- citati u SCIndeksu: 0
- citati u CrossRef-u:0
- citati u Google Scholaru:[
]
- posete u poslednjih 30 dana:3
- preuzimanja u poslednjih 30 dana:3
|
|
2015, vol. 9, br. 13, str. 89-100
|
Institucionalno pozicioniranje Evropskog parlamenta - između slabih nadležnosti i apatije birača
The institutional position of the European Parliament: Between weak competences and voter apathy
Sažetak
U radu Se bavimo mjestom Evropskog parlamenta u institucionalnom mehanizmu Unije, te objašnjavamo u kojoj mjeri slabost ovog neposredno izabranog tijela utiče na nisku izlaznost birača, te sveprisutni demokratski deficit u Zajednici. Polazi se od ključnih obilježja i nadležnosti Evropskog parlamenta i daje prikaz njihovog jačanja tokom procesa integracije. Poseban fokus je na Ugovoru iz Lisabona, odnosno na tome u kojoj mjeri ovaj reformski pokušaj jača autonomiju parlamenta. Osnovna teza je da moć i pozicija Evropskog parlamenta nisu značajno unaprijeđeni, te da su njegova slabost i, još uvijek, ograničena vidljivost rada bitni razlozi za to što građani percipiraju izbore za Evropski parlament kao 'drugorazredno nacionalno takmičenje', pa im kao takvi nisu zanimljivi. Demokratizacija Unije mora se odvijati uporedo s promjenama u njenom institucionalnom sistemu, pa bi trebalo da obuhvati 'prelivanje' moći sa Savjeta na Evropski parlament i jačanje međuinstitucionalne saradnje između Evropskog parlamenta i Evropske komisije.
Abstract
The article deals with the positioning of the European Parliament in the EU institutional mechanism and to what extent the weakness of this directly elected body contributes to the low turnout at the elections, alongside with the ubiquitous democratic deficit within the Union. It explains the key attributes and competencies of the European Parliament with special focus on the improvements introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon. This article argues that the power and position of the European Parliament have not improved significantly: weakness and, still, limited visibility of EP, are important reasons that citizens identify the elections for the European Parliament as a 'second-rate national competition'. Democratic legitimization of the European Union has to be parallel with the changes in institutional system and should include shifting the power from the Council to the European Parliament and the strengthening of inter-institutional cooperation between EP and the European Commission.
|
|
|
Reference
|
|
*** (2013) Improving the practical arrangements for the holding of the European elections in 2014. INL, 2102
|
|
*** (2008) Legal analysis of select provisions of the Lisbon treaty. Strasbourg: European Centre for Law and Justice
|
|
*** (2014) Post-European parliament elections analysis. European Policy Centre, May
|
|
*** (2009) Post-electoral survey 2009. Special Eurobarometer, November
|
|
*** (2013) Public opinion in the European Union. Standard Eurobarometer 79, July
|
|
Andersen, S., Eliassen, K., eds. (1996) The European Union: How democratic is it?. London: Sage
|
|
European Commission, European Parliament (2009) Post-electoral survey 2009. November
|
1
|
Janjević, M., ur. (2009) Konsolidovani ugovor o Evropskoj uniji - od Rima do Lisabona. Beograd: Službeni glasnik
|
|
Juan, M. (2011) Democratic improvements in the European Union under the Lisbon treaty: Institutional changes regarding democratic government in the EU. European University Institute, February
|
|
Maurer, A. (2008) The European Parliament after Lisbon: Policy-making and control. EU-consent
|
|
Michael, S. (2011) The European Parliament: The major winner of the Lisbon treaty?. Maastricht Monet Paper Series, No. 4
|
|
Piedrafita, S., Renman, V. (2014) The personalisation' of the European elections: A half-hearted attempt to increase turnout and democratic legitimacy?. EPIN paper, April
|
|
Simon, H. (2013) Why the 2014 European elections matter: Ten key votes in the 2009-2013 European Parliament. Sieps, September
|
|
|
|