation of EU law
- Enforcement of EU law by states
=> Key actor as EU law has precedence over national laws.
- The Court of Auditors:
- Monitoring of the EU’s financial operations and management of its
finances.

4.5 European Comission

Symbol of the EU’s complex institutional architecture. ‘The Commission is something of a hybrid
in that it has both political and administrative branches and undertakes both political and
administrative functions’
Art. 17.1 TEU: “The Commission shall promote the general interest of the Union and take
appropriate initiatives to that end. It shall ensure the application of the Treaties, and of
measures adopted by the institutions pursuant to them. It shall oversee the application of Union
law under the control of the Court of Justice of the European Union. It shall execute the budget
and manage programmes. It shall exercise coordinating, executive and management functions,
as laid down in the Treaties. With the exception of the common foreign and security policy, and
other cases provided for in the Treaties, it shall ensure the Union's external representation. “
The Commission has traditionally been the target of Eurosceptics.
See the impact of the Commission led by Jacques Delors (1985-1994) One Spanish President of
the Commission (interim): Manuel Marín (March-Sept. 1999) following the resignation of the
Santer Commission (see class about the European Parliament). Ursula von der Leyen: first

33
female President of the Commission. Not a former Prime minister like her predecessors. Not
Juncker’s style.

A. Von Der Leyen’s commission:

The spitzenkandidaten system was not implemented. The European People’s Party won
the 2019 European elections and selected Manfred Weber (Germany) as its candidate.
But opposition from other parties and various countries, especially France, for his lack of
experience. Various states negotiated promoting the candidacy of Frans Timmermans
(Socialist) but were opposed by the Visegrád Group (Czech Republic, Poland, Slovakia,
Hungary).
Its appointment had to overcome various obstacles: • Commissioner for migration and
‘the promotion of the European way of life’ • The European Parliament rejected EU
commissioner candidates from Hungary and Romania over alleged conflicts of interest. •
It also rejected France’s nominee (retaliation for its opposition to the spitzenkandidaten)
• In October 2020 the trade Commissioner Phil Hogan (Ireland) was forced to resign for
breaching Covid-19 regulations.
B. Responsibilities of the commission:
One of them is ensuring that the EU treaties and legislation are respected (esp. non- and
incorrect transposition of EU directives). Function carried out together with the Court of
Justice of the EU (see below) + the Commission itself can sanction states (e.g., Poland).
Infringement proceedings against MS: the Commission may take action in cases of
Violations of treaty provisions, regulations, and decisions; Non-transposition or
incomplete/incorrect legal implementation of Directives; Improper application of
Directive; Non-compliance with CJEU judgments.

34
 Monitoring of implementation requires cooperation between the Commission
(supervision) and national agencies (monitoring “on the ground”). It is an extremely
difficult and costly function + potential political implications of the Commission’s
decisions => accused of interfering in domestic affairs although monitoring depends on
national bureaucracies.
C. Compliance with the EU legislation even if Spain does not have a good record.
D. Reading of the European Commission
➔ Introduction
The most supranational of the EU’s institutions, the Commission performs
executive and bureaucratic functions within the EU. The College of
Commissioners operates much like a cabinet in a parliamentary system.
Although Euroskeptics have always had the Commission in their sights, seeing it
as a powerful and unchecked institution, the reality is that the Commission’s
powers have never been as formidable as some critics have said they are.
The European Commission is the executive-bureaucratic arm of the EU,
responsible for generating new laws and policies, overseeing their
implementation, managing the EU budget, representing the EU in international
negotiations, and promoting the interests of the EU as a whole. Headquartered in
Brussels, the Commission consists of a college of appointed commissioners,
who function collectively much like a national government cabinet in a
parliamentary system, and several thousand full-time European bureaucrats, each
assigned to one of the Commission’s directorates-general (DGs), the functional
equivalent of national government departments. There is a DG for each major
policy area in which the EU is active. Both the commissioners and the European
bureaucrats are separately and collectively described as “the Commission.”
The Commission has long been at the heart of European integration. As a result,
its powers are routinely overestimated. The Commission has much less power
than its detractors suggest, because the final decisions on new laws and policies
rest with the Council of the EU and the European Parliament. The Commission is
quite small given the size of its task; it had just over thirty-three thousand
employees in 2015.
➔ Evolution
The origins of the European Commission can be traced back to the High
Authority of the ECSC. Based in Luxembourg, the nine members of the Authority
were nominated for six-year terms by the national governments of the member
states. Their job was to oversee the removal of barriers to the free movement of
coal and steel, and their powers were checked by a Special Council of Ministers
and a Common Assembly.
The Treaties of Rome created separate nine-member commissions for the EEC
and Euratom whose members were nominated by national governments for
four-year terms. Under the terms of the 1965 Merger treaty, the three separate
commissions were merged in 1967 into a new Commission of the European

35
 Communities, more commonly known as the European Commission. As the
Community expanded, the number of commissioners grew; it was originally nine,
but by the time of the 1995 accession of Austria, Sweden, and Finland, it had
risen to twenty. The Commission has always been at the heart of the debate over
the balance of power between the EU and its member states.
Despite this history, the Commission became less ambitious and aggressive and
lost powers with the creation in 1965 of the Committee of Permanent
Representatives, the creation in 1974 of the European Council, and the
introduction in 1979 of direct elections to the European Parliament.
Preparations for the 2004 enlargement of the EU forced a rethinking of the size
and role of the Commission. The failed European constitution included a
proposal that the Commission would be reduced in 2014 to seventeen voting
members. The proposal was widely criticized, particularly by smaller member
states. Consequently, Lisbon retained the current formula of one commissioner
per member state and proposed capping the number of commissioners from
2014 on at no more than two-thirds of the number of member states. Small
states continued to balk at this idea.
➔ Structure
Brussels with a headquarters in the Berlaymont building. The Commission has
five main elements:
◆ College of Commissioners: The European Commission is led by a group
of commissioners, who function something like a cabinet for the EU
system, taking collective responsibility for their decisions. Each has a
policy portfolio for which he or she is responsible, and each serves a
renewable five-year term that begins six months after elections to the
European Parliament. Commissioners are nominated by their national
governments. Nominees must be acceptable to the president of the
Commission (who has the power of veto), the other commissioners, other
governments, the major political parties at home, and the EP.
All nominees are required to attend hearings before the relevant
committees of the EP, but Parliament does not have the right to accept or
reject them individually; instead, it must approve or reject the College as a
whole. It is unlikely to reject the College unless it has serious reservations
about one or more of the nominees. Parliament also has the power to
remove the College in midterm through a motion of censure, although it
has never done this. Commissioners are not expected to be national
representatives; they must be impartial in their decision making and must
swear an oath of office before the European Court of Justice, agreeing
“neither to seek nor to take instructions from any Government or body.”
At the beginning of each term, all commissioners are given policy
portfolios, which are distributed at the prerogative of the president. Just
as in national cabinets, there is an internal hierarchy of positions.

36
 In making appointments, the president will be influenced by three main
factors: the abilities, political skills, and professional backgrounds of
individual commissioners; lobbying by commissioners and their home
governments; recognition and promotion in the case of returning
commissioners. A commissioner with a strong reputation in a particular
area will normally keep the same portfolio or at least be brought back for
another term.
Every commissioner has a cabinet. Each cabinet is headed by a chef
(chief) and provides advice and the basic information and services that
help commissioners do their jobs. The chefs de cabinet meet every
Monday to prepare the weekly meeting of the College, which takes place
every Wednesday.
◆ The president of the Commission: The dominating figure in the
Commission is the president, the person who comes closest to being able
to claim to be leader of the EU. The president is technically no more than
a first among equals and can be outvoted by other commissioners, but he
or she is one of the most visible of the “leaders” of the EU institutions, and
holds a trump card in the form of the power of appointment: the ability to
distribute portfolios is a potent tool for patronage and political influence.
Serving a renewable five-year term, the president of the Commission
oversees meetings of the College, decides on the distribution of
portfolios, represents the Commission in dealings with other EU
institutions, represents the EU at meetings with national governments and
their leaders, and is generally responsible for ensuring that the
Commission gives impetus to the process of European integration. The
presidency of the Commission took on a new and more forceful character
from the mid-1980s onward thanks mainly to one man: Jacques Delors.
The most productive, controversial, and well known of all Commission
presidents, who will be remembered for at least four major achievements:
the completion of the single market, the plan for economic and monetary
union, promotion of the Social Charter, and the negotiations leading up to
Maastricht.
There are few formal rules regarding how the president is appointed.
Before the Treaty of Lisbon the selection process was labyrinthine.
commission presidents were to be proposed by the European Council
using the qualified majority vote (QMV). Candidates must be confirmed by
the EP, a process not dissimilar to that used in the U.S. Senate for
presidential nominees to the cabinet, courts, and other offices. Seizing
upon the language of Lisbon, in the spring of 2014 the leaders of the
political groups in the EP proposed their own Spitzenkandidaten
(candidates for Commission President) for EP elections. recedent for the
“winning” candidate in the EP to become Commission president, even

37
 while formally nominated and/or endorsed by the European Council, now
appears to be set. As the reach of the EU has expanded, competition for
appointments to the presidency has strengthened and the pool of
qualified nominees has deepened.
◆ The DGs and services: Below the College, the European Commission is
divided into thirty-two DGs and a number of services. The DG are the
equivalent of national government departments in that each is
responsible for a specific policy area. Employees consist of a mixture of
full-time bureaucrats known as fonctionnaires, national experts attached
from the member states on short-term contracts, and supporting staff.
The Commission is required to ensure balanced representation by
nationality at every level, but nearly one in four Eurocrats is Belgian,
mainly because of locally recruited secretarial and support staff.
About two-thirds of Commission staff members work on drawing up new
laws and policies or on overseeing implementation, while the rest are
involved in research, translation, and interpretation; although the
Commission mainly uses English and French in daily operations, all key
documents must be translated into all twenty-three official EU languages.
The Commission’s services deal with a variety of external matters and
internal administrative matters (including the European Anti-Fraud Office
or the Internal Audit Service).
Recruitment is both complex and competitive. Several hundred new
positions typically become vacant each year, for which there are literally
thousands of applicants. A university degree and fluency in at least two
EU languages are minimum requirements, and specialist professional
training is increasingly required. Once appointed, Commission staff are
well paid, and redundancies are rare.
◆ The Secretariat-general: The administration of the Commission is
overseen by a secretariat-general with a staff of about seven hundred.
The job of the secretariat-general is to provide technical services and
advice to the Commission, prepare the annual work program of the
Commission, and organize and coordinate the work of the DGs and
services. The secretary-general chairs the weekly meetings of the chefs
de cabinet, sits in on the weekly meetings of the commissioners, directs
Commission relations with other EU institutions, and generally makes
sure that the work of the Commission runs smoothly.
◆ Network of committees: Most of the work of discussing and sorting out
the details of proposed laws and policies is left to a series of advisory,
management, and regulatory committees, participating in a phenomenon
known as “comitology.” The committees have no formal powers to
prevent the Commission from taking action, but the Commission is
expected to take seriously the opinions of advisory committees in

38
 particular. The Commission works with expert committees consisting of
national officials and specialists appointed by national governments, and
consultative committees consisting of members with sectional interests,
set up and funded directly by the Commission
➔ How the Commission works
The core responsibility of the Commission is to be the “guardian of the treaties,”
meaning that it must ensure that EU policies are advanced in light of the treaties.
It does this in four ways.
◆ Powers of initiation: The Commission is legally obliged to make sure that
the principles of the treaties are turned into practical laws and policies. In
this respect it is sometimes described as a think tank and policy
formulator, and it is expected to provide leadership for the EU. 14 It has
the sole “right of initiative” on new European legislation and can also draw
up proposals for entire new policy areas and pass them on to Parliament
and the Council of Ministers for consideration.
The Commission can take any initiative that it considers appropriate for
advancing the principles of the treaties, but in reality most of its proposals
are responses to either legal obligations or technical issues that need to
be addressed. The Commission can also be prompted into action by other
institutions.
Typically, a proposal for a new European law will start life as a draft
written by middleranking Eurocrats in one of the directorates-general. It
will then be passed up through the ranks of the DG, referred to other
interested DGs, vetted by the Commission’s Legal Service, and discussed
by cabinets and advisory committees, being amended or revised along
the way. The draft will eventually reach the College of Commissioners,
which meets at least once each week to go through the different
proposals. Meetings usually take place on a Wednesday in Brussels, or in
Strasbourg if Parliament is in plenary session. Meetings are not open to
the public, but agendas and minutes are posted on the Commission
website. By a majority vote, the College can accept a law, reject it, send it
back for redrafting, or defer making a decision. Once passed by the
College, it will be sent to the European Parliament and the Council of
Ministers for a decision.
◆ Power of implementation: Once a law or policy has been accepted, the
Commission is responsible for ensuring that it is implemented by the
member states. It has no power to do this directly but instead must work
through national bureaucracies. The Commission has the power to (a)
collect information from member states so that it can monitor progress
on implementation; (b) take to the Court of Justice any member state,
corporation, or individual that does not conform to the spirit of the
treaties or follow subsequent EU law; and (if necessary) (c) impose

39
 sanctions or fines if a law is not being implemented. Every member state
is legally obliged to report to the Commission on the progress it is making
in meeting deadlines and incorporating EU law into national law. The
Commission adds to the pressure on member states by publicizing
progress on implementation, hoping to embarrass the slower states into
action.
If a member state falls behind schedule, the Commission can issue a
warning (a Letter of Formal Notice) giving it time to comply. If the
member still fails to comply, the Commission can issue a Reasoned
Opinion explaining why it feels there may be a violation. If there is still
noncompliance, the state can be taken to the European Court of Justice
for failure to fulfill its obligations. Most cases of noncompliance come
less from a deliberate avoidance by a member state than from differences
in interpretation or differences in the levels of efficiency of national
bureaucracies
◆ Managing EU finances: The Commission ensures that all EU revenues are
collected, plays a key role in drafting and guiding the budget through the
Council of Ministers and Parliament, and administers EU spending,
especially under the Common Agricultural Policy and the structural funds.
Collection involves working with national agencies to make sure that they
understand where income is to be generated and ensuring that the
member states make their required contributions. The Commission is
involved in authorizing spending.
◆ External relations: The Commission acts as the EU’s main external
representative in dealings with international organizations. Discussions
on global trade are overseen by the Commission acting on behalf of EU
member states. The Commission has also been a key point of contact
between the EU and the rest of the world.
The Commission oversees the process by which applications for full or
associate membership in the EU are considered. Although the
applications initially go to the Council of Ministers, the Commission
examines all the implications and reports back to the Council. If the
Council decides to open negotiations with an applicant country, the
Commission oversees the process
➔ European Union Law
◆ Regulations: binding in its entirety on all member states and directly
applicable in the sense that it does not need to be turned into national
law.
◆ Directives: These are binding on member states in terms of goals and
objectives, but it is left up to the states to decide how best to achieve
those goals.

40
◆ Decisions: These are also binding and can be aimed at one or more
member states, at institutions, and even at individuals. They are usually
fairly specific in intent and have administrative rather than legislative
goals.
◆ Recommendations and opinions: no binding force

41