IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/erp/eiopxx/p0226.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comitology and delegated acts after Lisbon: How the European Parliament lost the implementation game

Author

Listed:
  • Christiansen, Thomas
  • Dobbels, Mathias

Abstract

The European Parliament is frequently seen as the ‘big winner’ of the Lisbon Treaty, given the fact that several changes have significantly extended its powers, such as the extension of co-decision as the ordinary legislative procedure, and the introduction of the assent procedure to international agreements. The reform of comitology (Article 291) and the introduction of the new instrument of delegated acts (Article 290) are generally seen in the same light, marking the culmination of a long-standing quest of the EP to gain equal rights to the Council in this area. This article questions the view that the Parliament has had unconditional ‘success’ by examining in detail the way the new provisions have been implemented. It argues that Member States in the Council managed to claw back influence on delegated powers through the manner that the new treaty articles have been put into practice. We identify the EP’s timing and selective attention with regard to this domain as the main explanations for this outcome. Our analysis demonstrates the need to study the actual implementation of treaty provisions before coming to a conclusion about the identity of ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ of treaty reform.

Suggested Citation

  • Christiansen, Thomas & Dobbels, Mathias, 2012. "Comitology and delegated acts after Lisbon: How the European Parliament lost the implementation game," European Integration online Papers (EIoP), European Community Studies Association Austria (ECSA-A), vol. 16, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:erp:eiopxx:p0226
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2012-013a.htm
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: http://eiop.or.at/eiop/pdf/2012-013.pdf
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Daniel Polman & Gerry Alons, 2021. "Reap what you sow: implementing agencies as strategic actors in policy feedback dynamics," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(4), pages 823-848, December.
    2. Michael Kaeding & Kevin M. Stack, 2015. "Legislative Scrutiny? The Political Economy and Practice of Legislative Vetoes in the European Union," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(6), pages 1268-1284, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:erp:eiopxx:p0226. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Editorial Assistant (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ecsaaea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.