The convention method revisited: Does it have a future and does it matter?

European Law Journal

Volumn 16, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 717-735

  Karlsson, Christer ^a  

^a UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 78549281435     PISSN: 13515993     EISSN: 14680386     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0386.2010.00530.x     Document Type: Article

References (73)

1. Treaty of Nice, [2001] OJ C80/1.
2. European Council, 'The Future of the European Union-Laeken Declaration' (2001).
3. See J. Shaw, 'What's in a Convention? Process and Substance in the Project of European Constitution-Building', in J. Shaw et al, The Convention on the Future of Europe (The Federal Trust for Education and Research, 2003), 43; A. Maurer, 'Less Bargaining-More Deliberation. The Convention Method for Enhancing EU Democracy', (2003) 8(1) International Politics and Society 167; J. Pollak. and P. Slominski, 'The Representative Quality of EU Treaty Reform: A Comparison between the IGC and the Convention', (2004) 26(3) Journal of European Integration 201; J. E. Fossum and A. Menéndez, 'The Constitution's Gift? A Deliberative Democratic Analysis of Constitution Making in the European Union', (2005) 11(4) European Law Journal 380; P. Magnette, 'In the Name of Simplification: Coping with Constitutional Conflicts in the Convention on the Future of Europe', (2005) 11(4) European Law Journal 432; T. Risse and M. Kleine, 'Assessing the Legitimacy of the EU's Treaty Revision Methods', (2007) 45(1) Journal of Common Market Studies 69.
4. See the website available at .
5. The sample was selected so as to guarantee the inclusion of delegates from all four components. The final sample came to include eight government delegates, five MEPs, 13 national parliamentarians and two commission delegates. In three cases I was referred to personal assistants of conventioneers.
6. Fossum and Menéndez, op cit n 3 supra, at 407; Pollak and Slominski, op cit n 3 supra, at 218; Risse and Kleine, op cit n 3 supra, at 76.
7. See L. Hoffmann, 'The Convention on the Future of Europe: Thoughts on the Convention-Model', in Shaw et al, op cit n 3 supra, at 73-94; C. Reh and W. Wessels, 'Towards an Innovative Mode of Treaty Reform? Three Sets of Expectations for the Convention', (2002) 24 Collegium 17.
8. See A. Héritier, 'Composite Democracy in Europe: The Role of Transparency and Access to Information', (2002) 10(5) Journal of European Public Policy 814; Risse and Kleine, op cit n 3 supra.
9. Pollak and Slominski, op cit n 3 supra, at 219; Risse and Kleine, ibid, at 75-77.
10. For a discussion on these different conceptions of representation, see H. Pitkin, The Concept of Representation (University of California Press, 1967), chs 8 and 9, especially 191-197; D. Castiglione and M. E. Warren, The New Ecology of Democratic Representation, paper presented at ARENA (Oslo, 13 October 2009); M. B. Vieira and D. Runciman, Representation (Polity press, 2008), at 67-79.
11. Maurer, op cit n 3 supra, at 167-168; Pollak and Slominski, op cit n 3 supra, at 218; Risse and Kleine, op cit n 3 supra, at 76.
12. Risse and Kleine, ibid, at 74.
13. Hoffmann, op cit n 7 supra; Fossum and Menéndez, op cit n 3 supra; Magnette, op cit n 3 supra; Pollack and Slominski, op cit n 3 supra.
14. Risse and Kleine, op cit n 3 supra, at 76.
15. See the website available at .
16. Interview with Anne Van Lancker, European parliament, 24 June 2003.
17. Interview with Sören Lekberg, national parliament, 1 July 2003.
18. Interview with Hanja Maij-Weggen, European Parliament, 21 January 2004.
19. Interviews with Sven-Olof Petersson, government, 23 June 2003; Pieter Van Nuffel, personal assistant of Antonio Vitórino, European Commission, 27 June 2003.
20. Interview with Van Lancker, n 16 supra.
21. Interview with Vladimir Bilcik, personal assistant of Jan Figel, national parliament, 24 February 2004.
22. P. Norman, The Accidental Constitution (Eurocomment, 2003), at 223.
23. Pollak and Slominski, op cit n 3 supra, at 219.
24. J. Elster, 'Deliberation and Constitution Making', in J. Elster (ed), Deliberative Democracy (Cambridge University Press, 1998), 99.
25. European Convention, Introductory Speech by President Giscard D'Estaing to the Convention on the Future of Europe (26 February, 2002).
26. See Pitkin, op cit n 10 supra, at 144-167.
27. Interviews with Petersson, n 20 supra; Bobby McDonagh, government, 1 July 2003; Van Nuffel, n 20 supra; Paolo Ponzano, European Commission, 11 July 2003; Peter Gottfried, government, 17 July 2003; Henrik Hololei, government, 21 July 2003; and Sandra Kalniete, government, 21 July 2003.
28. Interviews with Göran Lennmarker, national parliament, 23 June 2003; Kristine Hove, personal assistant of Jens-Peter Bonde, European Parliament, 24 June 2003; Niels Helveg Petersen, national parliament, 14 October 2003; and René Van der Linden, national parliament, 31 March 2004.
29. Interviews with Maij-Weggen, n 19 supra; Van Lancker, n 16 supra; Kimmo Kiljunen, national parliament, 2 September 2003; and Tunne Kelam, national parliament, 15 November 2004.
30. Interview with Andrew Duff, European Parliament, 11 July 2003.
31. For the following institutions, respondents were asked to indicate how important they had been in forming their views and opinions: national government, national parliament, European Parliament, European Parliament party groups, the Commission, the Praesidium of the convention, the working groups of the convention, representatives of civil society, and public opinion. For each actor or institution, respondents could answer that they believed it to have been: (1) very important; (2) rather important; (3) rather unimportant; or (4) not important at all. At the top of the list we find the working groups of the convention (mean score = 1.67), the national government (1.75), and the Praesidium (1.92); whereas representatives of civil society (2.58) and public opinion (2.75) were considered least important.
32. The definition of accountability used here, as well as the examination below, draw on principal-agent theory which, in turn, is influenced by the delegate rather than the trustee conception of representation. This choice was made on the fact that those who have argued that the convention method strengthens accountability themselves examine this issue in principal-agent terms. See, eg, Risse and Kleine, op cit n 3 supra.
33. See K. Strøm, W. C. Müller and T. Bergman, Delegation and Accountability in Parliamentary Democracies (Oxford University Press, 2004).
34. Risse and Kleine, op cit n 3 supra, at 75.
35. S. Hix, What's Wrong with the European Union and How to Fix It (Polity Press, 2008).
36. See G. Majone, 'Europe's "Democratic Deficit": The Question of Standards', (1998) 4(1) European Law Journal 20.
37. B. Manin, A. Przeworski and S. Stokes, 'Introduction', in A. Przeworski, S. Stokes and B. Manin (eds) Democracy, Accountability and Representation (Cambridge University Press, 1999), 24.
38. European Convention, op cit n 26 supra.
39. Interview with Duff, n 31 supra.
40. Norman, op cit n 13 supra, at 155-161.
41. European Convention, 'Contribution franco-allemande à la Convention européenne sur l'architecture institutionnelle de l'Union', CONV 489/03 (16 January 2003).
42. Maurer, op cit n 3 supra, at 167-168.
43. P. Magnette and K. Nicolaïdis, 'The European Convention: Bargaining in the Shadow of Rhe-toric', (2004) 27(3) West European Politics 381.
44. See, eg, B. Barry, Political Argument (Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd, 1965), at 87; Elster, op cit n 25 supra, at 8; D. Naurin, Dressed for Politics. Why Increasing Transparency in the European Union Will Not Make Lobbyists Behave Any Better than They Already Do (Livréna, 2004), at 61; C. Karlsson, 'Deliberation at the European Convention: The Final Verdict', (2008) 14(5) European Law Journal 606.
45. Interviews with Helveg Petersen, n 29 supra; Paul Helminger, national parliament, 28 January 2004; Van der Linden, n 29 supra; and Van Lancker, n 16 supra.
46. Interviews with Duff, n 31 supra; Ivan Korcok, government, 27 May 2004; and Helveg Petersen, ibid.
47. Interviews with John Bruton, national parliament, 11 February 2004; Hololei, n 28 supra; and Eleni Mavrou, national parliament, 9 February 2004.
48. Interviews with Duff, n 31 supra; Gottfried, n 28 supra; Hololei, ibid; and Ponzano, n 28 supra.
49. Interview with Duff, ibid.
50. See, eg, Barry, op cit n 45 supra; D. Naurin, Deliberation Behind Closed Doors: Transparency and Lobbying in the European Union (ECPR Press, 2007).
51. R. E. Walton and R. B. McKersie, A Behavioural Theory of Labor Negotiations. An Analysis of a Social Interaction System (ILR Press Books, 1965 [1991]); cf. Naurin, ibid, at 61-62.
52. J. Elster, 'The Market and the Forum: Three Varieties of Political Theory', in J. Elster and A. Hylland (eds), Foundations of Social Choice Theory (Cambridge University Press, 1986), 106.
53. Interviews with Bilcik, n 22 supra; Petersson, n 20 supra; and Van Nuffel, n 20 supra.
54. Interview with Petersson, ibid.
55. Interview with Van Lancker, n 16 supra.
56. Interviews with Helveg Petersen, n 29 supra; Helminger, n 46 supra; Van der Linden, n 29 supra; and Van Lancker, ibid.
57. Interviews with Duff, n 31 supra; Korcok, n 47 supra; and Helveg Petersen, ibid.
58. Interviews Bruton, n 48 supra; Hololei, n 28 supra; and Mavrou, n 48 supra.
59. Interview with Van Lancker, n 16 supra.
60. Interviews with Bruton, n 48 supra; McDonagh, n 28 supra; Petersson, n 20 supra.
61. Interview with McDonagh, ibid.
62. Interviews with Kiljunen, n 30 supra; McDonagh, ibid; Petersson, n 20 supra; Ponzano, n 28 supra.
63. Interview with Lennmarker, n 29 supra.
64. Interview with Van Lancker, n 16 supra.
65. Respondents were asked to choose between four different answers: (1) totally agree; (2) rather agree; (3) rather disagree; and (4) totally disagree.
66. The mean for this question was 2.52.
67. Again, respondents were asked to choose between four different answers: (1) totally agree; (2) rather agree; (3) rather disagree; and (4) totally disagree.
68. The mean for this question was 1.91.
69. Interviews with Petersson, n 20 supra; and Ponzano, n 28 supra.
70. Shaw, op cit n 3 supra; Maurer, op cit n 3 supra; Pollak and Slominski, op cit n 3 supra; Fossum and Menéndez, op cit n 3 supra; Magnette, op cit n 3 supra; Risse and Kleine, op cit n 3 supra.
71. Pollak and Slominski, ibid, at 219; Risse and Kleine, ibid, at 75-77.
72. On implicit constitutional change, see, eg, S. Voigt, 'Implicit Constitutional Change-Changing the Meaning of the Constitution Without Changing the Text of the Document', (1999) 7(3) European Journal of Law and Economics 197.
73. S. Gustavsson, 'The Living Constitution of the EU', in B. Kohler-Koch and F. Larat (eds), Efficient and Democratic Governance in the European Union (CONNEX Report Series No 9, 2008), 325.