多层次治理与制度理性：欧盟共同贸易政策决策研究
|
摘要
作为不同于主权国家、又不同于一般政府间国际组织的多层次治理政治体,欧盟政策运作最大的特征就是纷繁复杂的制度体系及其对决策过程的作用,这既涉及“行动过程”,又涉及“社会结构”,需要采用多种不同方式解释政策行为,特别是吸收比较政治学和公共管理学关于决策研究的理论框架和分析方法。本文以欧盟共同贸易政策的决策为研究对象,结合欧盟的制度特性和决策的一般理论,尝试对欧盟对外政策决策进行新的理论探讨。
在重点梳理国际关系学新自由制度主义的欧盟研究、政治学传统上中观和微观层面关于欧盟决策的三大理论流派(理性选择制度主义、社会学制度主义和历史学制度主义)以及吸收了现实主义传统中权力因素的“融合型”制度理论——制度现实主义的基础上,尝试提出欧盟决策研究中的“制度理性”这一概念,简单定义为“行为体与制度的理性互动影响着决策过程和政策结果”。在“制度理性”中,理性是核心(表现为行为体的偏好——“幅度”和“强度”),制度是条件、是背景、是情境。它扩大了制度的概念,突出强调了“非正式制度”对行为体参与政策决策的塑造作用。与此同时,考虑到在当前的国际政治背景下,任何轻视或忽视制度运行的权力背景或制度框架下的权力因素都是不恰当的,我们的研究将“事项重要性”(偏好的“强度”)作为行为体在特定制度条件下参与集体决策的“内生权力”来源之一,并指出,“事项重要性”是塑造和决定欧盟政策过程中所需政治合法性的要素,决定成员国政府在欧盟决策中活动空间大小,因此在“制度理性”分析框架下成为影响欧盟政策结果的关键变量之一。
在建立了理论分析框架之后,论文详细阐述了欧盟共同贸易政策的决策体系,并通过对欧盟参与关贸总协定乌拉圭回合谈判和参与世贸组织基础电信服务协议谈判决策过程的两个案例分析,来检验理论模型的解释力。
As a muliti-level governance polity which differs from sovreign states and normal inter-governmental organizations, the most prominent feature of the European Union's policy-making is related to its complex institutional settings and their impact on the decision-making process. Thus, EU policy-making not only involves an "action process", but also a "social structure", which needs a multi-dimensional angle to investigate, especially with reference to Comparative Politics and Public Administration theories and methodologies. In this thesis, I take the EU's Common Commercial Policy as research subject and try to make theoretical reflections based upon the EU's institutional settings and decision-making theories.
I try to raise a concept of "Institutional Rationality", after carefully studying three main EU decision-making theories: Neo-Institutionalism fom the IR tradition; Institutionalism tradition from Comparative Politics - Rational Choice Institutionalism, Sociological Institutionalism and Historical Institutionalism; and a enhanced Institutionalism with the Power parameter incorporated, namely Institutional Realism. This notion of "Institutional Rationality" is described as "the rational interaction between actors and institutions affects the decision-making process and determines the policy outcome". In "Institutional Rationality", Rationality is the core (externalized as actors' references - "scale" and "intensity"), while Institutions are conditions, backgrounds and context. It broardens the concept of "institution" , and emphasizes the role of "informal institutions" in shaping actors behavior in EU decison-making process. At the same time, as in real politics it is not appropriate to neglect the power relations in which the institutions operate or the power parameter under the institutional framework, I will take "Issue salience " (the "intensity" of an actor's preference) as one source of actors' endogenous power when taking part in EU collective decision-making. "Issue salience" is supposed to be the factor shaping and detemining the national legitimacy for EU policy outcome, which decides the maneuvre room for EU member states in EU decision-making. For this reason, I take "Issue salience" as a key variable in the Instituional Rationality framework.
After building up the theoretical framework, I go on with a chapter on the decision-making system of the EU's Common Commercial Policy, after which I will present two case studies respectively on EU participation in negotiations of the GATT Uruguay Round and the WTO Basic Communications Service Agreement in order to test the theoretical assumptions.
在重点梳理国际关系学新自由制度主义的欧盟研究、政治学传统上中观和微观层面关于欧盟决策的三大理论流派(理性选择制度主义、社会学制度主义和历史学制度主义)以及吸收了现实主义传统中权力因素的“融合型”制度理论——制度现实主义的基础上,尝试提出欧盟决策研究中的“制度理性”这一概念,简单定义为“行为体与制度的理性互动影响着决策过程和政策结果”。在“制度理性”中,理性是核心(表现为行为体的偏好——“幅度”和“强度”),制度是条件、是背景、是情境。它扩大了制度的概念,突出强调了“非正式制度”对行为体参与政策决策的塑造作用。与此同时,考虑到在当前的国际政治背景下,任何轻视或忽视制度运行的权力背景或制度框架下的权力因素都是不恰当的,我们的研究将“事项重要性”(偏好的“强度”)作为行为体在特定制度条件下参与集体决策的“内生权力”来源之一,并指出,“事项重要性”是塑造和决定欧盟政策过程中所需政治合法性的要素,决定成员国政府在欧盟决策中活动空间大小,因此在“制度理性”分析框架下成为影响欧盟政策结果的关键变量之一。
在建立了理论分析框架之后,论文详细阐述了欧盟共同贸易政策的决策体系,并通过对欧盟参与关贸总协定乌拉圭回合谈判和参与世贸组织基础电信服务协议谈判决策过程的两个案例分析,来检验理论模型的解释力。
As a muliti-level governance polity which differs from sovreign states and normal inter-governmental organizations, the most prominent feature of the European Union's policy-making is related to its complex institutional settings and their impact on the decision-making process. Thus, EU policy-making not only involves an "action process", but also a "social structure", which needs a multi-dimensional angle to investigate, especially with reference to Comparative Politics and Public Administration theories and methodologies. In this thesis, I take the EU's Common Commercial Policy as research subject and try to make theoretical reflections based upon the EU's institutional settings and decision-making theories.
I try to raise a concept of "Institutional Rationality", after carefully studying three main EU decision-making theories: Neo-Institutionalism fom the IR tradition; Institutionalism tradition from Comparative Politics - Rational Choice Institutionalism, Sociological Institutionalism and Historical Institutionalism; and a enhanced Institutionalism with the Power parameter incorporated, namely Institutional Realism. This notion of "Institutional Rationality" is described as "the rational interaction between actors and institutions affects the decision-making process and determines the policy outcome". In "Institutional Rationality", Rationality is the core (externalized as actors' references - "scale" and "intensity"), while Institutions are conditions, backgrounds and context. It broardens the concept of "institution" , and emphasizes the role of "informal institutions" in shaping actors behavior in EU decison-making process. At the same time, as in real politics it is not appropriate to neglect the power relations in which the institutions operate or the power parameter under the institutional framework, I will take "Issue salience " (the "intensity" of an actor's preference) as one source of actors' endogenous power when taking part in EU collective decision-making. "Issue salience" is supposed to be the factor shaping and detemining the national legitimacy for EU policy outcome, which decides the maneuvre room for EU member states in EU decision-making. For this reason, I take "Issue salience" as a key variable in the Instituional Rationality framework.
After building up the theoretical framework, I go on with a chapter on the decision-making system of the EU's Common Commercial Policy, after which I will present two case studies respectively on EU participation in negotiations of the GATT Uruguay Round and the WTO Basic Communications Service Agreement in order to test the theoretical assumptions.
引文
①Jeremy Richardson, 2001,转引David Lax and James K. Sebenius, The Manager as Negotiator ( New York: Free Press, 1986), p.30.
②Jeremy Richardson, 2001.
①笔者采用了一种内涵扩大了的“新制度主义”的名称,它既包括国际关系学,也包括政治学的制度研究中近30年来的主要流派。
②吴志成,第177页。
③吴志成,第178页。
④秦亚青,2008年,第3章。
①吴志成,第178页。
②秦亚青,2008年,第79页,转引Stephen Krasner, "Global Communications and National Power: Life on the Pareto Frontier", Neorealism and Neoliberalism, p.234-240。
③秦亚青,2008年,第80页,转引Joseph M. Grieco, "Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation: A Realist Critique of the Newest Liberal Institutionalism", Controversies in International Relations Theory, p.158-164。
①例如,George Tsebelis and Geoffrey Garrett, 2001, pp.357-390.
②吴志成,第174页,转引Ben Rosamond, Theories of European Integration (Macmillan Press LTD, 2000), p.115。
③杜娟,第129-147页,转引Miles Kahler, "Rationality in International Relations", International Organization 52, 4, 1998, pp.919-941.
④Jeffrey Legro, "Culture and Preference in the International Cooperation Two-Step", American Political Science Review 91, 1, 1996, pp.118-137.
①Jeffrey Stacey and Berthold Rittberger, "Dynamics of Formal and Informal Institutional Change in the EU", Journal of European Public Policy 10:6 December 2003: 858-883.
②马莎·芬尼莫尔、凯瑟琳·斯金克:“国际规范的动力与政治变革”,载于彼得·卡赞斯坦、罗伯特·基欧汉、斯蒂芬·克拉斯纳合编:《世界政治理论的探索与争鸣》,第321页。
③田野:“国际制度研究:从旧制度主义到新制度主义”,载《教学与研究》2005年第3期。
④吴志成,第175-176页。
①【美】彼得?豪尔、罗斯玛丽?泰勒,第20-29页。
②【美】彼得?豪尔、罗斯玛丽?泰勒,第20-29页。
③该观点可见网络文献:“政治学的制度主义:流派、整合,以及在中国的应用”。
④Simon J. Bulmer, pp.365-386.
①田野:“国际制度研究:从旧制度主义到新制度主义”。
②【美】彼得?豪尔、罗斯玛丽?泰勒,第20-29页。
③王学东,第81-91页。
④对政治学新制度主义三大流派比较详细的评介,请参见:Mark D. Aspinwall and Gerald Schneider, pp.1-36.
①吴志成,第182页。
②Christopher H. Achen (2003),“Institutional Realism and Bargaining Models”.
③ibid.
④ibid.
①ibid.
②Christopher H. Achen (2003) .
③Laura Cram, 2001, chapter 3.
①马莎·芬尼莫尔、凯瑟琳·斯金克:《国际规范的动力与政治变革》,第324页。
②Robert Grafstein,“Comments”, The Journal of Politics, Vol.59, No.4 (November, 1997), pp.1040-47.
①Robert Grafstein,“What Rational Political Actors Can Expect”, Journal of Theoretical Politics, 14:2 (2002), pp.139-165.
②任晓:“何谓理性主义?”,载《欧洲研究》2004年第2期,第148-152页。
③刘力:“试论西方国际关系理论演进的理性主义基础”,载《世界经济与政治》2006年第7期。
④Robert Grafstein,“The Problem of Institutional Constraint”, The Journal of Politics, Vol.50 (1988), pp.577-599.
⑤彼得·卡赞斯坦、罗伯特·基欧汉、斯蒂芬·克拉斯纳合编:《世界政治理论的探索与争鸣》;Michael Zurn and Jeffrey T. Checkel,“Getting Socialized to Build Bridges: Constuctivism and Rationalism, Europe and the Nation State”, International Organization 59, Fall 2005, pp.1045-1079.
①刘文秀、科什纳等,第474-475页,转引James E. Anderson, Public Policy-Making (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1976), p.10-12。
②刘文秀、科什纳等,第475-476页。
③刘文秀、科什纳等,第476页,转引Amitai Etzioni,“Mixed Scanning, A“Third”Approach to Decision-Making”, Public Administration Review, XXVII (1967), pp.385-392。
①Adrienne Heritier, p.6.
②Adrienne Heritier, p.8; Mark D. Aspinwall and Gerald Schneider, pp.1-36.
③James G. March and Johan P. Olsen, "Elaborating the "New Institutionalism".
④莉莎·马丁、贝思·西蒙斯:“国际制度的理论与经验研究”,载于彼得·卡赞斯坦、罗伯特·基欧汉、斯蒂芬·克拉斯纳合编:《世界政治理论的探索与争鸣》(秦亚青、苏长和、门洪华、魏玲译),上海·上海人民
①【美】约瑟夫·奈、张哲馨:《自由主义化的现实主义者—对约瑟夫·奈的访谈》,载《世界经济与政治》2007年第8期,第70-73页。
②Ben Soetendorp and Madeleine O. Hosli, "Negotiations in the European Union: the Hidden Influence on Council Decision-Making", International Studies Association, 41st Annual Convention, Los Angeles, March 14-18, 2000.
③Adrienne Heritier, p.17.
①关于“三个阶段”的阐述,参见刘文秀、埃米尔?科什纳等,第401-403页。
②Manfred Elsig, The EU’s Common Commercial Policy: Institutions, Interests and Ideas (Ashgate, 2002), p.27-28.
①Stephen Woolcock,“European Trade Policy: Global Pressures and Domestic Constraints”, Policy-Making in the European Union, eds. Helen Wallace and William Wallace (third edition, Oxford University Press, 1996, chapter 14), p.373-399.
②Manfred Elsig, p.3-9.
③Youri Devuyst, The European Union at the Crossroads: the EU’s Institutional Evolution from the Schuman Planof European Public Policy 1:2, (1994), pp.283-302.
①学者Meunier和Nicolaidis对该问题有着详细阐述, Sophie Meunier and Kalypso Nicolaidis,“EU Trade Policy: The Exclusive versus Shared Competence Debate”, The State of the European Union: Risks, Reforms, Resistance and Revival, eds. Maria Green Cowles and Michael Smith (Volume 5, Oxford University Press, 2000, chapter 16), p.325-346.
②ibid.
③Sophie Meunier and Kalypso Nicolaidis (1999), pp.477-501.
④Sophie Meunier and Kalypso Nicolaidis (2000), p.325-346.
⑤Ibid.
⑥Rafael Leal-Arcas,“The EC in the WTO: The Three-level Game of Decision-Making. What Multilateralism can Learn from Regionalism.”European Integration Online Paper Vol. 8, No.14, (2004b), http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2004-014a.htm
①参见《尼斯条约》第133条的具体规定。
②参见Griller and Gamharter (2002), Lukaschek and Weidel (2002)两文的分析。
③Kalypso Nicolaidis and Sophie Meunier (2002), p.173-201.
④Christoff Herrmann (2002).
⑤关于《欧盟宪法条约》的制定及对其中共同外贸政策规定的分析,可参见Markus Krajewski,“External Trade Law and the Constitutional Treaty: Towards a Federal and more Democratic Common Commercial Policy?”Common Market Law Reviw 42 (2005), pp.91-127.
⑥见《欧洲宪法条约》第I-9至I-17条。
⑦见《欧洲宪法条约》第I-13条。
①关于《里斯本条约》中共同贸易政策的规定及其详细分析,参见George-Dian Balan, "The Common Commercial Policy Under the Lisbon Treaty", Jean Monnet Seminar, Advanced Issues of European Law, 6th Session, April 20-27, 2008, Dubrovnik, Re-thinking the European Constitution in an Enlarged European Union.
②Michael Smith (1994), pp.283-302.
③参见Neill Nugent, p.411-412; Desmond Dinan, p.484-486.
①Manfred Elsig (2002), p.69.
②Ibid, p.70.
③Ibid, p.28.
④Ibid, p.154.
①Manfred Elsig (2002), p.155-156.
②Ibid, p.154.
③John Petersen and Elisabeth Bomberg (1999), p.90-119.
①Rafel Leal-Arcas (2004b).
②John Petersen and Elisabeth Bomberg (1999).
③Stephen Woolcock (2000).
④Stephen Woolcock and Michale Hodges (1996).
⑤John Petersen and Elisabeth Bomberg (1999).
⑥《罗马条约》第113条是关于共同贸易政策的规定,一直沿用到《马斯特里赫特条约》。在1997年《阿姆斯特丹条约》之后,由于重新编排了条约的条款序号,才有了后来的“133委员会”。本章均采用133委员会这一名称。
①John Petersen and Elisabeth Bomberg (1999).
②Rafael Leal-Arcas (2004b).
③John Petersen and Elisabeth Bomberg (1999).
④Manfred Elsig, p.36.
①Rafael Leal-Arcas (2004b).
②Baroness Elles (1996), p.19-30.
③关于欧洲法院咨询性意见1/75、1/78和2/94的讨论,参见Stephan Griller and Katharina Gamharter (2002).
①Desmond Dinan, p.261.
②Ibid, p.261.
③有关这些特例的讨论,参见Horst Gunter Krenzler and Christian Pitschas (2001).
④参见欧盟宪法性条约第III-315条,第4段。
①Rafael Leal-Arcas (2004b).
②John Petersen and Elisabeth Bomberg (1999).
③Ibid.
①Nocholas Emiliou (1996); Anita Lukaschek and Birgit Weidel,“Exclusive External Competence of the European Community”, External Economic Relations and Foreign Policy in the European Union, eds. Stefan Griller and Birgit Weidel (Springer-Verlag Wien, 2002), p.113-148.
②Michael Smith (1994).
③Rafael Leal-Arcas,“Exclusive or Shared Competence in the Common Commercial Policy: From Amsterdam to Nice”, Legal Issues of Economic Integration, 30(1), (2003b), pp.3-14.
④参见欧盟宪法性条约第III-315条第4段规定。
①关于欧盟与多哈回合,参见Markus Krajewski (2005)有关论述。
①朱立群:《欧盟是个什么样的力量》,载《世界经济与政治》2008年第4期,第19页。
①陈峰:《中国与欧盟关系的现状及前瞻》,载《现代国际关系》1996年第5期,第10页。
②裘元伦:《中欧关系现状与未来》,载《世界经济与政治》2004年第10期,第8页;吴白乙:《观念转变与内生动力-后冷战时期中欧关系本源初探》,载《欧洲研究》2006年第1期,第30页。
③近年来,学术界关于中欧合作情况的专著和论文也越来越多,详细阐述了中欧在各领域合作的新进展。最新的专著包括郭关玉:《中国-欧盟合作研究》,世界知识出版社,2006年11月出版。
④特别是欧盟委员会2006年发表的最新的对华政策文件中,在经贸领域的基调比以往的积极性大有不如,引起不少学者对中短期内中欧关系发展前景的担忧。关于欧盟对华贸易政策的最新分析,参见舒旻:《欧盟外贸政策与中欧关系》,载《欧洲一体化研究》2007年第3期。
①克里斯托弗·希尔:《变化中的对外政策政治》,英文版前言。
②克里斯托弗·希尔:《变化中的对外政策政治》,第10页。
③Alastair Iain Johnston,“Conclusions and Extensions: Toward Mid-Range Theorizing and Beyond Europe”, International Organization 59, Fall 2005, pp.1013-1044.
④倪世雄:《当代西方国际关系理论》,复旦大学出版社,2001年,第500页。
1、蔡春林:《欧盟贸易政策决策机制研究》,载《经济理论研究》2006年第11期,第102-106页。
2、曹启明:《论制度理性:从不发达到现代化的主导力量》,载《学术探索》2000年第5期,第10-12页。
3、陈峰:《中国与欧盟关系的现状及前瞻》,载《现代国际关系》1996年第5期,第10页。
4、陈志敏、古斯塔夫·盖拉茨:《欧洲联盟对外政策一体化――不可能的使命?》,北京·时事出版社,2003年版。
5、杜娟:《国际制度的理性设计论:理性主义国际制度研究的新发展》,载《国际关系理论:前沿与热点—2006年博士论坛》(中国国际关系学会编),北京?世界知识出版社,2007年版,第129-147页。
6、郭关玉:《中国-欧盟合作研究》,北京?世界知识出版社,2006年版。
7、郭关玉:《欧盟对外政策的决策机制与中欧合作》,载《武汉大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》第59卷第2期,第221-225页。
8、李月军:《温格斯坦理性选择制度主义政治学研究》,载《教学与研究》2005年第12期,第64-70页。
9、刘力:《试论西方国际关系理论演进的理性主义基础》,载《世界经济与政治》2006年第7期。
10、刘文秀、埃米尔?科什纳等:《欧洲联盟政策及政策过程研究》,北京?法律出版社,2003年版。
11、门洪华:《对国际机制理论主要流派的批评》,载《世界经济与政治》2000年第3期,第23-29页。
12、门洪华:《国际机制理论与国际社会理论的比较》,载《欧洲》2000年第2期,第12-18页。
13、倪世雄:《当代西方国际关系理论》,上海?复旦大学出版社,2001年版。
14、欧共体官方出版局编:《欧洲共同体条约集》(戴炳然译),上海?复旦大学出版社,1993年版。
15、秦亚青:《权力·制度·文化》,北京·北京大学出版社,2005年版。
16、秦亚青主编:《文化与国际社会:建构主义国际关系理论研究》,北京·世界知识出版社,2006年版。
17、秦亚青主编:《理性与国际合作:自由主义国际关系理论研究》,北京·世界知识出版社,2008年版。
18、裘元伦:《中欧关系现状与未来》,载《世界经济与政治》2004年第10期,第8页。
19、曲博:《偏好、制度与国际政治经济学研究》,载于《外交评论》2006年第5期,第103-109页。
20、任晓:《何谓理性主义?》,载《欧洲研究》2004年第2期,第148-152页。
21、邵景春:《欧洲联盟的法律与制度》,北京?人民法院出版社,1999年版。
22、石斌:《相互依赖?国际制度?全球治理》,载《国际政治研究》2005年第4期,第31-49页。
23、舒旻:《欧盟外贸政策与中欧关系》,载《欧洲一体化研究》2007年第3期。
24、苏长和:《跨国关系与国内政治——比较政治与国际政治经济学视野下的国际关系研究》,载《美国研究》2003年第4期,第111-125页。
25、随新民:《欧盟CFSP的制度性缺失及其对华政策评估》,载《南都学坛(人文社会科学学报)》第24卷第5期,2004年9月,第27-31页。
26、网络文献:“政治学的制度主义:流派、整合,以及在中国的应用”,《北望经济学园》,http://www.beiwang.com/a/Article.asp?ArtID=18,2002年7月8日。
27、王明国:《权力、合法性、国内政治与国际制度的有效性》,载《世界经济与政治》2006年第8期,第57-63页。
28、王学东:《新制度主义的欧洲一体化理论评述》,载《欧洲研究》2003年第5期,第81-91页。
29、吴白乙:《观念转变与内生动力-后冷战时期中欧关系本源初探》,载《欧洲研究》2006年第1期,第30页。
30、吴志成:《治理创新-欧洲治理的历史、理论与实践》,天津?天津人民出版社,2003年版。
31、吴志成、李客询:《欧洲联盟的多层级治理:理论及其模式分析》,载《欧洲研究》2003年第6期,第100-113页。
32、肖承锋:《国际制度的有效性:一种法规范的视角》,载《国际问题论坛》2004年冬季号(总第37期),第53-69页。
33、阎小冰、邝杨:《欧洲议会:对世界上第一个跨国议会的概述与探讨》,北京?世界知识出版社,1997年版。
34、叶行昆:《论制度以及经济制度的一般概念、功能或特征及其本质》,http://www.zwm.cn/bbs/dispbbs.asp?boardid=5&ID=61969&replyID=61969
35、易文彬:《全球治理模式述评》,载《世界经济与政治论坛》2005年第4期,第118-122页。
36、袁正清:《国际制度研究:理论、实证、趋势》,载《2005年:全球政治与安全报告》。
37、张清敏:《外交决策的微观分析模式及其应用》,载《世界经济与政治》,2006年第11期,第15-23页。
38、张宇燕:《个人理性与制度悖论》,载《经济研究》1992年第11期。
39、赵勇:《欧盟的多层次治理与决策机制:对泛珠三角区域发展的启示》,载《广东外语外贸大学学报》2007年第2期,第13-16页。
40、中国国际关系学会编:《国际关系理论前沿与热点:2006年博士论坛》,北京?世界知识出版社,2007年版。
41、仲舒甲:《两种欧盟决策模型的比较研究——欧盟指令2004/17立法过程之案例分析》,载《欧洲研究》2007年第2期,第47-63页。
42、仲舒甲、李健:《欧盟共同外贸政策的制度分析——权限、机制和有效性》,载《外交评论》2005年第6期(总第85期),第95-100页。
43、周建仁:《欧盟决策程序研究中的两种范式和两种方法》,载《国际论坛》2003年第5期,第58-63页。
44、周建仁:《共同决策程序的引入对欧盟一体化的影响》,载《欧洲研究》2003年第5期,第92-111页。
45、朱立群:《中欧关系研究:三个重要的视角》,载《欧洲研究》2007年第6期,第132-143页。
46、朱立群:《欧盟是个什么样的力量》,载《世界经济与政治》2008年第4期,第16-23页。
47、朱仁显、唐哲文:《欧盟决策机制与欧洲一体化》,载《厦门大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》2002年第6期,第81-88页。
48、【比利时】尤利·德沃伊斯特、门镜:《欧洲一体化进程——欧盟的决策与对外关系》(门镜译),北京·中国人民大学出版社,2007年版。
49、【德】贝阿特·科勒-科赫:《欧洲治理的演变与转型》(吴志成编译),载《全球化:全球治理》(俞可平主编),北京·社会科学文献出版社,2003年版,第268-292页。
50、【德】贝阿特·科勒-科赫:《社会进程视角下的欧洲区域一体化分析》,(吴志成编译),载《南开学报(哲学社会科学版)》2005年第一期,第1-10页。
51、【德】赖纳·艾辛、贝阿特·科勒-科赫:《欧盟治理:比较与评价》(吴志成编译),载《全球化:全球治理》(俞可平主编),北京·社会科学文献出版社,2003年版,第309-331页。
52、【美】彼得·卡赞斯坦、罗伯特·基欧汉、斯蒂芬·克拉斯纳合编:《世界政治理论的探索与争鸣》(秦亚青、苏长和、门洪华、魏玲译),上海·上海人民出版社,2006年版。
53、【美】彼得·卡赞斯坦、罗伯特·基欧汉、斯蒂芬·克拉斯纳:《IPE的发展历程》,载《世界经济与政治》2002年第1期,第5-10页。
54、【美】彼得?豪尔、罗斯玛丽?泰勒:《政治科学与三个新制度主义》(何俊智译),载《经济社会体制比较(双月刊)》2003年第5期总第109期,第20-29页,原文载于Political Studies,(1996), XL Iv, 936-957.
55、【美】约瑟夫·奈、张哲馨:《自由主义化的现实主义者—对约瑟夫·奈的访谈》,载《世界经济与政治》2007年第8期,第70-73页。
56、【美】詹姆斯·罗西瑙等:《没有政府的治理》(张胜军、刘小林等译),江西人民出版社,2001年版。
57、【英】克里斯托弗·希尔:《变化中的对外政策政治》(唐小松、陈寒溪译),上海·上海人民出版社,2007年版。
58、【英】罗杰·赛本:《治理和后国家政策过程》(林猛译),载《全球化:全球治理》(俞可平主编),北京·社会科学文献出版社,2003年版,第93-110页。
Christopher H. Achen,“Institutional Realism and Bargaining Models”, The European Union Decides, eds. Thomson and Konig (New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006, Chapter 4).
Franco Algieri,“It’s the System that Matters: Institutionalization and Making of EU Policy toward China”, one chapter in an unpublished book, 2007, p.104-115.
Mark D. Aspinwall and Gerald Schneider,“Same Menu, Separate Tables: The Institutionalist Turn in Political Science and the Study of European Integration”, European Journal of Political Research 38, (2000), pp.1-36.
Michael M. Atkinson,“Book Review on‘Institutinal Realism: Social and Political Constraints on Rational Actors’”, Canadian Journal of Political Science, Vol.26, No.2 (June, 1993), pp.405-406.
George-Dian Balan, "The Common Commercial Policy Under the Lisbon Treaty", Jean Monnet Seminar, Advanced Issues of European Law, 6th Session, April 20-27, 2008, Dubrovnik, Re-athinking the European Constitution in an Enlarged European Union.
Matthew Baldwin, "EU Trade Politics—Heaven or Hell?", Journal of European Public Policy, 13:6 (2006), pp.926-942.
Eric Belanger and Bonnie M. Meguid, "Issue salience, issue ownership and issue-based vote choice: evidence from Canada", Paper prepared for delivery at the annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association London, Ontario, June 2-4, 2005, http://www.cpsa-acsp.ca/papers-2005/Belanger.pdf
Jan Beyers,“Multiple Embeddedness and Socialization in Europe: The Case of Council Officials”, International Organization 59, Fall 2005, pp.899-936.
Tanja A. Borzel, "Shaping and Taking European Policies: Member State
Responses to Europeanization", Queen's papers on Europeanization No.2/2003, http://www.qub.ac.uk/schools/SchoolofPoliticsInternationalStudiesandPhilosophy/FileStore/EuropeanisationFiles/Filetoupload,38412,en.pdf
Simon J. Bulmer,“New Institutionalism and the Governance of the Single European Market”, Journal of European Public Policy 5:3, (1998), pp.365-386.
Damian Chalmers,“Legal Base and the External Relations of the European Community”, The European Union and World Trade Law: After the GATT Uruguay Round, eds. Nicholas Emiliou and David O’Keeffe (John Wiley & Sons, 1996, chapter 4), p.46-61.
Thomas Christensen, "The Council of Ministers: the Politics of Institutionalized Intergovernmentalism", European Union: Power and Policy-making, ed Jeremy Reachardson (Second edition, Routledge, 2001).
Richard Corbett,“Academic Modeling of the Co-Decision Procedure: A Practioner’s Puzzled Reaction”in European Union Politics 1(3), 2000, pp. 373-381.
Laura Cram, "Integration Theory and the Study of the European Policy Process: Towards a Synthesis of Approaches", European Union: Power and Policy-making, ed. Jeremy Reachardson (Routledge, 2001, Second edition, chapter 3).
Christophe Crombez, "Institutional Reform and Co-Decision in the European Union", Constitutional Political Economy, 11, 41-57 (2000).
Arnaud Dellis, "The salient issue of issue salience", working paper,version August 2007, Universite Laval,
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=614045 Youri Devuyst, The European Union at the Crossroads: the EU’s Institutional Evolution from the Schuman Plan to the European Convention (second edition, “European Policy”No. 27, P.I.E.-Peter Lang S. A, 2003).
Desmond Dinan, Ever Closer Union: An Introduction to European Integration, ( Palgrave, 1999, second edition), p.483-503.
Keith Dowding,“Institutionalist Research on the European Union: A Critical Review”, European Union Politics, Volume 1(1), (2000), pp.125-144.
Simon Duke,“The Linchpin COPS: Assessing the Workings and Institutional Relations of the Political and Security Committe”, EIPA Working Paper 2005/W/05, http://aei.pitt.edu/5914
Simon Duke and Sophie Vanhoonacker,“Administrative Governance in the CFSP: Development and Practice”, European Foreign Affairs Review 11: 163-182, 2006.
Baroness Elles,“The Role of EU Institutions in External Trade Policy”, The European Union and World Trade Law: After the GATT Uruguay Round eds. Nicholas Emiliou and David O’Keeffe (John Wiley & Sons, chapter 2, 1996), p.19-30.
Manfred Elsig, The EU’s Common Commercial Policy: Institutions, Interests and Ideas (Ashgate, 2002).
Nicholas Emiliou,“The Allocation of Competence Between the EC and its Member States in the Sphere of External Relations”, The European Union and World Trade Law: After the GATT Uruguay Round, eds. Nicholas Emiliou and David O’Keeffe (John Wiley & Sons, 1996, chapter 3), p.31-45.
Henry Farrell and Adrienne Heritier,“Formal and Informal Institutions under Co-decision: Continuous Constitution-Building inn Europe”, Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration and Institutions, Vol. 16, No. 4, (2003), pp.577-600.
Geoffrey Garrett and George Tsebelis,“An Institutional Critique of Intergovernmetalism”International Organization 50, 2, (1996), pp.269-99.
Garrett Glasgow, "Comparing measures of issue salience in a spatial model od voting", California Institute of Techonology, http://polmeth.wustl.edu/retrieve.php?id=267
Hans-Ulrich Gossl, "EU Trade Policy and Non-trade Issues: The Case of Agricultural Multi-Functionality", European Foreign Affairs Review 13: 211-227, 2008.
Robert Grafstein,“Taking Dworkin to Hart: A Positivist Conception of Institutional Rules”, Political Theory, Vol.11, No.2 (May, 1983), pp.244-265.
Robert Grafstein,“The Problem of Institutional Constraint”, The Journal of Politics, Vol.50 (1988), pp.577-599.
Robert Grafstein,“Comments”, The Journal of Politics, Vol.59, No.4 (November, 1997), pp.1040-47.
Robert Grafstein,“What Rational Political Actors Can Expect”, Journal of Theoretical Politics, 14:2 (2002), pp.139-165.
Stefan Griller and Katharina Gamharter,“External Trade: Is There a Path Through the Maze of Competences?”, External Economic Relations and Foreign Policy in the European Union, eds. Stefan Griller and Birgit Weidel (Springer-Verlag Wien, 2002), p.65-112.
Michael Halderman and Michael Nelson, "The EU's CAP, the Doha Round and Developing Countries", the paper is posted at the eScholarship Pository, University of California, http://repositories.cdlib.org/ies/1
Reinhard Heinisch and Simone Mesner,“Coreper: Stealthy Power Broker or Loyal Servants to Their Government Masters?-The Role of the Committee of Permanent Representatives in a Changing Union”, paper prepared for the European Union Studies Association Conference in Austin, Texas, Panel 12D, Saturday April 2, 2005, http://aei.pitt.edu/3046
Paul R. Hensel, "Power Politics and Contentious Issues: Realism, Issue Salience, and Conflict Management", Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, Honolulu, Hawaii, 2 March 2005.
Adrienne Heritier, Policy-Making and Diversity in Europe: Escaping Deadlock, (Cambridge University Press, 1999).
Christoff W. Herrmann,“Common Commercial Policy after Nice: Sisyphus Could Have Done a Better Job”, Common Market law Review 39, Kluwer Law International, (2002), pp.7-29.
Meinhard Hilf,“The ECJ’s Opinion 1/94 on the WTO: No Surprise, but Wise?”, European Journal of International Law, Volume 6, (1995), pp.245-259.
Lisbet Hooghe,“Several Roads lead to International Norms, but Few viaInternational Socialization: A Case Study of the European Commission”, International Organization 59, Fall 2005, pp.861-898.
Lisbet Hooghe and Gary Marks (2001),“Types of Multi-Level Governance”, European Integration Online papers (EIOP) Vol.5, 2001, No. 11, http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2001-011a.htm
Alastair Iain Johnston,“Conclusions and Extensions: Toward Mid-Range Theorizing and Beyond Europe”, International Organization 59, Fall 2005, pp.1013-1044.
Ana E. Juncos and Karolina Pomorska,“Playing the Brussles Game: Strategic Socialization in the CFSP Council Working Groups”, European Integration online Papers(EIOP) Vol. 10 (2006), No. 11, http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2006-011a.htm . Markus Krajewski,“External Trade Law and the Constitutional Treaty: Towards a Federal and more Democratic Common Commercial Policy?”Common Market Law Reviw 42, (2005), pp.91-127.
Horst Gunter Krenzler and Christian Pitschas,“Progress or Stagnation? Common Commercial Policy after Nice”, European Foreign Affairs Review 6, (Kluwer Law International, 2001), pp.291-313.
Rafael Leal-Arcas,“United We Stand, Divided We Fall– The European Community and its Member States in the WTO Forum: Towards Greater Cooperation on Issues of Shared Competence?”, European Political Economy Review, Vol.1, No.1, (2003a), pp.065-079.
Rafael Leal-Arcas,“Exclusive or Shared Competence in the Common Commercial Policy: From Amsterdam to Nice”, Legal Issues of Economic Integration, 30(1), (2003b), pp.3-14.
Rafael Leal-Arcas,“The EC in the GATT/WTO Negotiations: From Rome to Nice– Have EC Trade Policy Reforms Been Good Enough for a Coherent EC Trade Policy in the WTO?”European Integration Online Paper (EIOP) Vol. 8, No.1, (2004a), http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2004-001a.htm
Rafael Leal-Arcas,“The EC in the WTO: The Three-level Game of
Decision-Making. What Multilateralism can Learn from Regionalism.”European Integration Online Paper Vol. 8, No.14, (2004b), http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2004-014a.htm
Jeffrey Legro, "Culture and Preference in the International Cooperation Two-Step", American Political Science Review 91, 1, 1996, pp.118-137.
Jeffrey Lewis,“The Janus Face of Brussels: Socialization and Everyday Decision-Making in the European Union”, International Organization 59, Fall 2005, pp.937-971.
Anita Lukaschek and Birgit Weidel,“Exclusive External Competence of the European Community”, External Economic Relations and Foreign Policy in the European Union, eds. Stefan Griller and Birgit Weidel (Springer-Verlag Wien, 2002), p.113-148.
James G. March and Johan P. Olsen, "The New Institutionalism: Organizational Factors in Political Life", American Politcal Science Review 78 (September 1984): 734-749.
James G. March and Johan P. Olsen, "Elaborating the "New Institutionalism", ARENA Working Paper, No.11, March 2005, http://www.arena.uio.no
Gary Marks, Lisbet Hooghe and Kermit Blank (1996),“European Integration since the 1980s: State Centric versus Multi-Level Governance”, in Jounal of Common Market Studies 34, 4: 341-78.
Mikko Mattila,“Why so much Unanimity? Voting in the EU Council of Ministers”, paper presented at the 4th biannual workshop of WG-7, Mariehamn, Aaland, August 5-9, 1998.
Sophie Meunier and Kalypso Nicolaidis,“Who Speaks for Europe? The Delegation of Trade Authority in the EU”, Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 37, No. 3, (1999), pp.477-501.
Sophie Meunier and Kalypso Nicolaidis,“EU Trade Policy: The Exclusive versus Shared Competence Debate”, The State of the European Union: Risks, Reforms, Resistance and Revival, eds. Maria Green Cowles and Michael Smith (Volume 5,Oxford University Press, 2000, chapter 16), p.325-346.
Sophie Meniuer, "What Single Voice? European Institutions and EU-US Trade Negotiations", International Organization, Vol.54, No.1 (Winter 2000), pp.103-135.
Andrew Moravcsik, "Preference and power in the European Community: A Liberal-intergovernmentalist Appraoch", in Journal of Common Market Studies 31:473-524, 1991.
Adrew Moravcsik, "Taking Preference Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics", International Organization 51, 4, Autumn 1997, pp.513-553.
Kalypso Nicolaidis and Sophie Meunier,“Revisiting Trade Competence in the European Union: Amsterdam, Nice and Beyond”, Institutional Challenges in the European Union, eds. Hosli, Madeleine O., van Deemen, Adrian M. A., and Widgren, Mika (Routledge, 2002 , chapter 9), p.173-201.
Arne Niemann, "Between Communicative Action and Strategic Action: The Article 113 Committee and the Negotiations on the WTO basic Telecommunications Service Agreement", Journal of European Public Policy 11:3, June 2004:379-407.
Arne Niemann, "Beyongd Problem-solving and Bargaining: Genuine Debate in EU External Trade Negotiations", International Negotiation 11: 467-497, 2006.
Ricahrd G. Niemi and larry M. Bartels, "New Measures of Issue salience: An evaluation", The Journal of Politics, Vol. 47, No.4 (Nov., 1985), pp.1212-1220. Neill Nugent, The Government and Politics of the European Union, (Palgrave, 2003, fifth edition).
Kai Oppermann, "Salience and Sanctions: A Principal-Agent Analysis of Domestic Win-sets in Two-level Games - The Case of British European Policy under New Labour", Paper presented at the British International Studies Association 2006 Annual Conference, 18th - 20th December 2006, http://www.bisa.ac.uk/2006/pps/oppermann.pdf
Kai Oppermann and Henrike Viehrig, "Issue Salience and the Domestic Legitimacy Demands of European Integration. The Cases of Britain and Germany", European Integration online Papers (EIoP) Vol. 12 (2008) No. 2,http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2008-002a.htm
Kai Oppermann and Henrike Viehrig, "Issue Salience and the Legitimacy of International Cooperation",
http://www.sam.sdu.dk/politics/nisa/papers/OppermannViehrig.pdf Jan Orbie, "European Enlargment and External Trade: Towards a Protectionist Regional Bloc?", Alternatives: Turkish Journal of International Relations, Vol.1, No. 4, Winter 2002.
Pierre Pescatore,“Opinion 1/94 on‘Conclusion’of the WTO Agreement: Is There an Escape from Programmed Disaster?”Common Market law Review 36, (Kluwer Law International, 1999), pp.387-405.
Guy Peters and Jon Pierre (2001),“Developments in Intergovernmental Relations: towards muliti-level Governance”, in Policy and Politics, vol. 29, no. 2, pp.131-135;http://www.answers.com/topic/multi-level-governance (2007-3-29).
John Petersen, "Decision-making in the European Union:towards a framework of analysis", Journal of European Public Policy 2:1, March 1995:69-93.
John Petersen and Elizabeth Bomberg,“External Trade policy”in Decision-Making in the European Union, (chapter 4, 1999), p.90-119.
Mark A. Pollack,“The New Institutionalism and EC Governance: The Promise and Limits of Institutional Analysis”Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration, Vol. 9, No. 4, (1996), pp.429-458.
Anders Rasmussen,“Institutional Games Rational Actors Play– The Empowering of the European Parliament”, European Integration online Papers, Vol. 4, No. 1, 2000, http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2000-001a.htm
Jeremy Richardson, "Policy-making in the EU: Interests, Ideas and Gabage Cans of Primeval Soup", European Union: Power and Policy-making, ed. Jeremy Reachardson (Routledge, 2001, Second edition).
Wolf Sauter,"International and EU Telecommunications Liberalization", Utilities Law Review, 8, 3:71-73.
Fritz W. Scharpf, "Legitimate Diversity: The New Chalenge of EuropeanIntegration",The State of the European Union, eds. Tanja Borzel and Rachel A, Cichowski (Oxford University Press, 2003), p.79-105.
Fritz W. Scharpf, "Problem Solving Effectiveness and Democratic Accountability in the EU", Political Science Series 107, Institute for Advanced Studies, Vienna, February 2006, http://www.ihs.ac.at/publications/pol/pw_107.pdf
Frank Schimmelfennig,“Strategic Calculation and International Socialization: Membership Incentives, Party Constellations, and Sustained Compliance in Central and Eastern Europe”, International Organization 59, Fall 2005, pp.827-860.
Torsten J. Selck, The Impact of Procedure: Analyzing European Union Legislative Decision-Making (Cuvillier Verlag Gotting, 2004).
Torsten J. Selck, "The effects of issue salience on political decision-making", Constit Polit Econ (2006) 17:5-13.
Kenneth A. Shepsle and Mark S. Bonchek, Analyzing Politics: Rationality, Behavior, and Institutions ( W. W. Norton & Company, 1997, chapter 5).
Theodore W. Schultz,“Institutions and the Rising Economic Value of Man”, American Journal of Agriculture Economics, No.50, December 1968.
Michael Smith,“The EU as an International Actor”, European Union: Power and Policy Making, eds. Jeremy Richardson ( Routledge, 2001, second edition, chapter 14), p.283-300.
Michael Smith,“The European Union, Foreign Economic Policy and the Changing World Arena”Journal of European Public Policy 1:2, (1994), pp.283-302.
Michael E. Smith,“Towards a theory of EU Foreign policy making: multi-level governance, domestic politics, and national adaptation to Europe’s common foreign and security policy”, Journal of European Public Policy 11:4, August 2004:740-758.
Ben Soetendorp and Madeleine O. Hosli, "Negotiations in the European Union: the Hidden Influence on Council Decision-Making", International Studies Association, 41st Annual Convention, Los Angeles, March 14-18, 2000.
Karol Soltan,“Book Review on‘Institutinal Realism: Social and Political Constraints on Rational Actors’”, The Journal of Politics, Vol.55, No.3 (August,1993), pp.842-844.
Jeffrey Stacey and Berthold Rittberger, "Dynamics of Formal and Informal Institutional Change in the EU", Journal of European Public Policy 10:6 December 2003: 858-883.
Bernard Steunenberg and Torsten Selck,“Testing Procedural Models of EU Legislative Decision-Making”, The European Union Decides, eds. Thomson and Konig (New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006, Chapter 3). Michael Taylor, "The Problem of issue salience in the theory of collective decision-making", Behavioral Science 15:5 (1970:Sept.) pp.415-430.
George Tsebelis and Geoffrey Garrett,“The Institutional Foundations of Intergovernmentalism and Supranationalism in the European Union”International Organization 55(2), (2001), pp.357-390.
Treaties of the EU, http://www.europa.eu.int/abc/treaties_en.htm Alina-Stefania Ujupan, "A Multi-dimensional Approach to EU Council of Ministers' Decision-making", University of Ulster, UK, http://www.ku.dk/Satsning/Europa/pdf/Alina_Ujupan_paper.pdf
Antanas Venckus, "Lithuania's National Interests in the Formation of the EU Common Commercial Policy", http://www.lfpr.lt/uploads/File/2008-21/Venckus_ENG.pdf
Douglas Webber, "High Midnight in Brussels: an Analysis of the September 1993 Council Meeting on the GATT Uruguay Round", Journal of European Public Policy, 5:4, December 1998, pp.578-594.
Brian White, Understanding European Foreign Policy, (Lodon: Palgrave, 2001). Daniel Wincott, "Beyond Social Regulation? New Instruments and/or a New
Agenda for Social Policy at Lisbon?", Public Administration Vol. 81 no. 3, 2003 (533-553).
Christopher Wlezien, "On the Salience of Political Issues: The Problem with 'Most Important Problem'", Electoral Studies 24 (2005) 555-579.
Cornelia Woll, "Trade Policy Lobbying in the European Union: Who Captures Whom?", MPIFG Working Paper 06/7, October 2006.Stephen Woolcock,“European Trade Policy: Global Pressures and Domestic
Constraints”, Policy-Making in the European Union, eds. Helen Wallace and William Wallace (third edition, Oxford University Press, 1996, chapter 14), p.373-399.
Stephen Woolcock and Michael Hodges,“EU Policy in the Uruguay Round”, Policy-Making in the European Union, eds. Helen Wallace and William Wallace (third edition, Oxford University Press, 1996, chapter 12), p.301-324.
Michael Zurn and Jeffrey T. Checkel,“Getting Socialized to Build Bridges: Constuctivism and Rationalism, Europe and the Nation State”, International Organization 59, Fall 2005, pp.1045-1079.
②Jeremy Richardson, 2001.
①笔者采用了一种内涵扩大了的“新制度主义”的名称,它既包括国际关系学,也包括政治学的制度研究中近30年来的主要流派。
②吴志成,第177页。
③吴志成,第178页。
④秦亚青,2008年,第3章。
①吴志成,第178页。
②秦亚青,2008年,第79页,转引Stephen Krasner, "Global Communications and National Power: Life on the Pareto Frontier", Neorealism and Neoliberalism, p.234-240。
③秦亚青,2008年,第80页,转引Joseph M. Grieco, "Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation: A Realist Critique of the Newest Liberal Institutionalism", Controversies in International Relations Theory, p.158-164。
①例如,George Tsebelis and Geoffrey Garrett, 2001, pp.357-390.
②吴志成,第174页,转引Ben Rosamond, Theories of European Integration (Macmillan Press LTD, 2000), p.115。
③杜娟,第129-147页,转引Miles Kahler, "Rationality in International Relations", International Organization 52, 4, 1998, pp.919-941.
④Jeffrey Legro, "Culture and Preference in the International Cooperation Two-Step", American Political Science Review 91, 1, 1996, pp.118-137.
①Jeffrey Stacey and Berthold Rittberger, "Dynamics of Formal and Informal Institutional Change in the EU", Journal of European Public Policy 10:6 December 2003: 858-883.
②马莎·芬尼莫尔、凯瑟琳·斯金克:“国际规范的动力与政治变革”,载于彼得·卡赞斯坦、罗伯特·基欧汉、斯蒂芬·克拉斯纳合编:《世界政治理论的探索与争鸣》,第321页。
③田野:“国际制度研究:从旧制度主义到新制度主义”,载《教学与研究》2005年第3期。
④吴志成,第175-176页。
①【美】彼得?豪尔、罗斯玛丽?泰勒,第20-29页。
②【美】彼得?豪尔、罗斯玛丽?泰勒,第20-29页。
③该观点可见网络文献:“政治学的制度主义:流派、整合,以及在中国的应用”。
④Simon J. Bulmer, pp.365-386.
①田野:“国际制度研究:从旧制度主义到新制度主义”。
②【美】彼得?豪尔、罗斯玛丽?泰勒,第20-29页。
③王学东,第81-91页。
④对政治学新制度主义三大流派比较详细的评介,请参见:Mark D. Aspinwall and Gerald Schneider, pp.1-36.
①吴志成,第182页。
②Christopher H. Achen (2003),“Institutional Realism and Bargaining Models”.
③ibid.
④ibid.
①ibid.
②Christopher H. Achen (2003) .
③Laura Cram, 2001, chapter 3.
①马莎·芬尼莫尔、凯瑟琳·斯金克:《国际规范的动力与政治变革》,第324页。
②Robert Grafstein,“Comments”, The Journal of Politics, Vol.59, No.4 (November, 1997), pp.1040-47.
①Robert Grafstein,“What Rational Political Actors Can Expect”, Journal of Theoretical Politics, 14:2 (2002), pp.139-165.
②任晓:“何谓理性主义?”,载《欧洲研究》2004年第2期,第148-152页。
③刘力:“试论西方国际关系理论演进的理性主义基础”,载《世界经济与政治》2006年第7期。
④Robert Grafstein,“The Problem of Institutional Constraint”, The Journal of Politics, Vol.50 (1988), pp.577-599.
⑤彼得·卡赞斯坦、罗伯特·基欧汉、斯蒂芬·克拉斯纳合编:《世界政治理论的探索与争鸣》;Michael Zurn and Jeffrey T. Checkel,“Getting Socialized to Build Bridges: Constuctivism and Rationalism, Europe and the Nation State”, International Organization 59, Fall 2005, pp.1045-1079.
①刘文秀、科什纳等,第474-475页,转引James E. Anderson, Public Policy-Making (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1976), p.10-12。
②刘文秀、科什纳等,第475-476页。
③刘文秀、科什纳等,第476页,转引Amitai Etzioni,“Mixed Scanning, A“Third”Approach to Decision-Making”, Public Administration Review, XXVII (1967), pp.385-392。
①Adrienne Heritier, p.6.
②Adrienne Heritier, p.8; Mark D. Aspinwall and Gerald Schneider, pp.1-36.
③James G. March and Johan P. Olsen, "Elaborating the "New Institutionalism".
④莉莎·马丁、贝思·西蒙斯:“国际制度的理论与经验研究”,载于彼得·卡赞斯坦、罗伯特·基欧汉、斯蒂芬·克拉斯纳合编:《世界政治理论的探索与争鸣》(秦亚青、苏长和、门洪华、魏玲译),上海·上海人民
①【美】约瑟夫·奈、张哲馨:《自由主义化的现实主义者—对约瑟夫·奈的访谈》,载《世界经济与政治》2007年第8期,第70-73页。
②Ben Soetendorp and Madeleine O. Hosli, "Negotiations in the European Union: the Hidden Influence on Council Decision-Making", International Studies Association, 41st Annual Convention, Los Angeles, March 14-18, 2000.
③Adrienne Heritier, p.17.
①关于“三个阶段”的阐述,参见刘文秀、埃米尔?科什纳等,第401-403页。
②Manfred Elsig, The EU’s Common Commercial Policy: Institutions, Interests and Ideas (Ashgate, 2002), p.27-28.
①Stephen Woolcock,“European Trade Policy: Global Pressures and Domestic Constraints”, Policy-Making in the European Union, eds. Helen Wallace and William Wallace (third edition, Oxford University Press, 1996, chapter 14), p.373-399.
②Manfred Elsig, p.3-9.
③Youri Devuyst, The European Union at the Crossroads: the EU’s Institutional Evolution from the Schuman Planof European Public Policy 1:2, (1994), pp.283-302.
①学者Meunier和Nicolaidis对该问题有着详细阐述, Sophie Meunier and Kalypso Nicolaidis,“EU Trade Policy: The Exclusive versus Shared Competence Debate”, The State of the European Union: Risks, Reforms, Resistance and Revival, eds. Maria Green Cowles and Michael Smith (Volume 5, Oxford University Press, 2000, chapter 16), p.325-346.
②ibid.
③Sophie Meunier and Kalypso Nicolaidis (1999), pp.477-501.
④Sophie Meunier and Kalypso Nicolaidis (2000), p.325-346.
⑤Ibid.
⑥Rafael Leal-Arcas,“The EC in the WTO: The Three-level Game of Decision-Making. What Multilateralism can Learn from Regionalism.”European Integration Online Paper Vol. 8, No.14, (2004b), http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2004-014a.htm
①参见《尼斯条约》第133条的具体规定。
②参见Griller and Gamharter (2002), Lukaschek and Weidel (2002)两文的分析。
③Kalypso Nicolaidis and Sophie Meunier (2002), p.173-201.
④Christoff Herrmann (2002).
⑤关于《欧盟宪法条约》的制定及对其中共同外贸政策规定的分析,可参见Markus Krajewski,“External Trade Law and the Constitutional Treaty: Towards a Federal and more Democratic Common Commercial Policy?”Common Market Law Reviw 42 (2005), pp.91-127.
⑥见《欧洲宪法条约》第I-9至I-17条。
⑦见《欧洲宪法条约》第I-13条。
①关于《里斯本条约》中共同贸易政策的规定及其详细分析,参见George-Dian Balan, "The Common Commercial Policy Under the Lisbon Treaty", Jean Monnet Seminar, Advanced Issues of European Law, 6th Session, April 20-27, 2008, Dubrovnik, Re-thinking the European Constitution in an Enlarged European Union.
②Michael Smith (1994), pp.283-302.
③参见Neill Nugent, p.411-412; Desmond Dinan, p.484-486.
①Manfred Elsig (2002), p.69.
②Ibid, p.70.
③Ibid, p.28.
④Ibid, p.154.
①Manfred Elsig (2002), p.155-156.
②Ibid, p.154.
③John Petersen and Elisabeth Bomberg (1999), p.90-119.
①Rafel Leal-Arcas (2004b).
②John Petersen and Elisabeth Bomberg (1999).
③Stephen Woolcock (2000).
④Stephen Woolcock and Michale Hodges (1996).
⑤John Petersen and Elisabeth Bomberg (1999).
⑥《罗马条约》第113条是关于共同贸易政策的规定,一直沿用到《马斯特里赫特条约》。在1997年《阿姆斯特丹条约》之后,由于重新编排了条约的条款序号,才有了后来的“133委员会”。本章均采用133委员会这一名称。
①John Petersen and Elisabeth Bomberg (1999).
②Rafael Leal-Arcas (2004b).
③John Petersen and Elisabeth Bomberg (1999).
④Manfred Elsig, p.36.
①Rafael Leal-Arcas (2004b).
②Baroness Elles (1996), p.19-30.
③关于欧洲法院咨询性意见1/75、1/78和2/94的讨论,参见Stephan Griller and Katharina Gamharter (2002).
①Desmond Dinan, p.261.
②Ibid, p.261.
③有关这些特例的讨论,参见Horst Gunter Krenzler and Christian Pitschas (2001).
④参见欧盟宪法性条约第III-315条,第4段。
①Rafael Leal-Arcas (2004b).
②John Petersen and Elisabeth Bomberg (1999).
③Ibid.
①Nocholas Emiliou (1996); Anita Lukaschek and Birgit Weidel,“Exclusive External Competence of the European Community”, External Economic Relations and Foreign Policy in the European Union, eds. Stefan Griller and Birgit Weidel (Springer-Verlag Wien, 2002), p.113-148.
②Michael Smith (1994).
③Rafael Leal-Arcas,“Exclusive or Shared Competence in the Common Commercial Policy: From Amsterdam to Nice”, Legal Issues of Economic Integration, 30(1), (2003b), pp.3-14.
④参见欧盟宪法性条约第III-315条第4段规定。
①关于欧盟与多哈回合,参见Markus Krajewski (2005)有关论述。
①朱立群:《欧盟是个什么样的力量》,载《世界经济与政治》2008年第4期,第19页。
①陈峰:《中国与欧盟关系的现状及前瞻》,载《现代国际关系》1996年第5期,第10页。
②裘元伦:《中欧关系现状与未来》,载《世界经济与政治》2004年第10期,第8页;吴白乙:《观念转变与内生动力-后冷战时期中欧关系本源初探》,载《欧洲研究》2006年第1期,第30页。
③近年来,学术界关于中欧合作情况的专著和论文也越来越多,详细阐述了中欧在各领域合作的新进展。最新的专著包括郭关玉:《中国-欧盟合作研究》,世界知识出版社,2006年11月出版。
④特别是欧盟委员会2006年发表的最新的对华政策文件中,在经贸领域的基调比以往的积极性大有不如,引起不少学者对中短期内中欧关系发展前景的担忧。关于欧盟对华贸易政策的最新分析,参见舒旻:《欧盟外贸政策与中欧关系》,载《欧洲一体化研究》2007年第3期。
①克里斯托弗·希尔:《变化中的对外政策政治》,英文版前言。
②克里斯托弗·希尔:《变化中的对外政策政治》,第10页。
③Alastair Iain Johnston,“Conclusions and Extensions: Toward Mid-Range Theorizing and Beyond Europe”, International Organization 59, Fall 2005, pp.1013-1044.
④倪世雄:《当代西方国际关系理论》,复旦大学出版社,2001年,第500页。
1、蔡春林:《欧盟贸易政策决策机制研究》,载《经济理论研究》2006年第11期,第102-106页。
2、曹启明:《论制度理性:从不发达到现代化的主导力量》,载《学术探索》2000年第5期,第10-12页。
3、陈峰:《中国与欧盟关系的现状及前瞻》,载《现代国际关系》1996年第5期,第10页。
4、陈志敏、古斯塔夫·盖拉茨:《欧洲联盟对外政策一体化――不可能的使命?》,北京·时事出版社,2003年版。
5、杜娟:《国际制度的理性设计论:理性主义国际制度研究的新发展》,载《国际关系理论:前沿与热点—2006年博士论坛》(中国国际关系学会编),北京?世界知识出版社,2007年版,第129-147页。
6、郭关玉:《中国-欧盟合作研究》,北京?世界知识出版社,2006年版。
7、郭关玉:《欧盟对外政策的决策机制与中欧合作》,载《武汉大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》第59卷第2期,第221-225页。
8、李月军:《温格斯坦理性选择制度主义政治学研究》,载《教学与研究》2005年第12期,第64-70页。
9、刘力:《试论西方国际关系理论演进的理性主义基础》,载《世界经济与政治》2006年第7期。
10、刘文秀、埃米尔?科什纳等:《欧洲联盟政策及政策过程研究》,北京?法律出版社,2003年版。
11、门洪华:《对国际机制理论主要流派的批评》,载《世界经济与政治》2000年第3期,第23-29页。
12、门洪华:《国际机制理论与国际社会理论的比较》,载《欧洲》2000年第2期,第12-18页。
13、倪世雄:《当代西方国际关系理论》,上海?复旦大学出版社,2001年版。
14、欧共体官方出版局编:《欧洲共同体条约集》(戴炳然译),上海?复旦大学出版社,1993年版。
15、秦亚青:《权力·制度·文化》,北京·北京大学出版社,2005年版。
16、秦亚青主编:《文化与国际社会:建构主义国际关系理论研究》,北京·世界知识出版社,2006年版。
17、秦亚青主编:《理性与国际合作:自由主义国际关系理论研究》,北京·世界知识出版社,2008年版。
18、裘元伦:《中欧关系现状与未来》,载《世界经济与政治》2004年第10期,第8页。
19、曲博:《偏好、制度与国际政治经济学研究》,载于《外交评论》2006年第5期,第103-109页。
20、任晓:《何谓理性主义?》,载《欧洲研究》2004年第2期,第148-152页。
21、邵景春:《欧洲联盟的法律与制度》,北京?人民法院出版社,1999年版。
22、石斌:《相互依赖?国际制度?全球治理》,载《国际政治研究》2005年第4期,第31-49页。
23、舒旻:《欧盟外贸政策与中欧关系》,载《欧洲一体化研究》2007年第3期。
24、苏长和:《跨国关系与国内政治——比较政治与国际政治经济学视野下的国际关系研究》,载《美国研究》2003年第4期,第111-125页。
25、随新民:《欧盟CFSP的制度性缺失及其对华政策评估》,载《南都学坛(人文社会科学学报)》第24卷第5期,2004年9月,第27-31页。
26、网络文献:“政治学的制度主义:流派、整合,以及在中国的应用”,《北望经济学园》,http://www.beiwang.com/a/Article.asp?ArtID=18,2002年7月8日。
27、王明国:《权力、合法性、国内政治与国际制度的有效性》,载《世界经济与政治》2006年第8期,第57-63页。
28、王学东:《新制度主义的欧洲一体化理论评述》,载《欧洲研究》2003年第5期,第81-91页。
29、吴白乙:《观念转变与内生动力-后冷战时期中欧关系本源初探》,载《欧洲研究》2006年第1期,第30页。
30、吴志成:《治理创新-欧洲治理的历史、理论与实践》,天津?天津人民出版社,2003年版。
31、吴志成、李客询:《欧洲联盟的多层级治理:理论及其模式分析》,载《欧洲研究》2003年第6期,第100-113页。
32、肖承锋:《国际制度的有效性:一种法规范的视角》,载《国际问题论坛》2004年冬季号(总第37期),第53-69页。
33、阎小冰、邝杨:《欧洲议会:对世界上第一个跨国议会的概述与探讨》,北京?世界知识出版社,1997年版。
34、叶行昆:《论制度以及经济制度的一般概念、功能或特征及其本质》,http://www.zwm.cn/bbs/dispbbs.asp?boardid=5&ID=61969&replyID=61969
35、易文彬:《全球治理模式述评》,载《世界经济与政治论坛》2005年第4期,第118-122页。
36、袁正清:《国际制度研究:理论、实证、趋势》,载《2005年:全球政治与安全报告》。
37、张清敏:《外交决策的微观分析模式及其应用》,载《世界经济与政治》,2006年第11期,第15-23页。
38、张宇燕:《个人理性与制度悖论》,载《经济研究》1992年第11期。
39、赵勇:《欧盟的多层次治理与决策机制:对泛珠三角区域发展的启示》,载《广东外语外贸大学学报》2007年第2期,第13-16页。
40、中国国际关系学会编:《国际关系理论前沿与热点:2006年博士论坛》,北京?世界知识出版社,2007年版。
41、仲舒甲:《两种欧盟决策模型的比较研究——欧盟指令2004/17立法过程之案例分析》,载《欧洲研究》2007年第2期,第47-63页。
42、仲舒甲、李健:《欧盟共同外贸政策的制度分析——权限、机制和有效性》,载《外交评论》2005年第6期(总第85期),第95-100页。
43、周建仁:《欧盟决策程序研究中的两种范式和两种方法》,载《国际论坛》2003年第5期,第58-63页。
44、周建仁:《共同决策程序的引入对欧盟一体化的影响》,载《欧洲研究》2003年第5期,第92-111页。
45、朱立群:《中欧关系研究:三个重要的视角》,载《欧洲研究》2007年第6期,第132-143页。
46、朱立群:《欧盟是个什么样的力量》,载《世界经济与政治》2008年第4期,第16-23页。
47、朱仁显、唐哲文:《欧盟决策机制与欧洲一体化》,载《厦门大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》2002年第6期,第81-88页。
48、【比利时】尤利·德沃伊斯特、门镜:《欧洲一体化进程——欧盟的决策与对外关系》(门镜译),北京·中国人民大学出版社,2007年版。
49、【德】贝阿特·科勒-科赫:《欧洲治理的演变与转型》(吴志成编译),载《全球化:全球治理》(俞可平主编),北京·社会科学文献出版社,2003年版,第268-292页。
50、【德】贝阿特·科勒-科赫:《社会进程视角下的欧洲区域一体化分析》,(吴志成编译),载《南开学报(哲学社会科学版)》2005年第一期,第1-10页。
51、【德】赖纳·艾辛、贝阿特·科勒-科赫:《欧盟治理:比较与评价》(吴志成编译),载《全球化:全球治理》(俞可平主编),北京·社会科学文献出版社,2003年版,第309-331页。
52、【美】彼得·卡赞斯坦、罗伯特·基欧汉、斯蒂芬·克拉斯纳合编:《世界政治理论的探索与争鸣》(秦亚青、苏长和、门洪华、魏玲译),上海·上海人民出版社,2006年版。
53、【美】彼得·卡赞斯坦、罗伯特·基欧汉、斯蒂芬·克拉斯纳:《IPE的发展历程》,载《世界经济与政治》2002年第1期,第5-10页。
54、【美】彼得?豪尔、罗斯玛丽?泰勒:《政治科学与三个新制度主义》(何俊智译),载《经济社会体制比较(双月刊)》2003年第5期总第109期,第20-29页,原文载于Political Studies,(1996), XL Iv, 936-957.
55、【美】约瑟夫·奈、张哲馨:《自由主义化的现实主义者—对约瑟夫·奈的访谈》,载《世界经济与政治》2007年第8期,第70-73页。
56、【美】詹姆斯·罗西瑙等:《没有政府的治理》(张胜军、刘小林等译),江西人民出版社,2001年版。
57、【英】克里斯托弗·希尔:《变化中的对外政策政治》(唐小松、陈寒溪译),上海·上海人民出版社,2007年版。
58、【英】罗杰·赛本:《治理和后国家政策过程》(林猛译),载《全球化:全球治理》(俞可平主编),北京·社会科学文献出版社,2003年版,第93-110页。
Christopher H. Achen,“Institutional Realism and Bargaining Models”, The European Union Decides, eds. Thomson and Konig (New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006, Chapter 4).
Franco Algieri,“It’s the System that Matters: Institutionalization and Making of EU Policy toward China”, one chapter in an unpublished book, 2007, p.104-115.
Mark D. Aspinwall and Gerald Schneider,“Same Menu, Separate Tables: The Institutionalist Turn in Political Science and the Study of European Integration”, European Journal of Political Research 38, (2000), pp.1-36.
Michael M. Atkinson,“Book Review on‘Institutinal Realism: Social and Political Constraints on Rational Actors’”, Canadian Journal of Political Science, Vol.26, No.2 (June, 1993), pp.405-406.
George-Dian Balan, "The Common Commercial Policy Under the Lisbon Treaty", Jean Monnet Seminar, Advanced Issues of European Law, 6th Session, April 20-27, 2008, Dubrovnik, Re-athinking the European Constitution in an Enlarged European Union.
Matthew Baldwin, "EU Trade Politics—Heaven or Hell?", Journal of European Public Policy, 13:6 (2006), pp.926-942.
Eric Belanger and Bonnie M. Meguid, "Issue salience, issue ownership and issue-based vote choice: evidence from Canada", Paper prepared for delivery at the annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association London, Ontario, June 2-4, 2005, http://www.cpsa-acsp.ca/papers-2005/Belanger.pdf
Jan Beyers,“Multiple Embeddedness and Socialization in Europe: The Case of Council Officials”, International Organization 59, Fall 2005, pp.899-936.
Tanja A. Borzel, "Shaping and Taking European Policies: Member State
Responses to Europeanization", Queen's papers on Europeanization No.2/2003, http://www.qub.ac.uk/schools/SchoolofPoliticsInternationalStudiesandPhilosophy/FileStore/EuropeanisationFiles/Filetoupload,38412,en.pdf
Simon J. Bulmer,“New Institutionalism and the Governance of the Single European Market”, Journal of European Public Policy 5:3, (1998), pp.365-386.
Damian Chalmers,“Legal Base and the External Relations of the European Community”, The European Union and World Trade Law: After the GATT Uruguay Round, eds. Nicholas Emiliou and David O’Keeffe (John Wiley & Sons, 1996, chapter 4), p.46-61.
Thomas Christensen, "The Council of Ministers: the Politics of Institutionalized Intergovernmentalism", European Union: Power and Policy-making, ed Jeremy Reachardson (Second edition, Routledge, 2001).
Richard Corbett,“Academic Modeling of the Co-Decision Procedure: A Practioner’s Puzzled Reaction”in European Union Politics 1(3), 2000, pp. 373-381.
Laura Cram, "Integration Theory and the Study of the European Policy Process: Towards a Synthesis of Approaches", European Union: Power and Policy-making, ed. Jeremy Reachardson (Routledge, 2001, Second edition, chapter 3).
Christophe Crombez, "Institutional Reform and Co-Decision in the European Union", Constitutional Political Economy, 11, 41-57 (2000).
Arnaud Dellis, "The salient issue of issue salience", working paper,version August 2007, Universite Laval,
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=614045 Youri Devuyst, The European Union at the Crossroads: the EU’s Institutional Evolution from the Schuman Plan to the European Convention (second edition, “European Policy”No. 27, P.I.E.-Peter Lang S. A, 2003).
Desmond Dinan, Ever Closer Union: An Introduction to European Integration, ( Palgrave, 1999, second edition), p.483-503.
Keith Dowding,“Institutionalist Research on the European Union: A Critical Review”, European Union Politics, Volume 1(1), (2000), pp.125-144.
Simon Duke,“The Linchpin COPS: Assessing the Workings and Institutional Relations of the Political and Security Committe”, EIPA Working Paper 2005/W/05, http://aei.pitt.edu/5914
Simon Duke and Sophie Vanhoonacker,“Administrative Governance in the CFSP: Development and Practice”, European Foreign Affairs Review 11: 163-182, 2006.
Baroness Elles,“The Role of EU Institutions in External Trade Policy”, The European Union and World Trade Law: After the GATT Uruguay Round eds. Nicholas Emiliou and David O’Keeffe (John Wiley & Sons, chapter 2, 1996), p.19-30.
Manfred Elsig, The EU’s Common Commercial Policy: Institutions, Interests and Ideas (Ashgate, 2002).
Nicholas Emiliou,“The Allocation of Competence Between the EC and its Member States in the Sphere of External Relations”, The European Union and World Trade Law: After the GATT Uruguay Round, eds. Nicholas Emiliou and David O’Keeffe (John Wiley & Sons, 1996, chapter 3), p.31-45.
Henry Farrell and Adrienne Heritier,“Formal and Informal Institutions under Co-decision: Continuous Constitution-Building inn Europe”, Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration and Institutions, Vol. 16, No. 4, (2003), pp.577-600.
Geoffrey Garrett and George Tsebelis,“An Institutional Critique of Intergovernmetalism”International Organization 50, 2, (1996), pp.269-99.
Garrett Glasgow, "Comparing measures of issue salience in a spatial model od voting", California Institute of Techonology, http://polmeth.wustl.edu/retrieve.php?id=267
Hans-Ulrich Gossl, "EU Trade Policy and Non-trade Issues: The Case of Agricultural Multi-Functionality", European Foreign Affairs Review 13: 211-227, 2008.
Robert Grafstein,“Taking Dworkin to Hart: A Positivist Conception of Institutional Rules”, Political Theory, Vol.11, No.2 (May, 1983), pp.244-265.
Robert Grafstein,“The Problem of Institutional Constraint”, The Journal of Politics, Vol.50 (1988), pp.577-599.
Robert Grafstein,“Comments”, The Journal of Politics, Vol.59, No.4 (November, 1997), pp.1040-47.
Robert Grafstein,“What Rational Political Actors Can Expect”, Journal of Theoretical Politics, 14:2 (2002), pp.139-165.
Stefan Griller and Katharina Gamharter,“External Trade: Is There a Path Through the Maze of Competences?”, External Economic Relations and Foreign Policy in the European Union, eds. Stefan Griller and Birgit Weidel (Springer-Verlag Wien, 2002), p.65-112.
Michael Halderman and Michael Nelson, "The EU's CAP, the Doha Round and Developing Countries", the paper is posted at the eScholarship Pository, University of California, http://repositories.cdlib.org/ies/1
Reinhard Heinisch and Simone Mesner,“Coreper: Stealthy Power Broker or Loyal Servants to Their Government Masters?-The Role of the Committee of Permanent Representatives in a Changing Union”, paper prepared for the European Union Studies Association Conference in Austin, Texas, Panel 12D, Saturday April 2, 2005, http://aei.pitt.edu/3046
Paul R. Hensel, "Power Politics and Contentious Issues: Realism, Issue Salience, and Conflict Management", Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, Honolulu, Hawaii, 2 March 2005.
Adrienne Heritier, Policy-Making and Diversity in Europe: Escaping Deadlock, (Cambridge University Press, 1999).
Christoff W. Herrmann,“Common Commercial Policy after Nice: Sisyphus Could Have Done a Better Job”, Common Market law Review 39, Kluwer Law International, (2002), pp.7-29.
Meinhard Hilf,“The ECJ’s Opinion 1/94 on the WTO: No Surprise, but Wise?”, European Journal of International Law, Volume 6, (1995), pp.245-259.
Lisbet Hooghe,“Several Roads lead to International Norms, but Few viaInternational Socialization: A Case Study of the European Commission”, International Organization 59, Fall 2005, pp.861-898.
Lisbet Hooghe and Gary Marks (2001),“Types of Multi-Level Governance”, European Integration Online papers (EIOP) Vol.5, 2001, No. 11, http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2001-011a.htm
Alastair Iain Johnston,“Conclusions and Extensions: Toward Mid-Range Theorizing and Beyond Europe”, International Organization 59, Fall 2005, pp.1013-1044.
Ana E. Juncos and Karolina Pomorska,“Playing the Brussles Game: Strategic Socialization in the CFSP Council Working Groups”, European Integration online Papers(EIOP) Vol. 10 (2006), No. 11, http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2006-011a.htm . Markus Krajewski,“External Trade Law and the Constitutional Treaty: Towards a Federal and more Democratic Common Commercial Policy?”Common Market Law Reviw 42, (2005), pp.91-127.
Horst Gunter Krenzler and Christian Pitschas,“Progress or Stagnation? Common Commercial Policy after Nice”, European Foreign Affairs Review 6, (Kluwer Law International, 2001), pp.291-313.
Rafael Leal-Arcas,“United We Stand, Divided We Fall– The European Community and its Member States in the WTO Forum: Towards Greater Cooperation on Issues of Shared Competence?”, European Political Economy Review, Vol.1, No.1, (2003a), pp.065-079.
Rafael Leal-Arcas,“Exclusive or Shared Competence in the Common Commercial Policy: From Amsterdam to Nice”, Legal Issues of Economic Integration, 30(1), (2003b), pp.3-14.
Rafael Leal-Arcas,“The EC in the GATT/WTO Negotiations: From Rome to Nice– Have EC Trade Policy Reforms Been Good Enough for a Coherent EC Trade Policy in the WTO?”European Integration Online Paper (EIOP) Vol. 8, No.1, (2004a), http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2004-001a.htm
Rafael Leal-Arcas,“The EC in the WTO: The Three-level Game of
Decision-Making. What Multilateralism can Learn from Regionalism.”European Integration Online Paper Vol. 8, No.14, (2004b), http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2004-014a.htm
Jeffrey Legro, "Culture and Preference in the International Cooperation Two-Step", American Political Science Review 91, 1, 1996, pp.118-137.
Jeffrey Lewis,“The Janus Face of Brussels: Socialization and Everyday Decision-Making in the European Union”, International Organization 59, Fall 2005, pp.937-971.
Anita Lukaschek and Birgit Weidel,“Exclusive External Competence of the European Community”, External Economic Relations and Foreign Policy in the European Union, eds. Stefan Griller and Birgit Weidel (Springer-Verlag Wien, 2002), p.113-148.
James G. March and Johan P. Olsen, "The New Institutionalism: Organizational Factors in Political Life", American Politcal Science Review 78 (September 1984): 734-749.
James G. March and Johan P. Olsen, "Elaborating the "New Institutionalism", ARENA Working Paper, No.11, March 2005, http://www.arena.uio.no
Gary Marks, Lisbet Hooghe and Kermit Blank (1996),“European Integration since the 1980s: State Centric versus Multi-Level Governance”, in Jounal of Common Market Studies 34, 4: 341-78.
Mikko Mattila,“Why so much Unanimity? Voting in the EU Council of Ministers”, paper presented at the 4th biannual workshop of WG-7, Mariehamn, Aaland, August 5-9, 1998.
Sophie Meunier and Kalypso Nicolaidis,“Who Speaks for Europe? The Delegation of Trade Authority in the EU”, Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 37, No. 3, (1999), pp.477-501.
Sophie Meunier and Kalypso Nicolaidis,“EU Trade Policy: The Exclusive versus Shared Competence Debate”, The State of the European Union: Risks, Reforms, Resistance and Revival, eds. Maria Green Cowles and Michael Smith (Volume 5,Oxford University Press, 2000, chapter 16), p.325-346.
Sophie Meniuer, "What Single Voice? European Institutions and EU-US Trade Negotiations", International Organization, Vol.54, No.1 (Winter 2000), pp.103-135.
Andrew Moravcsik, "Preference and power in the European Community: A Liberal-intergovernmentalist Appraoch", in Journal of Common Market Studies 31:473-524, 1991.
Adrew Moravcsik, "Taking Preference Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics", International Organization 51, 4, Autumn 1997, pp.513-553.
Kalypso Nicolaidis and Sophie Meunier,“Revisiting Trade Competence in the European Union: Amsterdam, Nice and Beyond”, Institutional Challenges in the European Union, eds. Hosli, Madeleine O., van Deemen, Adrian M. A., and Widgren, Mika (Routledge, 2002 , chapter 9), p.173-201.
Arne Niemann, "Between Communicative Action and Strategic Action: The Article 113 Committee and the Negotiations on the WTO basic Telecommunications Service Agreement", Journal of European Public Policy 11:3, June 2004:379-407.
Arne Niemann, "Beyongd Problem-solving and Bargaining: Genuine Debate in EU External Trade Negotiations", International Negotiation 11: 467-497, 2006.
Ricahrd G. Niemi and larry M. Bartels, "New Measures of Issue salience: An evaluation", The Journal of Politics, Vol. 47, No.4 (Nov., 1985), pp.1212-1220. Neill Nugent, The Government and Politics of the European Union, (Palgrave, 2003, fifth edition).
Kai Oppermann, "Salience and Sanctions: A Principal-Agent Analysis of Domestic Win-sets in Two-level Games - The Case of British European Policy under New Labour", Paper presented at the British International Studies Association 2006 Annual Conference, 18th - 20th December 2006, http://www.bisa.ac.uk/2006/pps/oppermann.pdf
Kai Oppermann and Henrike Viehrig, "Issue Salience and the Domestic Legitimacy Demands of European Integration. The Cases of Britain and Germany", European Integration online Papers (EIoP) Vol. 12 (2008) No. 2,http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2008-002a.htm
Kai Oppermann and Henrike Viehrig, "Issue Salience and the Legitimacy of International Cooperation",
http://www.sam.sdu.dk/politics/nisa/papers/OppermannViehrig.pdf Jan Orbie, "European Enlargment and External Trade: Towards a Protectionist Regional Bloc?", Alternatives: Turkish Journal of International Relations, Vol.1, No. 4, Winter 2002.
Pierre Pescatore,“Opinion 1/94 on‘Conclusion’of the WTO Agreement: Is There an Escape from Programmed Disaster?”Common Market law Review 36, (Kluwer Law International, 1999), pp.387-405.
Guy Peters and Jon Pierre (2001),“Developments in Intergovernmental Relations: towards muliti-level Governance”, in Policy and Politics, vol. 29, no. 2, pp.131-135;http://www.answers.com/topic/multi-level-governance (2007-3-29).
John Petersen, "Decision-making in the European Union:towards a framework of analysis", Journal of European Public Policy 2:1, March 1995:69-93.
John Petersen and Elizabeth Bomberg,“External Trade policy”in Decision-Making in the European Union, (chapter 4, 1999), p.90-119.
Mark A. Pollack,“The New Institutionalism and EC Governance: The Promise and Limits of Institutional Analysis”Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration, Vol. 9, No. 4, (1996), pp.429-458.
Anders Rasmussen,“Institutional Games Rational Actors Play– The Empowering of the European Parliament”, European Integration online Papers, Vol. 4, No. 1, 2000, http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2000-001a.htm
Jeremy Richardson, "Policy-making in the EU: Interests, Ideas and Gabage Cans of Primeval Soup", European Union: Power and Policy-making, ed. Jeremy Reachardson (Routledge, 2001, Second edition).
Wolf Sauter,"International and EU Telecommunications Liberalization", Utilities Law Review, 8, 3:71-73.
Fritz W. Scharpf, "Legitimate Diversity: The New Chalenge of EuropeanIntegration",The State of the European Union, eds. Tanja Borzel and Rachel A, Cichowski (Oxford University Press, 2003), p.79-105.
Fritz W. Scharpf, "Problem Solving Effectiveness and Democratic Accountability in the EU", Political Science Series 107, Institute for Advanced Studies, Vienna, February 2006, http://www.ihs.ac.at/publications/pol/pw_107.pdf
Frank Schimmelfennig,“Strategic Calculation and International Socialization: Membership Incentives, Party Constellations, and Sustained Compliance in Central and Eastern Europe”, International Organization 59, Fall 2005, pp.827-860.
Torsten J. Selck, The Impact of Procedure: Analyzing European Union Legislative Decision-Making (Cuvillier Verlag Gotting, 2004).
Torsten J. Selck, "The effects of issue salience on political decision-making", Constit Polit Econ (2006) 17:5-13.
Kenneth A. Shepsle and Mark S. Bonchek, Analyzing Politics: Rationality, Behavior, and Institutions ( W. W. Norton & Company, 1997, chapter 5).
Theodore W. Schultz,“Institutions and the Rising Economic Value of Man”, American Journal of Agriculture Economics, No.50, December 1968.
Michael Smith,“The EU as an International Actor”, European Union: Power and Policy Making, eds. Jeremy Richardson ( Routledge, 2001, second edition, chapter 14), p.283-300.
Michael Smith,“The European Union, Foreign Economic Policy and the Changing World Arena”Journal of European Public Policy 1:2, (1994), pp.283-302.
Michael E. Smith,“Towards a theory of EU Foreign policy making: multi-level governance, domestic politics, and national adaptation to Europe’s common foreign and security policy”, Journal of European Public Policy 11:4, August 2004:740-758.
Ben Soetendorp and Madeleine O. Hosli, "Negotiations in the European Union: the Hidden Influence on Council Decision-Making", International Studies Association, 41st Annual Convention, Los Angeles, March 14-18, 2000.
Karol Soltan,“Book Review on‘Institutinal Realism: Social and Political Constraints on Rational Actors’”, The Journal of Politics, Vol.55, No.3 (August,1993), pp.842-844.
Jeffrey Stacey and Berthold Rittberger, "Dynamics of Formal and Informal Institutional Change in the EU", Journal of European Public Policy 10:6 December 2003: 858-883.
Bernard Steunenberg and Torsten Selck,“Testing Procedural Models of EU Legislative Decision-Making”, The European Union Decides, eds. Thomson and Konig (New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006, Chapter 3). Michael Taylor, "The Problem of issue salience in the theory of collective decision-making", Behavioral Science 15:5 (1970:Sept.) pp.415-430.
George Tsebelis and Geoffrey Garrett,“The Institutional Foundations of Intergovernmentalism and Supranationalism in the European Union”International Organization 55(2), (2001), pp.357-390.
Treaties of the EU, http://www.europa.eu.int/abc/treaties_en.htm Alina-Stefania Ujupan, "A Multi-dimensional Approach to EU Council of Ministers' Decision-making", University of Ulster, UK, http://www.ku.dk/Satsning/Europa/pdf/Alina_Ujupan_paper.pdf
Antanas Venckus, "Lithuania's National Interests in the Formation of the EU Common Commercial Policy", http://www.lfpr.lt/uploads/File/2008-21/Venckus_ENG.pdf
Douglas Webber, "High Midnight in Brussels: an Analysis of the September 1993 Council Meeting on the GATT Uruguay Round", Journal of European Public Policy, 5:4, December 1998, pp.578-594.
Brian White, Understanding European Foreign Policy, (Lodon: Palgrave, 2001). Daniel Wincott, "Beyond Social Regulation? New Instruments and/or a New
Agenda for Social Policy at Lisbon?", Public Administration Vol. 81 no. 3, 2003 (533-553).
Christopher Wlezien, "On the Salience of Political Issues: The Problem with 'Most Important Problem'", Electoral Studies 24 (2005) 555-579.
Cornelia Woll, "Trade Policy Lobbying in the European Union: Who Captures Whom?", MPIFG Working Paper 06/7, October 2006.Stephen Woolcock,“European Trade Policy: Global Pressures and Domestic
Constraints”, Policy-Making in the European Union, eds. Helen Wallace and William Wallace (third edition, Oxford University Press, 1996, chapter 14), p.373-399.
Stephen Woolcock and Michael Hodges,“EU Policy in the Uruguay Round”, Policy-Making in the European Union, eds. Helen Wallace and William Wallace (third edition, Oxford University Press, 1996, chapter 12), p.301-324.
Michael Zurn and Jeffrey T. Checkel,“Getting Socialized to Build Bridges: Constuctivism and Rationalism, Europe and the Nation State”, International Organization 59, Fall 2005, pp.1045-1079.