PCE Europe1
Niet ge- definieerd

Programme outline

Director: Prof.dr. Thomas Christiansen

Since its inception in 2003, Politics and Culture in Europe (PCE) posited itself as an interdisciplinary research programme that seeks to understand and explain the process of European integration and its political, institutional and ideational specifics. The research group meets every four weeks to discuss substantive and methodological topics and questions presented either by PCE members themselves or by colleagues from other universities.

PCE’s core project: Political and Administrative Challenges for Europe in a Globalizing World
In an attempt to provide a framework for interdisciplinary research and to accommodate the maxim of ‘focus and mass’, PCE has developed a central research project, labelled Political and Administrative Challenges for Europe in a Globalizing World (PACE).
Historical research reminds us that integration has always been contingent upon contextual factors and that disintegration remains a possibility. Research on Europe and on the EU cannot start any longer from the idea that we have reached a stable institutional equilibrium, which only needs to be optimised. Instead it has to address and analyse the pressures and constraints caused and enforced by developments in Europe’s internal and external environments. For Europe and for the EU in particular the challenge is to address these pressures while preserving European values and achievements, such as the welfare state, protection of fundamental rights, democratic institutions, and last but not least the European integration processes itself. At the same time Europe has been (and still is) challenged to actively engage with its external environment and to contribute to the development of global regimes concerning for example human rights, economic and financial regulation, and asylum and migration. Only research that systematically confronts the internal and external challenges Europe and the EU cannot but take up will be able to contribute to solving their present and future problems.
Although Europe (past and present) and in particular the EU and its history are core to the PCE research, PCE’s central research project explicitly welcomes also research on the bureaucratic embedding of non-EU forms of trans-, supra-, and international organizations and on the political representativeness and responsiveness of policy making by these organizations. After all, what unites PCE researchers is an empirical-analytical, historical, and normative interest in the different forms of ‘governance beyond the nation state’, of which the EU is still the most developed instance.
PCE’s central research project encompasses three ‘pillars’: Historicizing European union, Politics and Administration beyond the nation state, and Foreign Policy beyond the Nation State. Within the different pillars three subprojects can be discerned. Each pillar is oordinated by a senior staff member. Together with Research Programme Director Prof. T. Blom they form the management group.

Pillar One: Historicising European Union
 Prof. Dr. K. Patel.

Thematically speaking Pillar One focuses on Forms of European Cooperation Since the 19th Century. It starts from the observation that innovative forms of governance beyond the nation state can already be found in nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century international organisations. The main question here is: What is the place of the EU and its predecessors in the history of cooperation at the inter- and transnational level? Historicising and contextualising European union implies not only an analysis of the predecessors of the EU and the contribution of its member states, but also of transnational actors and alternative forms and forums of cooperation. Approaching European union in these ways opens up new perspectives on topics ranging from the role of European cooperation in global networks and constellations to the place/function of the EU in contemporary politics of European identity.

Against this background three subthemes have been developed.

1.1) Subtheme one, ‘Transnational experts in European and imperial contexts’ zooms in on the simultaneous rise of expertise in its modern form with the expansion of international organizations and transnational platforms since the 19th century. Long seen as a period of rivalry between empires, newer research on high imperialism highlights the forms of cooperation between various empires, and the key role experts have played in them. The League of Nations during the 20th century’s interwar period is another case in point: also here, transnational experts were key in formulating new ideas about governance beyond the nation state for and in Europe.

Contributing staff: K.K. PatelV. LagendijkP. del Hiero

1.2) Subtheme two, ‘History of the EU amidst other International Organizations’, focuses on the multiplicity of other forums beyond the nation state in which the EU’s predecessors were embedded from the outset. It starts from the assumption that the EU was more often a late-comer than a pioneer at the stage of international cooperation, and that its increasing significance can only be explained when put into context. Cooperation, competition, division of labor –these are but three of several forms of interaction that characterize(d) the relationship of the EU (incl. its predecessors) to a whole host of other organizations, including the Council of Europe, the OECD, and NATO.

Contributing staff: K.K. PatelN. Randeraad

1.3) Finally, subtheme three, ‘Role of International Organizations in creating a European sphere of political action’ starts from the assumption that Europe is not an obvious or natural space in which cooperation unfolded. To some extent, “Europe”—as an epistemic, geopolitical, and organizational entity—has only emerged from the intensifying cooperation in this world region. Subtheme three thus looks at very similar issues as subthemes one and two; however, it treats Europe more explicitly as an actor category and relates developments here to processes in other parts of the world.

Contributing staff: V. LagendijkA. Sierp

Pillar Two: Politics and Administration beyond the Nation State
 Prof. Dr. T. Christiansen.

Pillar Two focuses on the political and bureaucratic dimensions of established forms of supra- and international governance. This implies attention both to the transparency, accountability and public responsiveness of supra- and international policy making, and to the role and functions of the bureaucracies in which the different forms of ‘governance beyond the nation state’ are embedded. The research on supra- and international bureaucracies pays especially attention to the way policy relevant information is accessed, channeled and processed by these bureaucracies (‘politics of information’), and to the way they organize and handle experts and expertise (‘constitutive and operational politics of expertise’). Pillar Two acknowledges in particular the need for comparing the EU’s administrative system with that of other regional or international organisations, with the aim of identifying similarities and differences in the behaviour and performance of trans-, supra-, and international bureaucracies. Again three subthemes can be discerned:

2.1) ‘Administrative governance in the EU and other International Organizations’ concentrates on the role and influence of bureaucracies in multi-layered systems of supra- and international policy-making. While the EU polity, being one of the most advanced examples of multi-level governance, will be a central concern, the research program has a broader focus as it will include also the role of bureaucracies in the emerging system of global governance. Quite naturally, a concern with the influence that administrative actors/units exert on the content, scope and execution of policies formally decided upon by (democratically elected) ‘political’ actors, fuels normative worries about the democratic quality of supra and international politics.

Contributing staff: T. BlomT. ChristiansenT. ConzelmannA. NastaseP. Stephenson,  E. Radulova

2.2) Democratic and responsive Governance covers qualitative research into the role and functions of the European Parliament (and its bureaucracy!) and its interactions with domestic Parliaments as well as quantitative research into the responsiveness to European citizens of EU policy making. Distinct, but related to problems concerning responsiveness and accountability is research on the European public sphere and on the role in, and the contribution of national newspapers to the development of truly European political debates and deliberation. Finally, under this subtheme also research is done on the democratic inclusion of migrants and national minorities, especially with a focus on the politics of citizenship.

Contributing staff: C. ArnoldP. BijsmansT. ChristiansenC. NeuholdE. SapirA. SchakelH. SchmeetsM. ShackletonA. Herranz Surralles

2.3) Risk Governance focuses on European and International policies (and their implementation/enforcement), which are supposed to prevent and address transboundary health-related and environmental, as well as economic-financial disasters.  As the implementation and enforcement of these policies are key to the usefulness of these risk prevention policies, again there is a strong emphasis on the bureaucracies responsible for monitoring and improving Member States’ compliance with these policies, the most important examples of such bureaucracies being the European Agencies.

Contributing staff: M. van AsseltE. VersluisA. SpendzharovaC. Neuhold

Pillar Three: Foreign Policy beyond the Nation State
  T. Conzelmann.

Pillar Three departs from the observation that the end of the Cold War and the emergence of a multipolar world system have given new impetus to the EU’s international role. It has developed into an important diplomatic actor and crisis manager. Against that background three areas are singled out as being of particular interest.

3.1) The subtheme The EU diplomatic system concerns the role and influence of non-elected career diplomats in multilateral foreign policymaking. Special attention is given to the institutional architecture since the Lisbon Treaty. In research related to this theme there is again a particular interest in, and emphasis on the ‘politics of information and expertise’, relating this subtheme directly to themes 1.1) Transnational experts in European and imperial contexts and 2.1)Administrative governance in the EU and other International Organizations. Although here the EU is of central interest, attention is also given to how the EU compares to activities undertaken by other bureaucratic organizations supporting foreign politics and policy making. Such a comparative approach allows a better understanding of the specific qualities of the European foreign policymaking process.

Contributing staff: T. BlomH. DijkstraP. PetrovS. Vanhoonacker

3.2)  Exporting norms and values stands for research that investigates the more normative and alleged ‘soft power’ aspects of EU foreign policy. PCE members working on this theme display a strong interest in the European Neighborhood Policy and its conditionality approach. At the same time an interest in EU foreign policy beyond the EU’s direct neighborhood is on the rise, concerning for example EU-Asia relations. Given its concern with normative-political issues, and with ‘good governance’ this subtheme is obviously linked to theme 2.2) Democratic and responsive Governance.

Contributing staff: G. BosseA. DandashlyG. NoutchevaA. Herranz Surralles

3.3) Compared to subtheme 3.2, subtheme Crisis Management focuses on the more material and operational dimensions of EU foreign policy. Clear instances of research conducted under this label are investigations of the civilian and military crisis management missions the EU has undertaken since 2003, with special attention for recent crises and a comparative approach with the role of other regional organisations in crisis management. Yet also the substantial contributions to PCE by researchers in the field of migration and asylum can be subsumed under this label, if only because migration is often directly related to civilian and military crises, and can turn all too easily in a humanitarian crisis. Moreover, a clear link is discernible between this theme and theme 2.3) Risk Governance.

Contributing staff: H. DijkstraP. PetrovH. SchmeetsS. Vanhoonacker

Overview Research Themes/Staff

Themes Contributing staff
Theme 1.1 ‘Transnational experts in European and imperial contexts’ K.K. PatelV. Lagendijk, P. del Hiero
Theme 1.2 ‘History of the EU amidst other International Organizations’ K.K. Patel, N. Randeraad, M.J. Geary
Theme 1.3 ‘Role of International Organizations in creating a European sphere of political action’ V. LagendijkA. Sierp
Theme 2.1 ‘Administrative governance in the EU and other International Organizations’ T. Blom, T. Christiansen, T. Conzelmann, A. Nastase, P. Stephenson, E. Radulova
Theme 2.2 ‘Democratic and responsive Governance’ C. Arnold, P. Bijsmans, T. Christiansen, C. Neuhold, E. Sapir, A. Schakel, H. Schmeets, M. Shackleton, A. Herranz Surralles
Theme 2.3 ‘Risk Governance’ M. van Asselt, E. Versluis, A. Spendzharova, C. Neuhold
Theme 3.1 The EU diplomatic system T. Blom, H. DijkstraP. PetrovS. Vanhoonacker
Theme 3.2 Exporting norms and values

G. Bosse, A. DandashlyG. NoutchevaA. Herranz Surralles

Theme 3.3 Crisis Management H. Dijkstra, P. Petrov, H. Schmeets, S. Vanhoonacker


Niet ge- definieerd


Funded projects

Regional Authority Index

Arjan Schakel has developed the Regional Authority Index (RAI), which is a measurement to trace decentralization of authority to regional government in 81 countries since 1950. The RAI was introduced in a special issue of Regional and Federal Studies in 2008, and was further developed in books published in 2010 (Routledge) and 2016 (Oxford University Press). Over the past eight years, the RAI has gained broad scholarly recognition (more than 900 citations in Google Scholar) but it is also widely used by practitioners interested in multilevel governance (OECD 2013, 2014, 2016a, 2016b).

Practitioner’s interest in the RAI stems from the fact that regional governance structures may have important impacts on economic and social development. The Directorate-General Regional and Urban Policy of the European Commission commissioned an update of the RAI in 2012. These revised scores featured in the sixth report on economic, social and territorial cohesion (European Commission 2014, pp.169-173). The European Commission has assigned Dr. Arjan Schakel again to update the Regional Authority Index for 43 democracies to 2016. The EC intends to use the revised scores for its seventh report on economic, social and territorial cohesion in the European Union. This €50k project will run for 12 months starting on 1 February 2017 and will involve two student assistants. References of this text can be found here.

EU-CIVCAP - Preventing and responding to conflict: developing EU CIVilian CAPabilities for a sustainable peace.

The goals of preventing the outbreak of conflict and promoting sustainable peace remain a fundamental challenge to policymakers and analysts alike. The European Union (EU) and its member states require an adequate set of capabilities if they are to address this challenge in a timely and effective manner. EU-CIVCAP will provide a comprehensive, comparative and multidisciplinary analysis of EU civilian capabilities for external conflict prevention and peacebuilding in order to identify ‘the best civilian means to enhance these capabilities’ and address existing shortfalls. More specifically, this project has identified three inter-related objectives:

  1. To assess EU civilian capabilities for external conflict prevention and peacebuilding
  2. To identify and document lessons learned and best practices in EU conflict prevention and peacebuilding.
  3. To enhance future policy practice and research on EU conflict prevention and peacebuilding.

The project will gather, synthesise, further develop and disseminate knowledge and learning on civilian conflict prevention and peacebuilding. This will be done through, inter alia, the development of a catalogue of lessons learned and best practices reports, the creation of an expert network, engagement through social media, and the organisation of dissemination events in different formats in this area.

Coordinators: Hylke Dijkstra, Petar Petrov and Sophie Vanhoonacker

More information can be found on the EU-CIVCAP website.

PROM — The Peer Review Observatory Maastricht
Peer reviews among states are increasingly widely used as an instrument of global governance: Think about the work of the OECD, about the United Nations’ Universal Periodic Review that seeks to change the observance of human rights for the better, or about the variety of peer reviewing schemes in the European Union, called the Open Method of Coordination in EU jargon.
Yet, while there are many peer reviews, some of them are taken more seriously than others. How can we explain this? How and why do some peer reviews among states acquire authority, while other peer reviewing schemes do not?

The PROM answers this question by looking at different peer reviewing schemes. These schemes are organised in different organizational contexts (EU; Council of Europe; OECD; United Nations family) and in four policy areas (the fight against corruption; human rights; environmental and energy policy; macroeconomic policies). 

The project is funded by the Dutch Organisation for Academic Research (Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek — NWO) under its prestigious Innovational Research Incentive Scheme (VIDI). More information can be found here.

The Europeanization of Census Taking in the Western Balkans

Anna-Lena Hoh, MSc 
Dr Gergana Noutcheva
Dr Petar Petrov 
Prof. Hans Schmeets

This project analyses the variation in census taking in selected countries from the Western Balkans considering (a) the equal strength of the external incentive for convergence with EU norms in this area (the EU membership perspective) and (b) the similar initial conditions in the countries at the start of the EU accession preparations. It will propose an original model for explaining the differential Europeanization of census taking in the region taking into consideration the role of domestic institutional and societal factors (structures) as well as the individual choices of political actors in key government positions (agents). It will make an important contribution to the literature by linking the domestic level of analysis to the Europeanization scholarship and the external mechanisms of promoting change. 

The project is funded by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) in the MaGW programme Research Talent. 

You can read more about this research project on the website http://www.nwo.nl/en/research-and-results/research-projects/62/2300178162.html

The Transnational Dynamics of Social Reform

Dr Nico Randeraad

Building on the latest innovations in digital humanities, network analysis, and elaborating a newly developed Virtual Research Environment for the study of international organisations, this project opens new perspectives on the history of social reform in the period from 1815 to 1940, with a special emphasis on the Low Countries. The project shows the ways in which local and national welfare policies and legal regimes emerged in this period and demonstrates that such innovations were deeply embedded in transnational networks. The overall aims of the project are, first, to demonstrate the interconnectedness of local activism, national reform agendas and the transnational circulation of ideas and practices related to welfare and legal reform and, second, to make an empirical contribution to the understanding of social and legal reform as a social and discursive field in a transnational context. The project is coordinated by Dr Nico Randeraad of FASoS and Prof. Christophe Verbruggen (Gent). 

The project is funded by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) in the Internationalisation in the Humanities programme and BELSPO-Brain-be (Belgian Research Action through Interdisciplinary Networks). 

You can read more about this project on the website http://www.tic.ugent.be 

Niet ge- definieerd


PhD projects

The Politics of Information Processing in EU Agencies
PhD candidate: Christoph Klika
Supervisors: Prof. Tannelie Blom and Prof. Esther Versluis​

Since the 1990s an increasing number of semi-independent administrative bodies have been set up in the European Union (EU). The ‘mushrooming’ of EU agencies is in line with the international trend of ‘agencification’ at the national level. They can be understood as complementing the administrative capacities of the European Commission and the Member States and cover a wide variety of policy fields (e.g. pharmaceuticals, aviation, trademarks, vocational training). Agencies differ considerably in terms of their mandate and may a) adopt binding decisions, b) provide technical assistance, c) implement operational activities or d) simply organise data gathering and dissemination. However, agencies share certain expectations enshrined in their establishment in the first place. One important rationale is their supposed distance from the political tugs of war and consequently their ability to make credible decisions based on expertise rather than partisan considerations. All agencies regardless of their mandate are therefore centres of expertise in which specific knowledge on technical and highly complex issues is bundled. This role is facilitated by networks comprising the EU agency as well as national agencies and other relevant stakeholders. These networks form the institutional frame of EU agency governance. Accordingly, most academic research acknowledges the importance of information networks with regard to policy making. What is largely missing however are systematic examinations of how technical information affects agency governance and whether this information influences administrative and political decision making beyond legal arrangements of power. Put differently: this PhD thesis aims to investigate whether the factor information processing provides actors in a certain governance formation with opportunity structures which enable them to exert influence beyond their formal mandate. This research issue is thus based on the assumption that technical information is neither apolitical nor incontestable and that different forms of processing information entail direct consequences for the eventual distribution of the costs and benefits of regulation.

Powerful Numbers for Effective Outcomes?
PhD candidate: Martina Kühner
Supervisors: Prof. Thomas Conzelmann and Dr. Ron Cörvers (ICIS)

In recent discussions about why the international community faces considerable shortfalls in achieving global development objectives, such as the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), one frequently mentioned aspect is a lack of accountability of the actors, mainly states and IOs, which are involved in defining and implementing these goals. At the same time, one can observe a proliferation of monitoring instruments to trace progress made on these international objectives. This leads to a shift towards more quantitative approaches of measuring progress. Furthermore, monitoring is usually non-binding and does not have enforcement mechanisms or formal incentive structures to ensure that actors take monitoring results into account in their policy actions. This raises the question of if and how these soft law mechanisms actually have an effect in the absence of “carrots and sticks”? 

This research project seeks to investigate the significance of monitoring mechanisms for advancing sustainable development objectives. It examines global monitoring executed by International Organisations (IOs), such as the UN monitoring on the MDGs, and focuses on instruments which monitor sustainability-related issues. The PhD is embedded in an umbrella research project on the authority of peer reviews among states as an instrument of soft law governance. Using a selection of case studies, this research aims at answering the following main research question: To what extent and under which conditions do global monitoring mechanisms develop authority in the field of sustainable development?

Setting a Stage for Europe: The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, 1947-1960
PhD Candidate: Daniel Stinsky
Supervisor: Prof. Kiran Patel

The UN Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) is hardly ever mentioned in the reference literature on European integration. Yet, it was in fact the first postwar international organization dedicated specifically to economic cooperation in the European region. ECE is a case that challenges the EC/EU –centered way in which the story of European integration is commonly told, assuming that the international stage was rather empty when integration was young. The study will add to our understanding of European integration history by taking different and earlier approaches to international cooperation into account. As a UN organization, ECE was never limited to Western Europe, nor did it become part of an “evolutionary” chain leading from the Schuman declaration to the EU-28. The project will analyze the rather unique direct entanglement of Cold War politics and questions of European economic cooperation at an organization with member states on both sides of the descending Iron Curtain. By highlighting a hitherto scholarly neglected institution that acted as a trailblazer in certain fields of economic cooperation in Europe, and by assessing transnational political and expert networks in IOs, governments and academia around that institution, the study will add new perspectives on the history of European integration. ECE, as both the oldest and geographically broadest conception of economic cooperation in Europe, set a stage for those that followed. With a perspective on ECE, the study will thus be able to narrate how that stage changed over time as more actors entered the play.

Europeanisation of census taking in the Western Balkans
PhD Candidate: Anna-Lena Hoh
Supervisors: Prof. Hans SchmeetsDr. Gergana Noutcheva, Dr. Petar Petrov
This project analyzes the variation in census taking in selected countries from the Western Balkans considering (a) the equal strength of the external incentive for convergence with EU norms in this area (the EU membership perspective) and (b) the similar initial conditions in the countries at the start of the EU accession preparations. It will propose an original model for explaining the differential Europeanization of census taking in the region taking into consideration the role of domestic institutional and societal factors (structures) as well as the individual choices of political actors in key government positions (agents). It will make an important contribution to the literature by linking the domestic level of analysis to the Europeanization scholarship and the external mechanisms of promoting change.

Mobility in context: residential mobility trajectories of immigrants in the Netherlands
PhD Candidate: Marloes de Hoon
Supervisors: Prof. Maarten Vink and Prof. Hans Schmeets

Her research project is part of the recently founded Institute for Transnational and Euregional Cross Border Cooperation and Mobility (ITEM) and focuses on mobility trajectories of immigrants in the Netherlands. The project collaborates with Statistics Netherlands (CBS). Marloes’ broader research interests include (cross-border) human mobility, immigrant integration, socio-economic inequality and social cohesion.

Escaping bad health and early death, lnequalities and time lags in the Maastricht health transition, L864-1955
PhD Candidate: Mayra Murkens
Supervisors: Angelique Janssens, Willibrord Rutten

Over the past 200 years revolutionary changes in health and aging have fundamentally altered the way we live and die. The great escape from bad health and early death has however created new and persisted inequalities in health and life expectancy, primarily along social and educational lines. This project aims to unravel the historical development of health inequalities in the city of Maastricht in the period between 1866 and 1955, as well as the time lag in the city's path towards modern health as compared to the rest of the country.

PCW Euorpe-4
Niet ge- definieerd


Funded projects

Jean Monnet Research Group on EU-Asia relations (GEAR)
Project Leader: Thomas Christiansen 
Coordinator: Youngah Guahk 

The project will integrate different disciplinary perspectives on the relations between the EU and East Asia, with particular focus on economic and political aspects. The project will bring together aspects around an integrated research project leading to the publication of policy papers and the Handbook of EU-Asia Relations (Palgrave, 2013). The project will pursue three distinct dimensions of EU-East Asia relations: comparative, relational and global. The academic value of this approach arises from the capacity of the research group to analyze multiple strands of the relationship between these key regions in the context of an emerging multi-polar world. The project will involve the organization of several research conferences and workshops which will facilitate the presentation of draft chapters for the handbook and the discussion of preliminary findings with selected scholars and experts in each of the two regions.

The project is led by Thomas Christiansen from Maastricht University who is working with five other Jean Monnet professors, Hiromasa Kubo (Kobe University, Japan), Philomena Murray (Melbourne University, Australia), Cillian Ryan (Birmingham University, UK), Xinning Song (Renmin University, China) and Chae-Deug Yi (Pusan National University, South Korea). This group brings together a wealth of valuable knowledge, and between them also have an extensive network among scholars and stakeholders which facilitates high-level participation at the events. 

 More information  

OPAL Project
The role of national parliaments in European integration is a topical issue in current political and academic debates. The Treaty of Lisbon significantly expands the influence of national parliaments in EU policy-making. Very little research has been done on the question of how institutional reforms and legal stipulations actually impact on the role of national parliaments in EU affairs. The OPAL Project addresses this gap and for the first time gathers comprehensive data on parliamentary involvement in EU affairs across all 27 Member States. This project is a response to a joint call within the Open Research Area in Europe for the Social Sciences by the Research Councils of Germany, France the UK and the Netherlands (ANR-DFG-ESRC-NWO). It is a joint endeavour of the Fondation Nationale des Sciences Politiques, University of Cologne, Cambridge University and Maastricht University.

IN-COOP – Institutional Cooperation in the European Union
Coordinators: Christine Neuhold and Sophie Vanhoonacker
Administrative Coordinator: Lidwien Hollanders​

This interdisciplinary research project, which is financed by the European Commission (FP 7; Marie Curie Initial Training Network) focuses on the rapidly-evolving field of inter- and intra- institutional cooperation within the EU system of multi-level governance. By systematically exploring formal and informal patterns of cooperation in inter-level, inter-institutional and intra-institutional settings and by focusing on a wide variety of policy sectors, it aims at bringing new insights into the role of institutions in the EU policymaking process.

The research is implemented by 13 pre-doctoral and 2 post-doctoral researchers and is organised within a multi-disciplinary network of eight universities and three professional organisations (CEPS, Brussels; DLA Piper, Brussels; EIPA, Maastricht). The participating Universities are: Maastricht University (coordinator); Bucharest Academy of Economic Studies; Cambridge University, Fondation nationale des Sciences Politiques Paris (Science Po); University of Loughborough; Université de Luxembourg; University of Mannheim; University of Osnabrück.

For more details, see: http://fasos-research.nl/incoop 

The Diplomatic System of the European Union - Evolution, Change and Challenges
Coordinator at Maastricht: Sophie Vanhoonacker
UM team: Karolina Pomorska; Petar Petrov; Andrea Ott; Hylke Dijkstra; Heidi Maurer; Natasja Reslow​

The Diplomatic System of the EU (DSEU) Network aims to investigate the growth and functioning of a diplomatic system centred on the European Union. It focuses on three key challenges facing this system in the coming decade: the internal challenge of institutional change and inter-institutional cooperation, and the external challenges posed by emerging powers and by the EU’s engagement in state-building in fragile societies.

The network is financed by the European Commission’s Jean Monnet Programme and involves three key project partners – Loughborough University (lead partner, UK), Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (BE) and Maastricht University (NL). It will run initially from September 2009 until August 2011.

The key activities conducted by the network include the organisation of a series of workshops and conferences held at key stages, and culminating in a major conference to be held in Brussels during 2011, the editing of a series of policy papers drawing on the research conducted within the network, the production of one or more special issues and an edited volume bringing together the key findings of the research activities.

For more information, see http://dseu.lboro.ac.uk/ 

Transnationalism and the transfer of administrative knowledge, 1840-1940
Coordinators: Chris Leonards, Nico Randeraad​
The nineteenth century revolutions in government triggered the expansion of bureaucracies on all administrative levels. Because of the growing complexity of government functions the bureaucracies were faced with an increasing need for appropriate and up-to-date administrative knowledge. Administrative knowledge can simply be defined as knowledge necessary to perform administrative tasks. This knowledge was often not available within local or state bureaucracies, and had to be found elsewhere. The acquisition, appropriation, implementation and diffusion of administrative knowledge has mostly been studied in national contexts. One of most salient aspects, however, of the new administrative knowledge of the 19th century and early twentieth was that it was often developed within transnational communities of bureaucrats, experts and philanthropists. These epistemic communities avant la lettre were communicating by means of international congresses, institutes, associations, correspondence and different kinds publications. The officials and experts discussed (seemingly) technical issues such as the metric system, the gold standard, or national censuses, but also highly political questions such as public health, poverty, working-class housing, criminality and the like. The aim of the project is to analyse how these transnational communities were able to act between national and international levels and how (and to what extent) they influenced and reshaped policies and politics on both the national and international level, and were able to reach uniformity or standardisation.

This project is being carried out in collaboration with researchers based at the Centre Maurice Halbwachs (Paris), University of Geneva, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies (Geneva), University of St. Andrews, The Rothschild Archive (London), and the University of Cologne.

The project will result in a number of individual and joint publications (articles, monographs, and edited volumes). With subsidies from Maastricht University and the CNRS a database of transnational experts in social reform issues will be developed (2010-2011). 

The provincial administration of Zuid-Holland (1814-2014)
The province of Zuid-Holland and the Erfgoedhuis Zuid-Holland are funding a research team to write a history of the provincial administration since 1814. The envisaged book will be the first of its kind to give a comprehensive historical assessment of the activities of the provincial authorities within the administrative system of the Netherlands. It deals not only with the supervision of local authorities, but also follows the province into a wider European and global administrative arena.

Nico Randeraad is member of the scientific board of the project, and will be partially released from teaching for a period of two years to write three chapters of the book.

Conceptualising the European Union's Power in the Wider European Neighbourhood
Coordinator: Gergana Noutcheva
The project investigated the sources and facets of EU power in the wider European neighbourhood. In particular, it enquired into the normative and strategic dynamics of the EU’s policies vis-à-vis neighbouring states in two policy areas – democracy support and conflict resolution. The research involved empirical work on selected case studies from the wider European neighbourhood with a view of analyzing the value-based and the interest-based logics as drivers of EU foreign policy and identifying the factors that condition the EU’s impact on countries in its immediate vicinity.

The project was funded by the European Commission in the framework of an Intra-European Marie Curie fellowship (project N 219597). 

FASOS - Research - Politics and Culture in Europe
Niet ge- definieerd


PhD projects

The citizenship premium: a life course approach in the context of institutional conditions
PhD candidate: Floris Peters
Supervisors: Prof. Maarten Vink and Prof. Hans Schmeets
This project focuses on the relevance of citizenship acquisition for the socio-economic, sociocultural and political integration of immigrants. Although much literature exists on the relevance of citizenship for the integration of immigrants, the mechanisms underlying this ‘citizenship premium’, and to whom and under which conditions it matters most, is unclear. We develop a novel life course approach, in which the decision to naturalize is explicitly positioned in the biographical context of the individual, as well as the institutional context of the host country. The project collaborates with Statistics Netherlands, and makes use of unique, high quality longitudinal register data from municipal population registers and the Social Statistical Database. Cum laude defended at 28-03-2018.

Just Another Brush Stroke on the Human Rights Canvas? – The Design and Authority of the United Nations Universal Periodic Review compared to the UN Treaty Bodies
PhD Candidate: Valentina Carraro
Supervisors: Prof. Thomas Conzelmann and Prof. Sophie Vanhoonacker​

This PhD project consists of two separate, but interlinked, parts: on the one hand, it aims at shedding light on the rationale behind the establishment of the United Nations Universal Periodic Review (UPR), an all-comprehensive peer review evaluating states’ performance in their human rights obligations. On the other hand, it will assess to what extent the UPR is seen as authoritative, particularly when compared to the UN treaty bodies expert reviews. Both types of review are non-binding on states and deal with the same subject matter, but differ on a number of institutional characteristics such as their scope, the role played by the secretariat and the presence of human rights experts. Successfully defended at 20-10-2017.

Fighting Corruption the Soft Way? The Authority of Peer Reviews to Monitor Compliance with Anti-Corruption Standard-Setting Instruments.
PhD Candidate: Hortense Jongen
Supervisors: Prof. Thomas Conzelmann and Dr. Giselle Bosse​

My research focuses on the variance in member states’ beliefs on the authority of peer reviews to monitor compliance with anti-corruption standard setting instruments. Central is the question of the conditions that are conducive to states’ recognition of the authority of peer reviews as an instrument to fight corruption. In an attempt to answer this question I adopt a two-step approach. First I will look into the institutional conditions potentially underlying the authority of peer review mechanisms of the OECD, Council of Europe and the United Nations. Second I will look into the member state specific conditions that shape states’ beliefs on the authority of these peer review mechanisms. Successfully defended at 15-09-2017.

The Changed Role of the European Court of Justice in the Area of Justice and Home Affairs: Reshaping the Europeanisation of Migration Policies?
PhD candidate: M. Desomer
Supervisor: Prof. Sophie Vanhoonacker

The nature of the gradual Europeanisation of migration policies from the 1980s onwards has spurred a lot of academic debate. Whereas some commentators hold Member States’ primary intentions for the delegation of authority to the EU level to lie in their wish to achieve greater control over ever increasing migration flows – others have pointed at the important rights’ enhancing effects for migrants increasing cooperation at the EU level has led to. Against the background of this 'rights versus control' debate, this PhD project examines the significance of Member States’ delegation of increased jurisdiction in this area to the European Court of Justice with the Lisbon Treaty.

As the balance in favour of either rights or control within EU migration policies seems to be importantly influenced by the relative importance of intergovernmental versus supranational modes of governance – this new step towards increased supranational governance can be expected to have significant outcomes. Furthermore, as has been noted by a number of commentators, the European Court of Justice has taken on a rights-enhancing approach in many important cases concerning European migration law that were brought before it in previous years. The influence of Court activism of this nature can be expected to increase as the Lisbon Treaty expands the ECJ’s jurisdiction in this area.

By analysing a number of landmark cases this PhD project wishes to examine the influence of ECJ judicial politics on the Europeanization of migration policies, and the potentially important effects the Lisbon Treaty’s increase of the Court’s jurisdiction may bring about. Successfully defended at 26-06-2017.

Conditions of efficient parliamentary scrutiny in EU affairs after the Treaty of Lisbon
PhD candidate: Alexander Strelkov
Supervisors: Prof. Tannelie Blom and Dr. Christine Neuhold
The provisions of the Lisbon Treaty have consolidated old and provided new opportunities for national parliaments’ participation at the EU level politics. Nonetheless, it is yet to be seen how exactly the mechanisms of efficient parliamentary scrutiny in EU affairs have changed after the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty. The results of the study will not only help understand how national parliaments adapt to the changes of the EU structure but will also provide clues as to how the EU polity and Europeanisation processes develop in the future. Enhanced efficiency of parliamentary scrutiny might mitigate the “democratic deficit” of the European Union and change the patterns of national interest promotion at the EU level. On the contrary, if the Treaty of Lisbon doesn’t manage to activate the national parliaments or the domestic legislatures don’t perceive it as on opportunity to increase their power and credibility, than the trend towards “intensive transgovernmentalism” within the EU might develop further. The research is a qualitatively-orientated comparative prospective case-study, drawing on the experience of Sweden, Czech Republic and Romania. Hence, the study deals extensively with the experience of the “new” Central and Eastern European member-states. This not only examines a previously under-researched area of study but can also provide answers as to how the “newcomers” engage with the EU political system and how they influence the process of Europeanisation. The PhD project will concentrate on the interaction of the EU Affairs Committees and sectoral committees, engagement of the opposition parties in the EU affairs scrutiny and the role of administrative players (members of secretariats, parliamentary experts etc) within the national legislatures. The concepts of “exit” and “voice”, introduced by A.Hirschman, will be used to assess the governance practices within the EU affairs scrutiny process. The research tries to define mechanisms through which the national parliaments attempt to change the preferences of the government by negotiating and seeking compromise (“voice”) or how they influence respective governments through the EU level proper (“exit”). The issues of EU pension systems and seasonal workers’ entry/residence in the EU, selected through exploratory interviews and document research, are the empirical cases of EU affairs scrutiny that will be considered in my study. Generally, the proposed research allows to develop new answers to the main challenges of the EU political development: “efficiency-democracy dilemma” and the “interaction of national and EU levels”. Successfully defended at 12-02-2015.

Informal Governance in European Migration management: Coordination of Asylum Policies among EU Member States.
PhD candidate: Claudia Engelmann
Supervisors: Prof. Thomas Christiansen and Dr. Maarten Vink

The development of a European asylum policy continues to depend on decision-making at both the EU and the national level, with the latter relying on important, albeit informal coordination and information exchanges among the member states. This project seeks to investigate the interplay between formal EU decision-making processes and informal coordination mechanism. In particular, it focuses on the impact of the EU’s institutional structures such as working groups in the Council of Ministers, implementing committees with the European Commission and EU agencies in order to explore the degree to which these act as transmission belts of policy convergence among EU member states. One particular area for a fruitful investigation of these dynamics of informal governance is the definition of which states are to be considered as ‘safe countries of origin’. This constitutes a crucial basis in the context of any decision by member state authorities whether or not it is safe to send an applicant back to his or her country of origin. In line with the 1957 Geneva Convention a person may not be sent back if ‘his [or her] life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.’ In a first step, the project requires an analysis of both formal and informal structures within the EU in order to find out how information on third countries is shared. In a second step, a list of safe countries of origin in the 27 EU member states will be compiled. This comparative analysis will allow for a systematic evaluation of the extent and direction of a possible EU induced process of convergence. In a third step, selected case studies will be conducted to investigate in a more in-depth manner how the practice of sharing and exchanging information at the European level impacts on the way in which the concept of safe country of origin is institutionalized at the domestic level. Successfully defended at 20-03-2015.

Multinationals and European politics through transnational study and pressure groups, 1945-1989
PhD candidate: Ruud Geven
Supervisor: Prof. Ernst Homburg
The Single European Act in 1986, aiming at ‘completing’ the European market as it was intended with the Rome Treaties of 1957, has partly been understood as a consequence of a transnational business lobby through the rekindling of the fire behind some, rather ancient, ideas on market integration. With respect to earlier episodes of European integration however, the perception has taken hold that before the early 1980’s international business was hardly aware of the developments on the supranational level, busy with rebuilding their industries or GATT negotiations. This suggestion paints a picture of enlightened industrialists that could only have existed in the early 1980’s, and thus signaling a profound discontinuity with the decades of European integration before the 1980.

The project starts from the assumption that the activity of business in the events leading to the Single European Act did not represent an extraordinary situation but was rather an expression of continuity, already emerging in the 1950’s, when transnational groups took an active role in generating ideas for Europe’s future. This project aims at showing the continuity of this activity through an investigation of four transnational study and pressure groups, active between 1945 and 1989. The selected groups included a significant amount of representatives from multinational industry and banking from Europe and the United States of America. In addition to a general investigation and comparison of the groups, per decade from 1950 until 1989, an ongoing debate with respect to European integration will be analysed across all four groups. Finally the role of business representatives in the groups and the debates will be analysed in the light of relevant ideologies driving European integration.
Through this approach the project examines the continuity of business activity on a transnational level with regard to European integration since WWII. This strategy moreover questions to what extent ideas and attitude of American and European businessmen of multinational industry and banking adapted to Europe’s developing economic and political order. Finally it investigates business’ involvement in the generation of ideas on European integration. Successfully defended at 17-04-2014.

Formal and informal mechanisms of cooperation in EU external relations. A case study on the European Commission
PhD candidate: Anne-Claire Marangoni​
Supervisors: Prof. Sophie Vanhoonacker and Dr. Thomas Conzelmann​
The European Union manifests itself in many different ways in EU external relations: through its trade policy, development cooperation, humanitarian aid, and the Common Foreign and Security Policy. The coordination of these different foreign policy activities is not only a problem for inter-institutional cooperation in the EU policymaking process, it also challenges the capacity of individual institutions to speak with one voice. An extra complication is that that the different policies have their own decision making procedures and follow a different integration logic. While the first pillar follows the supranational Community method, the second pillar of CFSP is based on intergovernmental cooperation.

This PhD project examines institutional consistency in the European Commission. Through a series of case studies, it identifies and analyses the organisational structures, the legal instruments and procedures and the informal practices to coordinate EU external relations amongst the various Commissioners and Directorates General. It analyses how this (lack of) coordination affects its relations with other institutional players such as the Council and the European Parliament and links it to the broader question of the EU’s international role. Successfully defended at 24-09-2014.

Niet ge- definieerd


For an overview of all our 2017 publications, click here  .

Selection of Publications (2008-2013) per pillar; for a more detailed overview, see the individual websites of the researchers. 

Historicising European Union

  • Del Hierro, P. (2013). El tándem Sangróniz-Ponce de León: los primeros pasos de la acción cultural franquista en Italia, 1945-1955. Historia del Presente, 22, 19-27.
  • Geary, M.J. (2009). An Inconvenient Wait: Ireland's Quest for Membership of the EEC, 1957 - 73. Dublin: Institute of Public Administration.
  • Geary, M.J. (2009). An Inconvenient Wait: Ireland's Quest for Membership of the EEC, 1957-73. Dublin: Institute of Public Administration.
  • Geary, M.J. (2013). Enlarging the European Union:  The Commission Seeking Influence, 1961-73. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Geary, M.J. (2009). A Public Courtship: the European Commission's Relations with the US Government, 1958 - 63. In C. Hynes & S. Scanlon (Eds.), Reform and Renewal: Transatlantic Relations during the 1960s and 1970s (pp. 43-58). London: Cambridge Publishing.
  • Germond, C.S., Seidel, K. & Spoerer, M. (2010). Special Issue: Ambitions and Reality of the Common Agricultural Policy: Historical and Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Journal of European Integration History, 16 (2), 9-162.
  • Germond, C.S. (2010). The Agricultural Bone of Contention: The Franco-German Tandem and the Making of the CAP, 1963-1966. Journal of European Integration History, 16 (2), 179-198.
  • Germond, C.S. & Türk, H. (2008). A History of Franco-German Relations in Europe: From "Hereditary Enemies" to Partners. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Germond, C.S. (2010). A "Cordial Potentiality"? Charles de Gaulle and the Franco-German Partnership. In A. Locher, G. Martin & C. Nuenlist (Eds.), Globalizing de Gaulle: International Perspectives on French Foreign Policies (Harvard Cold War Book Series) (pp. 43-62). Lanham: Rowman & Litlefield.
  • Germond, C.S. (2012). Franco-German Dynamic Duos: Giscard-Schmidt and Mitterrand-Kohl. In A. Menon, E. Jones & S. Weatherhil (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of European Union (pp. 193-205). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Germond, C.S. & Türk, H. (2008). Intorduction Old Foes and New Friends. In C. Germond & H. Türk (Eds.), A History of Franco-German Relations in Europe: From "Hereditary Enemies" to Partners (pp. 1-10). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Germond, C.S. (2013). Preventing Reform? Agricultural Interest Groups and the Common Agricultural Policy. In W. Kaiser & J.-H. Meyer (Eds.), Non-State Actors in European Integration 1958-1992. From Polity-Building to Transnational Politics and Policy-Making?, (Palgrave Studies in European Union Politics) (pp. 106-128). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Germond, C.S. (2009). The End of the Cold War and the Unification of the European Continent. In K. Larres (Ed.), A Companion to Europe Since 1945. London: Blackwell.
  • Germond, C.S. (2009). Un Traite mort-né? Les relations institutionnelles franco-allemandes de 1963 à 1969. In M. Libera & B. Wassenberg (Eds.), L'Europe au c'ur: Etudes pour Marie-Therese Bitsch (pp. 117-140). Bruxelles: Peter Lang.
  • Lagendijk, V.C. & Van der Vleuten, E.B.A. (2013). Inventing Electrical Europe: Interdependencies, Borders, Vulnerabilities. In P. Högselius, A. Hommels, A. Kaijser & E.B.A. Van der Vleuten (Eds.), The Making of Europe's Critical Infrastructure: Common Connections and Shared Vulnerabilities (pp. 57-96). New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
  • Leonards, C.G.T.M. & Randeraad, N. (2010). Transnational Experts in Social Reform, 1840-1880. International Review of Social History, 55 (2), 215-239. doi: 10.1017/S0020859010000179
  • Patel, K.K. (2013). Integration by Interpellation: The European Capitals of Culture and the Role of Experts in EU Cultural Policies. Journal of Common Market Studies, 51, 538-554. doi: 10.1111/jcms.12009
  • Patel, K.K. (2011). La Scienza nei Tempi di Wikileaks. Riflessioni sulla Storia contemporanea nel Ventunesimo secolo. Memoria & Ricerca, 37, 155-171.
  • Patel, K.K. (2013). Provincialising European Union: Co-operation and Integration in Europe in a Historical Perspective. Contemporary European History, 22, 649-673. doi: 10.1017/S0960777313000404
  • Patel, K.K. (2011). The Paradox of Planning. German Agricultural Policy in a European Perspective, 1920s to 1970s. Past & Present, 212, 239-269. doi: 10.1093/pastj/gtr005
  • Patel, K.K. & Schot, J. (2011). Twisted Paths to European Integration: Comparing Agriculture and Transport in a Transnational Perspective. Contemporary European History, 20, 383-403. doi: 10.1017/S0960777311000440
  • Patel, K.K. (2013). Where and when was Europe? Europeanness and its Relationship to Migration. National Identities, 15, 21-32. doi: 10.1080/14608944.2012.733152
  • Patel, K.K. (2012). William Penn und sein Essay Towards the Present and Future Peace of Europe (1693): Friedensfürst, Vordenker europäischer Einigung oder Machtpolitiker? Historische Zeitschrift, 295 (2), 330-357. doi: 10.1524/hzhz.2012.0463
  • Patel, K.K. & Weisbrode, K. (2013). Afterword. In K.K. Patel & K. Weisbrode (Eds.), European Integration and the Atlantic Community in the 1980s (pp. 285-289). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Patel, K.K. (2011). Die "Volkserziehungsschule" - Der Arbeitsdienst für Männer und Frauen. In K.-P. Horn & J. Link (Eds.), Erziehungsverhältnisse im Nationalsozialismus (pp. 187-203). Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt.
  • Patel, K.K. & Schweitzer, H. (2013). EU Competition Law in Historical Context: Continuity and Change. In K.K. Patel & H. Schweitzer (Eds.), The Historical Foundations of EU Competition Law (pp. 207-230). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Patel, K.K. (2012). Europäische Integration. In J. Dülffer &  W. Loth (Eds.), Dimensionen internationaler Geschichte (pp. 353-372). Munich: Oldenbourg.
  • Patel, K.K. (2011). Gemeinsame Arbeit am "Neuen Menschen". Insassen und Personal in den Lagern des NS-Regimes. In F. Bretschneider, M. Scheutz & A.S. Weiß (Eds.), Personal und Insassen von Totalen Institutionen in der Neuzeit - zwischen Konfrontation und Verflechtung (pp. 337-357). Leipzig: Leipziger Universitätsverlag.
  • Patel, K.K. (2011). Germany and European Integration since 1945. In H.W. Smith (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Modern German History (pp. 775-794). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Patel, K.K. (2013). Integration through Expertise: Transnational Experts in European Cultural Policies. In K.K. Patel (Ed.), The Cultural Politics of Europe: European Capitals of Culture and European Union since the 1980's (pp. 72-92). London: Routledge.
  • Patel, K.K. (2012). Interests and Ideas: Alan Milward, The Europeanization of Agricultural Protection, and the Cultural Dimensions of European Integration,. In F. Guirao, F. Lynch & S.M. Ramirez Perez (Eds.), Alan S. Milward and a Century of European Change (pp. 405-421). Houndmills.
  • Patel, K.K. (2013). Introduction. In K.K. Patel (Ed.), The Cultural Politics of Europe: European Capitals of Culture and European Union since the 1980's (pp. 1-15). Routledge.
  • Patel, K.K. & Schweitzer, H. (2013). Introduction. In K.K. Patel & H. Schweitzer (Eds.), The Historical Foundations of EU Competition Law (pp. 1-19). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Patel, K.K. & Weisbrode, K. (2013). Introduction: Old Barriers, New Openings. In Weisbrode,.K. Patel, K.K. (Ed.), European Integration and the Atlantic Community in the 1980s (pp. 1-16). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Patel, K.K. (2011). Rivalisierende Raum-Zeit-Ordnungen. Verhandeln im Europäischen Integrationsprozess im 20. Jahrhundert. In G. Heeg (Ed.), Globalizing Areas, kulturelle Flexionen und die Herausforderung der Geisteswissenschaften (pp. 61-77). Leipzig: Leipziger Universitätsverlag.
  • Patel, K.K. (2012). Rockefeller Foundation, Kalter Krieg und Amerikanisierung. In J. Krige & H. Rausch (Eds.), American Foundations and the Co-Production of World Order in the Twentieth Century (pp. 173-185). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
  • Randeraad, N. (2011). The International Statistical Congress (1853-1876): Knowledge Transfers and their Limits. European History Quarterly, 41 (1), 50-65. doi: 10.1177/0265691410385759
  • Randeraad, N. (2010). States and Statistics in the Nineteenth Century. Europe by Numbers. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
  • Randeraad, N. (2012). Commemorating the Dutch Republic. The Politics of Urban Identity. In E. Betta, D.L. Caglioti & E. Papadia (Eds.), Forme del politico. Studi di storia per Raffaele Romanelli (pp. 281-300). Roma: Viella.
  • Randeraad, N. (2008). Politiche pubbliche e totalitarismi. Le sfide delle amministrazione negli anni Trenta. In G. Melis (Ed.), Lo Stato negli anni Trenta. Instituzioni e regimi fasscisti in Europa. Bologna: Il Mulino.

Politics and Administration beyond the Nation State 

  • Arnold, C.U. (with Franklin, M.N.) (Eds.). (2013). Assessing Political Representation in Europe. Abingdon, Oxon & New York: Routledge.
  • Arnold, C.U. & Franklin, M.N. (2012). Introduction: Issue Congruence and Political Responsiveness. West European Politics, 35(6), 1217 - 1225.
  • Arnold, C.U., Sapir, E.V. & de Vries, C.E. (2012). Parties' Positions on European Integration: Issue Congruence, Ideology or Context? West European Politics, 35(6), 1341-1362.
  • Arnold, C.U., Sapir, E.V. & Zapryanova, G. (2012). Trust in the Institutions of the European Union: A Cross-Country Examination. European Integration online Papers-EIoP, Special Mini-issue 2, 16, Article 8.
  • Arnold, C. (with M. Hosli) (2010). The Importance of Actor Cleavages in Negotiating the European Constitution. International Studies Quarterly, 54(3), 615 - 632.
  • Asselt, M.B.A. van, Versluis, E. & Vos, E.I.L. (2012). Balancing between Trade and Risk: Integrating Legal and Social Science Perspectives. London: Routledge.
  • Asselt, M.B.A. van, Vos, E. & Rooijackers, B. (2009). Science, knowledge and uncertainty in EU risk regulation. In M. Everson & E. Vos (eds.), Uncertain risks regulated (pp. 359 – 388). Abington: Routledge.
  • Asselt, M.B.A. van (2009). Uncertainty management in integrated regional assessment. In C.G. Knight & J. Jäger (eds), Integrated Regional Assessment of global climate change (pp. 90n – 116). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Asselt, M.B.A. van, Vos, E. & Fox, T. (2010). Regulating technologies and the uncertainty paradox. In M.E.A. Goodwin, B.J. Koops & R. Leenes (eds.), Dimensions of technology regulation (pp. 259 - 284). Wolf legal Publishers.
  • Asselt, M.B.A., van, Klooster, S.A. van‘t Notten, P.W.F van & Smits, L.A. (2010). Foresight in action: Developing policy-oriented scenarios. Earthscan, London, UK.
  • Beuningen, J. van & Schmeets, J.J.G. (2012). Developing a Social Capital Index for the Netherlands. Social Indicators Research, online first 29 August 2012. DOI: 10.1007/s11205-012-0129-2.
  • Blom, T., Radulova, E., & Arnold, C. (2008). Theorizing Modes of Governance in the EU: Institutional Design and Informational Complexity. European Governance Papers (EUROGOV), No. C-08-04.
  • Bijsmans, P. (2009). Parlez-Vous Europeen? Europadebat en Communicatiebeleid. Bestuurskunde, 18(2), 43 – 52.
  • Christiansen, T. & Neuhold, C. (2013). Informal Politics in the EU. Journal of Common Market Studies, 51(6), 1196-1206.
  • Christiansen, T. & Dobbels, M.J. (2012). Comitology and Delegated Acts after Lisbon: How the European Parliament Lost the Implementation Game. European Integration online Papers-EIoP, 16, Article 13.
  • Christiansen, T., Duke, S. & Kirchner, E. (2012). Understanding and Assessing the Maastricht Treaty. Journal of European Integration, 34(7), 685 - 698.
  • Christiansen, T. & Neuhold, C. (2010). The International Handbook on Informal Governance. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
  • Christiansen, T. & Laursen, F. (2010). EU Treaty Reform and Intergovernmental Conferences. Living Reviews in European Governance.
  • Christiansen, T. (2010). Comitology – Committees in the Enlarged European Union: Administrative Fusion still in Action? In U.Diedrichs, A.Faber, F.Tekin & G.Umbach (eds), Europe Reloaded: Differentiation or Fusion? Festschrift in honour of Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Wessels. Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlag.
  • Christiansen, T., Oettel, J. & Vaccari, B. (2009). 21st Century Comitology: The Role of Implementation Committees in the Wider European Union. Maastricht: EIPA.
  • Christiansen, T. (2009). The European Commission in the Early 21st Century. In L.Verhey, P.Kiiver & S.Loeffen (eds.), Political Accountability and European Integration. Groningen: Europa Law Publishing.
  • Christiansen, T. & Vanhoonacker, S. (2008). At a critical juncture? Change and continuity in the institutional development of the Council Secretariat. Western European Politics, 31, 751 – 770.
  • Christiansen, T. (with E. Best & P. Settembri). (2008). The Institutions of the Enlarged European Union: Continuity and Change. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
  • Christiansen, T. & Best. E. (2010). Regionalism in International Affairs. In J.Baylis, S.Smith & P.Owens (eds.), The Globalisation of World Politics 5th ed (pp. 4343 - 449). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Christiansen, T. (2010). The EU Reform Process: From the ‘European Constitution’ to the Lisbon Treaty. In M.Carbone (ed.), National Politics and European Integration: From the Constitution to the Lisbon Treaty (pp. 16 - 33). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
  • Conzelmann, T. (2012). A Procedural Approach to the Design of Voluntary Clubs: Negotiating the Responsible Care Global Charter. Socio-Economic Review,10(1), 193 - 214.
  • Conzelmann, T. (2011). A Procedural Approach to the Design of Voluntary Clubs: Negotiating the Responsible Care Global Charter. Socio-Economic Review, 10(1), 193-214.
  • Conzelmann, T. (2010). Neofunktionalismus (Neofunctionalism). In S. Schieder & M. Spindler (eds.), Theorien der Internationalen Beziehungen (pp. 157 - 186). Opladen: Barbara Budrich (3rd edition).
  • Conzelmann, T. & Faust, J. (2009). ”Nord” und ”Süd” im globalen Regieren. Politische Vierteljahresschrift, 50 (2), 203 – 225.
  • Conzelmann, T. (2008). A New Mode of Governing? Multi-level Governance between Cooperation and Conflict. In T. Conzelmann & R. Smith (eds.), Multi-level Governance in the European Union. Taking Stock and Looking Ahead (pp. 11 – 30). Baden-Baden: Nomos.
  • Conzelmann, T. (2008). Beyond the Carrot and the Stick: State Reporting Procedures in the WTO and the OECD. In J. Joachim, B. Reinalda & B. Verbeek (eds.), International Organizations and Implementation (pp. 35 – 47). London, New York: Routledge.
  • Conzelmann, T. (2008). A New Public-Private Divide? Co- and Self-Regulation in the European Union. In B. Kohler-Koch & F. Larat (eds.), Efficient and Democratic Governance in the European Union (Connex Report Series No. 9) (pp. 119 – 150). Mannheim: Mannheimer Zentrum für Europäische Sozialforschung.
  • Dobbels, M.J. & Neuhold, C. (2012). 'The Roles Bureaucrats Play': The Input of European Parliament (EP) Administrators into the Ordinary Legislative Procedure: A Case Study Approach. Journal of European Integration, online first 19 June 2012. DOI: 10.1080/07036337.2012.689832.
  • Dronkers, J. & Vink, M. (2012). Explaining Access to Citizenship in Europe: How Citizenship Policies Affect Naturalisation Rates. European Union Politics, 13(3), 390 - 412.
  • Feskens, R.C.W., Schmeets, J.J.G. & Hox, J.J. (2012). Looking for Homogeneous Groups of Respondents and Nonrespondents Using Latent Class Analysis. Social Science Research, 41(3), 671 - 680.
  • Fox, T., Versluis, E. & Asselt, M.B.A. van (2011). Regulating the Use of Bisphenol A in Baby and Children’s Products in the European Union: Current Developments and Scenarios for the Regulatory Future. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 2(1), 21-35.
  • Groot, de, G.R. & Vink, M. (2008). Meervoudige Nationaliteit in Europees Perspectief: een landenvergelijkend overzicht (ACVZ Voorstudie). Den Haag: Adviescommissie voor Vreemdelingenzaken, 179. [“Multiple Nationality in European Perspective: A Comparative Overview – Study commissioned by Advisory Committee for Aliens Affairs”]
  • Hoerner, J. & Stephenson, P. (2012). Theoretical Perspectives on Approaches to Policy Evaluation in the EU: The Case of Cohesion Policy. Public Administration,90(3), 699 - 715.
  • Hoogenboezem, J. (2011). Brinkmanship and Beyond: The Political Leadership of Franklin D. Roosevelt. In D.S. Bell (Ed.), Political Leadership. London: Sage Publications.
  • Hoogenboezem, J.A. (2010). Kruls, Een Politieke Generaal. Amsterdam: Boom
  • Neuhold, C.  & Ruiter, R. de. (2010). Out of REACH? Parliamentary control in the Netherlands and the UK. Journal of Legislative Studies, 57 – 73.
  • Neuhold, C. & Ruiter, R de (2012). Why is Fast Track the Way to Go? Justifications for Early Agreement in the Co-Decision Procedure and Their Effects. European Law Journal, 18(4), 536 - 554.
  • Neuhold, C.  & Settembri, P. (2009). Achieving consensus through committees: Does the European Parliament manage? . Journal of Common Market Studies, January  2009, 47(1), 127 – 151.
  • Neuhold, C. (2009). The scrutinizing powers of the European Parliament over Community implementing legislation. In H. Hofmann & A. Tuerk, The Move to an Integrated Administration – Legal Challenges in EU Administrative Law. Cheltenham: Edgar Elgar.
  • Neuhold, C. (2008).  Taming the ‘Trojan Horse’ of Comitology? Accountability issues of Comitology and the Role of the European Parliament. European Integration Online papers (EIoP), 12(1).
  • Radulova, E. (2007). The OMC – an Opaque Method of Consideration or Deliberative Governance in Action? Journal of European Integration, 29 (3), 363 – 380.
  • Reslow, N. (2012). Deciding on EU external Migration Policy: the Member States and the Mobility Partnerships. Journal of European Integration, 34(3), 223 - 239.
  • Reslow, N. (2012). The Role of Third Countries in EU Migration Policy: the Mobility Partnerships. European Journal of Migration and Law, 14(4), 393 - 415.
  • Sapir, E.V. & Sullivan, J. (2012). Ma Ying-Jeou's Presidential Discourse. Journal of Current Chinese Affairs, 41(3), 33 - 68.
  • Sapir, E.V. & Sullivan, J. (2012). Modeling Negative Campaign Advertising: Evidence from Taiwan. Asian Journal of Communication, 22(3), 289 - 303.
  • Sapir, E.V. & Sullivan, J. (2012). Nasty or nice? Explaining Positive and Negative Campaign behavior in Taiwan. China Journal, 67(1), 149 - 170.
  • Sapir, E.V., Arnold, C.U. & Vries, C.E. de (2012). Parties' Positions on European Integration: Issue Congruence, Ideology or Context? West European Politics, 35(6), 1341 – 1362.
  • Schakel, A.H. (2012). Nationalisation of Multilevel Party Systems: A Conceptual and Empirical Analysis. European Journal of Political Research, online first 10 August 2012. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6765.2012.02067.x.
  • Schakel, A.H. & Jeffery, C. (2012). Are Regional Elections really Second-Order? Regional Studies, online first 15 June 2012. DOI: 10.1080/00343404.2012.690069.
  • Schmeets, H. (2010). Increasing Response Rates and the Consequences in the Dutch Parliamentary Election Study 2006. Field Methods, 22(4), 391 - 412.
  • Schmeets, H., (ed.) (2010). Sociale Samenhang: Participatie, Vertrouwen en Integratie. Den Haag/Heerlen: CBS.
  • Spendzharova, A. & Versluis, E. (2013). Issue salience in the European Policy Process: what impact on transposition? Journal of European Public Policy, 20(10), 1499-1516.
  • Spendzharova, A. (2012). Is More `Brussels’ the Solution? New European Union Member States’ Preferences about the European Financial Architecture. Journal of Common Market Studies, 50(2), 315 – 334.
  • Spendzharova, A. & Vachudova, M.A. (2012). Catching Up? Consolidating Liberal Democracy in Bulgaria and Romania after EU Accession. West European Politics,35(1), 39 - 58.
  • Spendzharova, A. (2010). Multi-level Governance of Banking Regulation in the EU: Evidence from Developing Bank Supervision in Bulgaria and Hungary. Journal of European Integration, 32(3), 249 – 268.
  • Stephenson, P. (2013). 20 Years of Multi-Level Governance: Where Does It Come From? What Is It? Where Is It Going? Journal of European Public Policy, 20(6), 817-837.
  • Stephenson, P. (2012). Napoleon, Nostalgia and Number Plates: an Analysis of the Reactions to the Attali Commission's Proposal to Abolish the French Départment. Journal of Contemporary European Studies, 20(4), 477 - 495.
  • Stephenson, P. (2012). Talking Space: the European Commission's Changing Frames in Defining Galileo. Space Policy, 28(2), 86 - 93.
  • Stephenson, P. J. (2011). Image and Venue as Factors mediating latent Spillover Pressure for Agenda-setting Change. Journal of European Public Policy, DOI:10.1080/13501763.2011.614141.
  • Stephenson, P. (2010). The Role of Working Groups of Commissioners in Co-ordinating Policy Implementation: The Case of Trans-European Networks (TENs). JCMS 48(3), 709 – 736.
  • Stephenson, P. (2010). Let’s get physical: the European Commission and cultivated spillover in completing the single market’s transport infrastructure. JEPP 17(7), 1038 – 1056.
  • Stephenson, P.J. (2009). Catching the Train to Europe: Executive Control of Policy Formulation inside Spain’s Parliamentary European Union Affairs Committee. South European Society and Politics, 14(3), 317 – 336.
  • Stephenson, P. J. (2009). Hot Under the Collar: Lessons from the 2003 Heatwave in France and the Security Implications for Coping with Environmental Threats in the EU. Journal of Contemporary European Research, 5(2), 293 – 311.
  • Suvarierol, S., Versluis, E. & Mastenbroek, E. (2010). De Commissie en de agentschappen: een Europese superregering? In A. Van der Vleuten (ed.), De Bestuurlijke Kaart van de Europese Unie. Instellingen, besluitvorming en beleid (pp. 53 - 73). Bussum: Coutinho (2nd edition).
  • Versluis, E., van Keulen, M. & Stephenson, P. (2011). Analyzing the European Union Policy Process. Palgrave MacMillan (European Union Series).
  • Versluis, E., Asselt, M.B.A. van, Fox, T. & Hommels, A. (2010). The EU Seveso regime in practice: From uncertainty blindness to uncertainty tolerance. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 184, 627 - 631.
  • Versluis, E., Van Asselt, M., Fox, T. & Hommels, A. (2010). Calculable Risks? An analysis of the European Seveso Regime. In M. Goodwin, B.J. Koops & R. Leenes (eds.), Dimensions of Technology Regulation (pp. 21 – 37). Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers.
  • Versluis, E. (with M. Groenleer & M. Kaeding) (2010). Regulatory Governance through EU Agencies? The Role of the European Agencies for Maritime and Aviation Safety in the Implementation of European Transport Legislation. Journal of European Public Policy.
  • Versluis, E. (with S. Adamini &  H. Maarse) (2010). EU Policymaking on the Tobacco Advertising Ban: Overcoming the Deadlock, Health Economics, Policy and Law.
  • Versluis, E. (with S. Adamini, H. Maarse & D. Light) (2009). Policy Making on Data Exclusivity in the European Union: From Industrial Interests to Legal Realities. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 34(6), 979 – 1010.
  • Versluis, E., Klip, A. & Polak, J. (2009). Improving mutual trust amongst European Union Member States in the areas of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters. Lessons from the operation of monitoring, evaluation and inventory mechanisms in the first and third pillars of the European Union. In M. Dane & A. Klip (eds.), An additional evaluation mechanism in the field of EU judicial cooperation in criminal matters to strengthen mutual trust (pp. 99 – 248). Tilburg: Celsus Legal Publishers.
  • Versluis, E. (2008). The Achilles’ heel of European regulation. National administrative styles and the Commission’s neglect of practical implementation. In J. Joachim, B. Reinalda & B. Verbeek (eds.), International Organizations and Policy Implementation. Enforcers, managers, authorities? (pp. 120 – 134).  London: Routledge.
  • Vink, M. (Ed.). (2012). Migration and Citizenship Attribution: Politics and Policies in Western Europe. London: Routledge.
  • Vink, M. & Evans, A.M. (2012). Measuring Group Switching in the European Parliament: Methodology, Data and Trends (1979-2009). Análise Social, 47(202), 92 - 112.
  • Vink, M. & G.R. de Groot (2010). Citizenship Attribution in Western Europe: International Framework and Domestic Trends. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 36(5), 713 - 734.
  • Vink, M. (2010). European Integration and Domestic Immigration Policies: Convergence, Causality and Counterfactuals. In A. Luedtke (ed.), Migrants and Minorities: the European Response (pp. 37 – 60). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Press.
  • Vink, M. (with Costa Lobo, M. & Lisi, M.) (2010). Mapping the Political Landscape: A Portuguese Vote Advice Application. In L. Cedroni & D. Garzia (eds.), Voting Advice Applications in Europe: The State of the Art (pp. 139 – 166). ScriptaWeb. 
  • Vink, M. (2010). [Review of: Guild, E., Groenendijk, K. & Carrera, S., Illiberal Liberal States: Immigration, Citizenship and Integration in the EU. Publisher: Ashgate, Surrey (2009)]. In: Acta Politica, 45(4), 479 - 499.
  • Vink, M. & Groot, G.R. de (2010). Birthright Citizenship: Trends and Regulations in Europe. Comparative Report, RSCAS/EUDO-CIT-Comp. 2010/8. EUDO Citizenship Observatory, November, 35.
  • Vink, M., ed. (2010). Migration and Citizenship Attribution: Politics and Policies in Western Europe. Special issue of  Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 36 (5).
  • Vink, M. and G.R. de Groot (2010). Citizenship Attribution across Europe: International Framework and Domestic Trends. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 36(5), 713 – 734.
  • Vink, M. & van Vliet, O. (2009). Not quite crisp, not yet fuzzy? Assessing the potentials and pitfalls of multi-value QCA. Field Methods 21(3), 265 – 289.
  • Vink, M. & Engelmann, C. (2010). Informal Governance in Asylum Politics: European Structures in International Context. In T. Christiansen & C. Neuhold (eds.), International Handbook on Informal Governance. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
  • Vink, M. (with G.R. De Groot) (2010). Loss of Citizenship: Trends and Regulations in Europe. Comparative Report. RSCAS/EUDO-CIT-Comp. 2010/4. EUDO Citizenship Obervatory.
  • Vink, M. (2010). European Integration and Domestic Immigration Policies: Convergence, Causality and Counterfactuals. In A. Luedtke (ed.), Migrants and Minorities: the European Response (pp. 37 – 60). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Press.
  • Vink, M. (with M. Costa Lobo & M. Lisi) (2010). Mapping the Political Landscape : A Portuguese Vote AdviceApplication. In L. Cedroni & D. Garzia (eds.), Voting Advisors in Europe: Perspectives from Political Science (pp. 139 – 166).
  • Vink, M. (2008) European Citizens and the Constitutional Treaty. In V.B. Malleswari, ed. Citizenship: Contemporary Issues and Developments, Hyderabad, A.P, India: ICFAI University Press (Amicus Books).

Foreign Policy beyon the Nation state

  • Bosse, G. (2012). A Partnership with Dictatorship: Explaining the Paradigm Shift in European Union Policy towards Belarus. Journal of Common Market Studies, 50(3), 367 – 384.
  • Bosse, G. & Schmidt-Felzmann, A. (2011). The Geopolitics of Energy Security in ‘Wider Europe’. Geopolitics, 16 (3), 497-485.
  • Bosse, G. (2010). The EU’s relations with Moldova: Governance, Partnership or Ignorance? Europe-Asia Studies, 62 (8).
  • Bosse, G. (2010). The EU’s Geopolitical Vision of an European Energy Space: When ‘Gulliver’ Meets ‘White Elephants’ and Babylonian Emperors. Geopolitics, 16 (3).
  • Bosse, G. (2010). The EU’s Role in Georgia: Towards a Coherent Crisis Management Strategy?. In A. Juncos & E. Gross (Ed.), EU Conflict Prevention and Crisis Management: Institutions, Policies and Roles. (Routledge: London).
  • Bosse, G. (2009). The Values/Security Nexus: The Limits of EU Governance in Eastern Europe. Contemporary Politics, 15(2), 215 – 227.
  • Bosse, G. (2009). Changing Belarus? The Limits of EU Governance in Eastern Europe and the Promise of Partnership. Cooperation and Conflict, 44(2), 143 – 65 (with E. Korosteleva).
  • Bosse, G. (2008). Justifying the European Neighbourhood Policy Based on ‘Shared Values’: Can Rhetoric Match Reality? In E. Tulmets & L. Delcour (Ed.), Pioneer Europe? EU Foreign Policy in the Neighbourhood (pp. 43 – 54). Nomos: Baden-Baden.
  • Bosse, G. (2008). The EU’s Neighbourhood Relations with Eastern Europe and Russia: Values, Interests and Future Challenges for EU Foreign Policy. In B. Coskun (Ed.), Neighbourhood Challenge: The European Union and Its Neighbours. Universal Publishers: US.
  • Chappell, L. & Petrov, P. (2012). The European Defence Agency and Permanent Structured Cooperation: Are We Heading Towards Another Missed Opportunity?Defence Studies, 12(1), 44 - 66.
  • Dijkstra, H. (2012). Agenda-setting in the Common Security and Defence Policy: An Institutionalist Perspective. Cooperation and Conflict, 47(4), 454 - 472.
  • Dijkstra, H. (2012). Efficiency versus Sovereignty: Delegation to the UN Secretariat in Peacekeeping. International Peacekeeping, 19(5), 581 - 596.
  • Dijkstra, H. (2012). The Influence of EU Officials in European Security and Defence. European Security, 21(3), 311 - 327.
  • Dijkstra, H. & Vanhoonacker, S. (2011). The Changing Politics of Information in European Foreign Policy. Journal of European Integration, Journal of European Integration, 33 (5), 541-558.
  • Dijkstra, H. (2010). Explaining variation in the role of the EU Council Secretariat in first and second pillar policy-making. Journal of European Public Policy.
  • Dijkstra, H. (2010). The Military Operation of the EU in Chad and the Central African Republic: Good Policy, Bad Politics. International Peacekeeping, 17(3), 395 - 407.
  • Dijkstra, H. (2009). Commission Versus Council Secretariat: An Analysis of Bureaucratic Rivalry in European Foreign Policy. European Foreign Affairs Review.
  • Dijkstra, H. (2008). The Council Secretariat’s Role in the Common Foreign and Security Policy. European Foreign Affairs Review.
  • Juncos, A. & Pomorska, K. (2013). 'In the face of adversity': Explaining the attitudes of EEAS officials vis-a-vis the new service. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(9), 1332-1349.
  • Juncos, A. & Pomorska, K. (2011). Invisible and unaccountable? National Representatives and Council Officials in EU Foreign Policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 18(8), 1096-1114.
  • Noutcheva, G. & Aydin-Düzgit, S. (2012). Lost in Europeanisation: The Western Balkans and Turkey. West European Politics, 35(1), 59 - 78.
  • Noutcheva, G. (2010). [Review of: Laidi, Z. (ed.), EU Foreign Policy in a Globalized World. Normative Power and Social Preferences. Publisher: Routledge (1st edition 2008)]. In: Journal of Contemporary European Studies, 18(1), 138 - 139.
  • Noutcheva, G. (2009). Fake, Partial and Imposed Compliance: The Limits of the EU’s Normative Power in the Western Balkans. Journal of European Public Policy, 16(7), 1065 – 1084.
  • Noutcheva, G. & Bechev, D. (2008). The Successful Laggards: Bulgaria and Romania’s Accession to the EU. East European Politics and Societies, 22(1), 114 – 144.
  • Petrov, P. (with Papadimitriou, D.) (2013). Whose Rule, Whose Law? Contested Statehood, External Leverage and the European Union's Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo. Journal of Common Market Studies, 50(5), 746-763.
  • Petrov, P. (2010). Early Institutionalisation of the ESDP Governance Arrangements: Insights From the Operations Concordia and Artemis. European Integration online Papers (EIoP), 14. Special Issue 1.
  • Petrov, P. (2010). Introducing governance arrangements for EU conflict prevention and crisis management operations: A historical institutionalist perspective. In Gross, E. & Juncos, A.E. (eds.), Making sense of EU conflict prevention and crisis-management policies (pp. 49 - 66). London: Routledge.
  • Petrov, P. (2009). Governing the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP): An institutionalist perspective on the European Union’s military crisis management in the context of operations Concordia (FYROM 2003) and Artemis (DR Congo 2003).
  • Pomorska, K., & Vanhoonacker, S.M.R.L. (2012). Poland in the Driving Seat: A Mature Presidency in Turbulent Times. Journal of Common Market Studies, 50(s2), 576 - 584.
  • Pomorska, K. & Copsey, N. (2010). Poland's Power and Influence in the European Union: the Case of its Eastern Policy. Comparative European Politics, 8(3).
  • Pomorska, K. & Juncos, A. (2010). Secretariat, Facilitator or Policy Entrepreneur? Role perceptions of the officials of the Council Secretariat. European Integration Online Papers, 14.
  • Reslow, N. (2010). Migration and development? An assessment of recent EU policy initiatives. Journal of Contemporary European Research, 6(1), 3 – 21.
  • Strelkov, A. (2010). The silent Europeanization of the post-Soviet space. World Economy and International Relations, 12, 48 - 58.
  • Timus, N. (2010). The Impact of European Democracy Promotion on Party Financing in the East European Neighborhood. European Integration online Papers (EIoP), 14.
  • Vanhoonacker, S. & Pomorska, K. (2013). The European External Action Service and Agenda-setting in European Foreign Policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(9), 1316-1331.
  • Vanhoonacker, S.M.R.L. (2012). The Treaty of Amsterdam. In E. Jones, A. Menon & S. Weatherill (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the European Union (pp. 135 – 148). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Vanhoonacker, S. & Jacobs, A. (2010). ESDP and Institutional Change: The Case of Belgium. Security Dialogue, 41(5), 1 - 23.
  • Vanhoonacker, S., Dijkstra, H. & Maurer, H. (eds.) (2010). Understanding the Role of Bureaucracy in the European Security and Defence Policy. European Integration Online Papers, 14, special issue + introduction.
  • Vanhoonacker, S., Dijkstra, H. & Maurer, H. (2010). Understanding the Role of Bureaucracy in the European Security and Defence Policy: The State of the Art. European Integration Online Papers, 14, 1 - 33.
  • Vanhoonacker, S. & Reslow, N. (2010). The European External Action Service: Living Forwards by Understanding Backwards. European Foreign Affairs Review, 15(1), 1 - 18.
  • Vanhoonacker, S., Pomorska, K. & Maurer, H. (2010). The Council Presidency and European Foreign Policy – Challenges for Poland in 2011. Warsaw: Center for International Relations).
  • Vanhoonacker, S. & Shackleton, M. (eds.) (2010). Europe and its citizens: Mind the Gap. Maastricht Monnet Lecture Series Two. PDF
  • Vanhoonacker, S., Dijkstra, H., Maurer, H., Petrov, P. & Pomorska, K. (2009). Understanding the role of the administrative level in ESDP – Towards a new research agenda. CFSP Forum, 7(2), 14 – 17.
  • Vanhoonacker, S. & Shackleton, M. (eds.). The EU institutions beyond Lisbon Future Challenges. Maastricht Monnet Lecture Series One. PDF
  • Vanhoonacker, S. et al. (2009). Understanding the role of the administrative level in ESDP – Towards a new research agenda. CFSP Forum, 7(2), 14 – 17.
  • Vanhoonacker, S. (2008). The European Security and Defence Policy and coherence challenges in the Council. In S. Blockmans (Ed.), The European Union and Crisis Management: Policy and Legal Aspects (pp. 145 – 156). The Hague/Cambridge: T.M.C. Asser Press/ Cambridge University Press. 
  • Programme outline

    Dit is er niet
  • Ongoing

    Funded projects

    Dit is er niet
  • Ongoing

    PhD projects

    Dit is er niet
  • Completed

    Funded projects

    Dit is er niet
  • Completed

    PhD projects

    Dit is er niet
  • Publications

    Dit is er niet
  • Staff

    Dit is er niet