Cultures of European Governance

Authors
Affiliation

Jamal Shahin

Faculty of Humanities, University of Amsterdam

Claske Vos

Published

Sunday, June 15, 2025

1 Course details

Course information
  • Course title: Cultures of European Governance
  • Course code: 142424042Y
  • Course session: Blocks 1 and 2, 2024-2025
  • Lecture slot: Tuesday 13.00-15.00, OMHP C0.17 *
  • Seminar slots: Wednesday 11.00-13.00, 13.00-15.00, and 15.00-17.00, OMHP E2.12A *
  • Course convenors: Claske Vos, Jamal Shahin
  • Studiegids link
  • Canvas link

Contact details Claske Vos

Contact details Jamal Shahin

Read and re-read this course manual very carefully. To avoid email overload, it should be noted that many questions can be more efficiently dealt with in person (or by re-reading this course manual!).

* You should always check the UvA rooster for the latest scheduling for the course.

2 Study material

References to all required readings that will be discussed in class are provided below, in Canvas, or in the European Policy Zotero group (registration to the group is necessary).

A certain knowledge of European integration and the institutions of the European Union is required. Students are expected to have a clear and strong interest in the academic and policy debates on the European Union, as well as a positive, hard-working attitude, intellectual imagination, and the ability to work independently.

2.1 Introductory texts

For those with basic knowledge about EU policy, institutions, and governance, we recommend you make use of the following texts:

  • Kiran Klaus Patel Project Europe: A History, 1st ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020), https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108848893.
  • Ben Rosamond Theories of European Integration (London: Macmillan Press, 2000).
  • Simon Hix and Bjørn Høyland The Political System of the European Union, 3rd ed., The European Union Series (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011).
  • Luuk van Middelaar The Passage to Europe: How a Continent Became a Union, 1st ed. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2013), https://doi.org/10.12987/9780300195408.
  • Helen Wallace, Mark A. Pollack, and Alasdair R. Young Policy-Making in the European Union, Seventh edition., The New European Union Series (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2015).

2.2 Texts to accompany the course

The following list of books should help you further develop your background awareness and help you during this course; they should all be available online, via the University’s library.

For additional full texts of many books that are relevant to the course (and other courses!) check out the Springer Link database and Oxford Academic online from the UvA campus or via VPN.

You should also refer to the following websites on a regular basis, for input into seminars and your assignments:

2.3 News and current affairs

  • Euractiv
  • Politico - European edition (partly firewalled)
  • Financial Times - 30 day embargo
  • The Economist - US edition
  • EUobserver - sign in with your uva.nl email address to get access to all content
  • Nexis Uni - nexis uni contains full-text access to press, legal and business sources, mainly from 1990 onwards. Download the manual to find out how to use this service.

2.4 Commentary

2.5 Legislative portals and other official document repositories

3 Content and educational objectives

3.1 Content

The aim of this 12 ECTs course is to provide students with a solid basis for the MA programme in European Policy. This course examines various existing theories used when studying European integration processes and EU policymaking. It sets out to survey the EU policy landscape and seeks to offer a broad overview of the various policy areas. Starting from the main theories of European integration (notably neo-functionalism, and (multilevel) governance theories), the course seeks to develop understanding of the theoretical perspectives that try to explain the EU’s evolution. The central premise of this course is that European integration and European policies are driven by a variety of impulses, and are mediated by often conflicting principles, ideas or narratives which actively shape national and European identities. The course will predominantly concentrate on issues of ‘governance’ in the European Union and will examine different ways of decision and policy making in the EU. What underlying principles and ideas govern the EU policymaking process, and how are these principles and ideas changing or contested over time? In particular, during the second half of the course, several colleagues with various disciplinary backgrounds are invited to discuss with the students on how their backgrounds and research provide manifold insights into the different theories, methods and perspectives that explain European integration and the evolution of the flagship policy fields of the EU. These are strongly rooted in existing research within the Department.

When concluding the course students are able to:

  • apply professional research skills and methods relevant for this MA programme but also for broader application in future employment perspectives
  • distinguish the interdisciplinary nature of research in European Studies, and identify how this translates into different methodologies and frameworks of analysis
  • grasp the history of European integration with a particular focus on how developments have changed our perceptions and interpretations of European governance
  • integrate knowledge of methodological and theoretical approaches to the study of the process of European integration, focusing on specific policy fields
  • draw upon state of the art approaches to studying the European integration process and EU policymaking.

3.2 Educational objectives

The ambition behind this course is two-fold. On the one hand it focuses on professional research skills and research methods in the field of European Studies –with a specific focus on its interdisciplinary nature and its place in humanities. We broadly cover the history of European integration, the institutional make-up of the European Union, the key areas of EU policy making (related to the different elective packages of our MA programme) and the main theories of European integration. On the other hand, it provides a thorough training in the critical assessment of various interpretations –in terms of disciplines, methods and theories– of EU governance in a diversity of policy fields. Students are encouraged to develop their own perspectives on EU policymaking and will be able to expose its underlying cultures of governance.

By the end of this course, students will be able to:

  • identify the theoretical assumptions that underpin certain statements about EU governance and recognize pertinent theoretical puzzles that these observations pose
  • use theoretical debates to structure and substantiate their arguments about the EU and analyse the meaning of EU policy
  • distinguish disciplinary and methodological approaches to EU governance and apply these in their own academic work
  • independently search read, report, and critically discuss academic literature
  • participate responsibly, respectfully and actively in group work, thereby delivering high quality group work exercises.

4 Method of instruction

The class meets twice a week. Lectures will either be plenary sessions or panel debates. Seminars will be student-driven discussions about the readings and will consist of jigsaw exercises, close reading sessions, or a fishbowl debate. Other activities, such as case study exercises, a fishbowl debate, and feedback and peer review will also take place during the seminars.

4.1 Lectures

4.1.1 Plenary lectures

During the lectures, we will discuss the history of European integration, the institutional make-up of the (current) European Union, key areas of EU policymaking (related to the different courses taught in our MA programme), and mainstream and alternative theories that explain European governance. Specific attention will be paid to a critical study of European policy – theoretically as well as methodologically – combining insights from social science and humanities. You should come to these lectures with questions and be ready to engage in the discussion.

4.1.2 Panel debates

The panel debates will bring scholars from different academic institutions to the lecture theatre, so you can hear different perspectives of research into European governance. Our guests will describe their own journey in their research field, bringing a ‘human touch’ to the study of European governance. You are requested to participate actively in these sessions. We will ask one or two groups per session to develop summaries of the history and state of the art of the different policy fields: these will be assessed as part of your coursework. These groups will then also be responsible for asking questions during the panel debates.

4.2 Seminars

Different activities will take place during the seminar sessions. In part, the seminars will be devoted to a critical discussion of the required literature by means of a jigsaw exercise or close reading session. The seminars will also consist of other activities, such as a case study exercise, fishbowl, feedback, and peer review.

4.2.1 Jigsaw exercises

During some of these sessions we will use the ‘jigsaw method’ for a discussion of the literature.

Jigsaw method
  1. in preparation for the session, each of you will analyse one of the texts for the discussion session - groups will be allocated at the beginning of the course
  2. in the first part of the exercise, ‘expert groups’ will be formed by people who have all read the same text. You will use the expert group to exchange ideas about your text based on your written submissions, complement each other’s thoughts, and formulate a final joint analysis and critique of that text
  3. in the second part of the exercise, different pieces of the puzzle in the literature are put together in ‘jigsaw groups’, which consist of three people, each having read a different text
  4. on the basis of this exchange, a discussion will be launched in which critical questions are posed about the different perspectives presented. What are the main differences? What is the value of the different perspectives taken? Could you think of critiques (e.g. gaps, outdated knowledge, …)? What do these perspectives teach us about European integration?

4.2.2 Close reading sessions

In these sessions, we collectively have a detailled look at one key text and will dissect the text to get to the core of the critical analysis.

4.2.3 Fishbowl

We shall organise a ‘fishbowl’ with the entire group during the last lecture session. This will give us an opportunity to reflect on our hopes for the future of Europe, based upon the discussions we have had throughout the course. Everyone will be welcome to contribute to our discussions, which serve to wrap up the course. In your interventions in the fishbowl, you will be invited to reflect on the issues that have inspired you during our discussions, and relate this to your future study (and perhaps even your thesis topics). To this end, we ask you to identify your own literature which you should refer to in your contribution to the session.

What is a fishbowl?
  1. two people (Claske and Jamal) sit in the front of a group and make one or two brief statements about how our reading of material for the course has filled us with hope for Europe and the world, in order to stimulate a discussion
  2. someone from the audience comes and takes the place of one of the speakers, and provides their reflection or reaction to a previous speaker
  3. this will be repeated until everyone has spoken
  4. we then draw the session to a close by trying to trace the discussions and drawing some learning outcomes from what we have done.

5 Course evaluation

Evaluation of academic education starts at the beginning of a course and is a continuous dialogue between students and lecturers. So, for example, at the beginning of a course, you can think about your expectations and your part in reaching that goal that you share with lecturers and students: the best education possible.

Students are requested by email to anonymously evaluate their courses during the final week of teaching. Lecturers are requested to reserve time for this during class. Please complete the course evaluation, as, among others, lecturers and the programme committees use the results to improve the education in your programme! Be critical during your course evaluation, but also be to the point, polite, and constructive. Finally, ask yourself: could I use this feedback?

In the final session of the course, we shall also take a moment to discuss the course, whether you feel you have achieved the educational objectives stated above, and how you found the course in both specific, and overall terms.

6 Assessment

6.1 Forms of assessment

6.1.1 Jigsaw segments

You are asked to prepare a reading response in preparation for the ‘jigsaw segment’ for a number of seminars (see schedule). A jigsaw segment is a summary of the assigned weekly reading of max. 600 words and requires not only a description of the article, but more importantly, a short evaluation and critical commentary from the student. It should be structured in the following way:

  1. an introduction of the general theme discussed
  2. a discussion of the argument(s) advanced by the author
  3. a positioning of the text in terms of methodology/theory/discipline
  4. your views and comments on these arguments, including some questions and open problems that you will offer for discussion to the expert and jigsaw groups.

You must have prepared the draft version of the jigsaw before the actual seminar to be able to present this during the seminar in the assigned jigsaw group. You will upload your final version on canvas on Friday after the discussion session so that you can incorporate insights gained during the seminar if you feel this is necessary. The jigsaw segments will be graded with a pass or fail. You need to submit and pass all jigsaw segments to conclude the course. Moreover, participation in the jigsaw discussion is compulsory.

6.1.2 Close reading exercises

You are asked to engage in a close reading exercise for some of the seminars (see schedule). There will be one practice attempt in the early stages of the course. Close reading requires you to evaluate a text carefully, identifying key arguments, and reacting to these. You can see it as an extension of the jigsaw segment in substance, but rather than having to explain your piece to someone who hasn’t read it, you are all expected to show your detailed knowledge about the text and its context. In the seminar for the week, we will all focus on this one text. You must submit your assignment before the seminar. This close reading exercise should be structured in the following way:

  1. contextualise the text:
  • when was it published, where was it published, for whom was it written, why was it written?
  • to which other debates does the text relate?
  • how does it contribute to the theoretical frameworks that were used at the time?
  1. determine the main argument(s) advanced by the author:
  • what is the main proposition of the text?
  • how does the author try to convince his audience about this proposition? (i.e. theory, method, case studies etc.)
  1. provide a response to the text which includes a short evaluation and critical comments (include your own thoughts and reflections).
Assessment criteria close reading

The close reading exercises will be assessed as part of your final grade:

  1. capacity to elicit key arguments from the text
  2. expression of the context of the article
  3. clarity of critical assessment

6.1.3 Panel debate preparations (group work)

You are asked to prepare a summary of a policy field, relating to one of the panel debates that take place in the second half of the course. These will be allocated towards the end of the first half of the course. All summaries should be submitted by the same due date, independent of the week of the panel debate. Each summary should provide a concise description of the policy field, the state of the art in the policy field (at the EU level), and the context in which this field is evolving (connecting to both international and domestic issues). It should also outline a number of challenges for EU policymakers. At the end of the summary, you should note two or three questions that you feel you would like addressed by our guest speakers.

Important points to note whilst writing panel debate preparations
  1. a structured, and well-written summary of the policy field
  2. showing historical awareness
  3. revealing an understanding of the global and national policy contexts in which the EU works
  4. outlining a number of challenges for the current EU institutions
  5. clear questions that show you have thought about the evolution and contemporary challenges in the policy field
  6. ability to reference policy documents (see Canvas for handout on this).

6.1.4 Fishbowl preparation

You are required to submit a document which summarises your reflections on the readings you have done during the course (jigsaw exercises, close readings, etc.), and how this relates to your hope for future pathways of European governance. Which texts sparked your interest and why? How has reading these texts improved your knowledge of European governance and given you hope for the future? This is an opportunity for you to reflect on the texts as a whole: were they from one discipline, or from different ones, did they use different methods, were there underlying questions that the texts addressed, what debates they addressed.

You should also reflect on your personal learning within the course for a maximum of half a page: did the jigsaw method used in the seminars help you understand the texts? Did the close reading enable you to go into depth on a specific article?

In addition to the above, you are required to identify literature (one or more articles) that contribute to the academic debates we have referred to in the course, briefly summarising the article(s) in your submission.

You will use this to prepare your input into the fishbowl session.

Assessment criteria fishbowl preparation

The fishbowl preparation will be assessed as part of your final grade:

  1. reflection on learning process throughout the course (max 0,5 page)
  2. capacity to identify debates in the literature covered in the course (max one page)
  3. identification of one or more additional sources, along with a brief summary of how this contributes to the debates raised in class
  4. how this relates to your aspirations and hopes for future pathways of European governance

6.1.5 Book review

You are required to submit a book review, choosing one of the books that can be found in the respective folder in the European Policy Zotero group (registration to the group is necessary). The books selected allow you become more acquainted with theoretical perspectives used within the research field, take specific perspectives on the study of European governance and policymaking (economic, legal, historical, cultural), and often focus on particular policy fields. Make sure to choose a book that fits with your own interests: you might be able to use it for your later coursework and/or MA thesis. The book review can be seen as an extension of your close reading exercise. It should include:

  • title including complete bibliographic citation for the work (according to your preferred referencing style)
  • an identification of the main thesis, and reflection on whether the author achieves the stated purpose of the book
  • a summary of the book in its academic and policy context
  • a description of the book’s strengths and weaknesses
  • a carefully developed assessment of the book’s strengths and weaknesses, and some reflections on further questions
Tips for book review

If you are unsure of how to construct your book review, take a look at the following resources:

Make sure when evaluating the book, that you review the current state of art - and critiques of - the theory and topics discussed in the book. In other words, make sure to situate your review in existing literature, thereby contrasting and comparing it to other theoretical, methodological, or disciplinary perspectives.

Assessment criteria book review

The assignment should provide:

  1. an accurate, structured, and clear summary of the contents of the book
  2. an adequate contextualisation of the book (situating the book in academic and policy debates) - does the assignment refer to different authors, policy fields, disciplines, theories, and methods?
  3. identification and assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the book
  4. critical reflection on the book
  5. good language, style and referencing

6.1.6 Video (group work)

You are asked to create a video related to a specific policy ‘problem’ in a specific EU policy area. The objective is to provide a clear and concrete proposal for addressing your challenge in order to improve the policy area. We give you freedom to identify the problem, the audience, and the range of solutions that you provide. Students are advised to choose a topic that connects to their interests. Groups of students with an interest in similar topics will be formed during the course. For example, you could focus on how specific measures of the current EU climate policies impact on farmers in Europe and then propose solutions to align the interests of the farmers, the member states and the EU at large. Another topic could be how interventions at the EU border impact on refugees and the conditions in which they are living. Another could be the reconciliation of economic and social rights in a post-pandemic EU. Your video must contain the following:

  • a clear message to a specific audience
  • a clear illustration of the challenge for your audience, and specifically the EU dimension to this challenge
  • a proposal (or small set of proposals) as to how can this challenge can be addressed. Make sure to provide (a) concrete and substantiated proposal(s) that are feasible and useful.

You are free to decide which software and/or format to use. Programmes that can be used:

The last option is probably most accessible. For those with Apple devices, you can use iMovie.

Video “pitch”

You are asked to establish a pitch (a draft, or concept) for the final video. Please present a maximum of two pages that describe:

  • describe the type of narrative would you present in this audiovisual format (newscast, debate, …)
  • describe your audience: who do you intend to target with your video?
  • outline:
    1. the challenge
    2. the EU dimension to this challenge
    3. your tentative proposal/s for dealing with the challenge
  • provide a clear storyboard
  • sketch the different scenes in the video you plan to create
  • consider how you practically and feasibly aim to create the video and fill it with content
  • identify source material, what needs to be recorded, which tools to use for the recording
  • make a clear scheme, listing who does what and when
  • take this very seriously and think this through (who is best suited to do what and within which timeframe).

You will receive comments on these pitches the week after submission, in a short meeting that will be organised for each group.

The videos should be posted on YouTube, and a link to the video submitted via Canvas.

Assessment criteria video
  1. clear introduction of challenge revealing solid knowledge about the EU policy area
  2. choice of audience and the communication strategy used
  3. your proposal, revealing a good understanding of the limits and possibilities of the EU in the concerning policy field
  4. ability to present a cohesive and convinced narrative in an audio-visual format

6.2 Exam material

All course material will be posted on canvas, or links will be provided to material from there.

6.3 Exam dates/deadlines

Assignment Deadline
Jigsaw segments Weeks 3,5,7,10,11,12,13. Draft before seminar, final submission Friday @ 17h
Close reading exercises Weeks 4,6,14. Submission before seminar
Book Review Week 8 (Friday 25 October 17h)
Panel debate preparation Week 9 (Friday 1 November 17h)
Video “pitch” Week 14 (Friday 12h)
Fishbowl preparation Week 15 (before session)
Video Week 16 (Friday 17h)
Table 1: Assignment deadlines

6.4 Assessment lengths and weighting

Assignment weight length (max)
Jigsaw segments P/F 600 words
Close reading exercises 20% 1000 words
Book Review 40% 2000 words
Video “pitch” P/F two pages
Panel debate preparation P/F two pages
Fishbowl preparation 20% two pages
Video 20% five minutes
Table 2: Assignment weights

P/F indicates submission is required (pass/fail), and the work will be read by instructors, but not graded.

Please stick to the maximum lengths mentioned (there is a ±10% margin). Submissions that go beyond the limits will be rejected and given a zero grade. The word count mentioned includes your bibliography.

6.5 General guidelines for submitting written work

To pass the course, you need to submit different pieces of work. The weighted average of all graded elements of the course needs to be above the passing grade (5,5 or higher). This means that the grade for one assignment can be compensated by the grade of another. All assignments, both graded and “P/F”, must be correctly submitted in canvas in order to pass the course. Please note the following requirements for the close reading exercise, the book review, and the panel debate preparation:

  • pdf format, A4, fully justified paragraphs, with single line spacing and page numbers identified.

  • the following information should be clearly marked on the front page of the submission:

    • student number(s)
    • course title and academic year
    • assignment name
    • date of actual submission (regardless of the deadline)
    • word count

  • the above requirements to not apply to other deliverables in the course (i.e. jigsaw submissions, video pitch, and video)

  • do not put your name on the front cover as we grade anonymously

  • cover pages are not included in the page counts above

  • all assignments are submitted via Canvas: documents and media submitted through email will be deleted

  • late submissions will be treated as failing, and then graded as resits at the end of the course

  • your documents should also be proofread. Work will be downgraded for language, spelling, and grammatical errors. Please double check before submitting

  • use correct referencing, according to academic standards. Make consistent use of one reference style (e.g. Chicago). Please use author-date referencing instead of using footnotes. Inconsistent referencing may result in downgrading. For more information: https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide/citation-guide-1.html

  • all written work should be made by the author/s. Suspicion of fraud or plagiarism will be reported the Board of Examiners and may result in expulsion from the course. Beware: the unacknowledged use of Chat GPT is also seen as plagiarism. See links to the UvA rules on fraud and plagiarism in the section below.

Test results lapse after the end of the semester in which the final mark was awarded. If a student does not complete a course that is a compulsory part of their degree programme in one semester, they will have to retake the course at a later opportunity.

7 Results

The results will be posted on Canvas no more than 15 working days after the exam (and at least five working days before the resit).

7.1 Feedback and inspection

Opportunities for feedback and inspection will be provided for all assignments after submission. As all assignments will be graded on Canvas, you will be able to see the grading and comments on the assignments there. You have the right to receive timely feedback on your submissions, which is provided to you as soon as possible, and at least five working days before the resit. Should you require further feedback, please do not hesitate to reach out to the course convenors.

7.2 Resit

The book review can be retaken when the grade is lower than 5,5. The other deliverables cannot be retaken. The deadline for retakes will be announced but will never be allowed to extend beyond the last working day in December. The department will not offer a new exam to students who miss an exam due to illness or other impediment. Resits are designed to provide for such circumstances. Resits are therefore not intended to always allow students two opportunities to sit an exam.

8 Fraud and plagiarism rules

The University of Amsterdam Fraud and Plagiarism regulations apply to the assessment of this course. These regulations can be consulted at the Plagiarism and Fraud page on the student website. Also take a look at the Academic integrity guide (pdf). See also the guidelines for generative artificial intelligence in education (pdf) for more information about tools such as ChatGPT.

9 Social safety

If you experience an unsafe situation or undesirable behaviour in this course or study programme, you can turn to the UvA Social Safety Support Guide for students.

10 Course overview by week

# Dates Lecture theme Seminar type, assignments
1

3-4 Sep

No lecture

No seminar
2

10-11 Sep

Introduction and group exercise

Introduction and exercise
3

17-18 Sep

Cultural, legal, and historical context (roundtable)

Jigsaw
4

24-25 Sep

Methods in EU studies

Close reading (practice)
5

1-2 Oct

Classical and mainstream theories of European Integration

Jigsaw
6

8-9 Oct

EU institutions, policymaking processes after Lisbon

Close reading
7

15-16 Oct

Critical approaches to EU integration

Jigsaw
8

22-23 Oct

No lecture

No seminar, book review
9

29-30 Oct

No lecture

No seminar, panel debate preparation
10

5-6 Nov

Legal perspectives (panel debate)

Jigsaw
11

13 Nov

Economic perspectives (panel debate)

Jigsaw
12

19-20 Nov

International perspectives (panel debate)

Jigsaw
13

27 Nov

Environmental/climate perspectives (panel debate)

Jigsaw
14

3-4 Dec

EU democracy under fire (panel debate)

Close reading, video pitch
15

11 Dec

Hopes for the future (fishbowl) and course evaluation

Group meetings: video pitch feedback
16

17-18 Dec

No lecture

No seminar, video
Table 3: Course overview by week

10.1 Readings per week

10.1.1 No lecture

3-4 Sep: No seminar

  • no seminars this week
  • familiarise yourself with the course manual, and start reading material from Section 2.1

10.1.2 Introduction and group exercise

10-11 Sep: Introduction and exercise

  • short group exercise, based on existing knowledge
  • scan through literature mentioned in Section 2.2

Reading suggestions:

  • John McCormick “Understanding the EU’s Policymaking Institutions,” in The Routledge Handbook of European Public Policy, ed. Nikolaos Zahariadis and Laurie Buonanno (Abingdon: Routledge, 2018), 199–207.
  • Paul James Cardwell “Governance as the Meeting Place of EU Law and Politics,” in Research Handbook on the Politics of EU Law (Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2020), 10–30, https://china.elgaronline.com/edcollchap/edcoll/9781788971270/9781788971270.00010.xml., and other chapters from this handbook
  • chapters from Mathieu Segers and Steven Van Hecke, eds. The Cambridge History of the European Union: Volume 1: European Integration Outside-In, vol. 1, The Cambridge History of the European Union (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2023), https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108780865. and Mathieu Segers and Steven Van Hecke, eds. The Cambridge History of the European Union: Volume 2: European Integration Inside-Out, vol. 2, The Cambridge History of the European Union (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2023), https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108781480.

10.1.3 Cultural, legal, and historical context (roundtable)

Roundtable speakers: Jan Orbie (www), Robin de Bruin (www),

Prepare draft jigsaw submission before the seminar, upload final version on Friday 17h

17-18 Sep: Jigsaw

  • Emmanuel Mourlon-Druol “Steering Europe: Explaining the Rise of the European Council, 1975–1986” Contemporary European History, 25, no. 3 (August 2016): 409–37, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0960777316000242.
  • Patrick Pasture “The EC/EU Between the Art of Forgetting and the Palimpsest of Empire” European Review, 26, no. 3 (July 2018): 545–81, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1062798718000224.
  • Kiran Klaus Patel “Bridging the Void: Social Justice in the History of the European Union,” in Social Justice in Twentieth-Century Europe, ed. Camilo Erlichman and Martin Conway (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2024), 245–66, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009370868.012.

10.1.4 Methods in EU studies

Submit your practice close reading exercise before the seminar

24-25 Sep: Close reading (practice)

  • lecocq2023?

Supplemental reading suggestions:

  • adler-nissen2016?
  • Amandine Crespy “Analysing European Discourses,” in Research Methods in European Union Studies, ed. Kennet Lynggaard, Ian Manners, and Karl Löfgren (London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2015), 102–20, https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137316967_7.
  • Annica Kronsell and Ian Manners “Single Policy Study: Three Variations in Design,” in Research Methods in European Union Studies, ed. Kennet Lynggaard, Ian Manners, and Karl Löfgren (London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2015), 86–101, https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137316967_6.

10.1.5 Classical and mainstream theories of European Integration

Prepare draft jigsaw submission before the seminar, upload final version on Friday 17h

1-2 Oct: Jigsaw

  • Jonathan B. Slapin “Bargaining Power at Europe’s Intergovernmental Conferences: Testing Institutional and Intergovernmental Theories” International Organization, 62, no. 1 (January 2008): 131–62, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818308080053.
  • Christine Reh “Pre-Cooking the European Constitution? The Role of Government Representatives in EU Reform” Journal of European Public Policy, 14, no. 8 (December 2007): 1186–1207, https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760701656411.
  • Andrew Moravcsik and Kalypso Nicolaidis “Explaining the Treaty of Amsterdam: Interests, Influence, Institutions” Journal of Common Market Studies, 37, no. 1 (March 1999): 59–85, https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5965.00150.

Supplemental reading suggestions:

  • Liesbet Hooghe and Gary Marks “The Neo-Functionalists Were (Almost) Right: Politicization and European Integration,” in The diversity of democracy, ed. Colin Crouch and Wolfgang Streeck (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, 2006), 205–22.

10.1.6 EU institutions, policymaking processes after Lisbon

Submit your close reading assignment before the seminar

8-9 Oct: Close reading

  • Sergio Fabbrini and Uwe Puetter “Integration Without Supranationalisation: Studying the Lead Roles of the European Council and the Council in Post-Lisbon EU Politics” Journal of European Integration, 38, no. 5 (July 28, 2016): 481–95, https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2016.1178254.

Supplemental reading suggestions:

  • Liesbet Hooghe and Gary Marks “Grand Theories of European Integration in the Twenty-First Century” Journal of European Public Policy, 26, no. 8 (August 3, 2019): 1113–33, https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2019.1569711.
  • pertinent chapters from Wallace, Pollack, and Young Policy-Making in the European Union.

10.1.7 Critical approaches to EU integration

Prepare draft jigsaw submission before the seminar, upload final version on Friday 17h

15-16 Oct: Jigsaw

  • Ian Manners and Richard Whitman “Another Theory Is Possible: Dissident Voices in Theorising Europe” Journal of Common Market Studies, 54, no. 1 (2016): 3–18, https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.12332.
  • Thomas Diez “Introduction: Towards a Critical Theorising of European Integration,” in The Routledge Handbook of Critical European Studies, ed. Didier Bigo et al., 1st ed. (London: Routledge, 2020), 15–20, https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429491306-102.
  • Maxine David et al. “Disrupting and Re-imagining European Studies: Towards a More Diverse and Inclusive Discipline” Journal of Contemporary European Research, 19, no. 2 (2023): 152–62, https://doi.org/10.30950/jcer.v19i2.1294.

Supplemental reading suggestions:

  • chapters from Bigo et al. The Routledge Handbook of Critical European Studies.

10.1.8 No lecture

Submit your book review by Friday @ 17h

22-23 Oct: No seminar, book review

10.1.9 No lecture

Submit your panel debate preparation assignment by Friday 17h

29-30 Oct: No seminar, panel debate preparation

10.1.10 Legal perspectives (panel debate)

Panel debate speakers: tbc

Prepare draft jigsaw submission before the seminar, upload final version on Friday 17h

5-6 Nov: Jigsaw

Literature (to be confirmed):

  • Nora Dörrenbächer “Europe at the Frontline: Analysing Street-Level Motivations for the Use of European Union Migration Law” Journal of European Public Policy, 24, no. 9 (September 24, 2017): 1328–47, https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2017.1314535.
  • Stefan Salomon and Jorrit Rijpma “A Europe Without Internal Frontiers: Challenging the Reintroduction of Border Controls in the Schengen Area in the Light of Union Citizenship” German law journal, 24, no. 2 (2023): 281–309, https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2021.60.
  • Sofia Vasilopoulou and Liisa Talving “Opportunity or Threat? Public Attitudes Towards EU Freedom of Movement” Journal of European public policy, 26, no. 6 (2019): 805–23, https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2018.1497075.

Supplemental reading suggestions:

  • Marija Bartl, Pola Cebulak, and Jessica C. Lawrence “Introduction to The Politics of European Legal Research,” in The Politics of European Legal Research : Behind the Method, ed. Jessica C. Lawrence and Marija Bartl (London, 2022), 1–13, https://www-elgaronline-com.proxy.uba.uva.nl/edcollchap/edcoll/9781802201185/9781802201185.00006.xml.
  • Antoine Vauchez Brokering Europe: Euro-Lawyers and the Making of a Transnational Polity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015), https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107326323.
  • William Phelan “European Legal Integration: Towards a More Liberal Intergovernmentalist Approach” Journal of common market studies, 56, no. 7 (2018): 1562–77, https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.12782.
  • other relevant chapters from Jessica C. Lawrence and Marija Bartl, eds. The Politics of European Legal Research : Behind the Method, Elgar Studies in Legal Research Methods (London: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2022).

10.1.11 Economic perspectives (panel debate)

Don’t forget the change of date and time for our panel debate (13 November 17-19h in PCH 1.04)!

Panel debate speakers: Clément Fontain (www), Jens van ’t Klooster (tbc)

Prepare draft jigsaw submission before the seminar, upload final version on Friday 17h

13 Nov: Jigsaw

Literature (to be confirmed):

  • Deirdre Curtin “’Accountable Independence’ of the European Central Bank: Seeing the Logics of Transparency” European law journal : review of European law in context, 23, no. 1–2 (2017): 28–44, https://doi.org/10.1111/eulj.12211.
  • Vivien A. Schmidt “Reinterpreting the Rules ‘by Stealth’ in Times of Crisis: A Discursive Institutionalist Analysis of the European Central Bank and the European Commission” West European Politics, 39, no. 5 (September 2, 2016): 1032–52, https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2016.1186389.
  • Seraina Grünewald and Jens Van ’t Klooster “New Strategy, New Accountability? The European Central Bank and the European Parliament After the Strategy Review” Common Market Law Review, 60, no. 4 (August 1, 2023): 959–98, https://kluwerlawonline.com/api/Product/CitationPDFURL?file=Journals\COLA\COLA2023071.pdf.

Supplemental reading suggestions:

  • rosamond2002a?

  • Amandine Crespy, Tiago Moreira Ramalho, and Vivien Schmidt “Beyond ‘Responsibility Vs. Responsiveness’: Reconfigurations of EU Economic Governance in Response to Crises” Journal of European Public Policy, 31, no. 4 (April 2, 2024): 925–49, https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2024.2316286.

  • R. Daniel Kelemen and Kathleen R. McNamara “State-Building and the European Union: Markets, War, and Europe’s Uneven Political Development” Comparative political studies, 55, no. 6 (2022): 963–91, https://doi.org/10.1177/00104140211047393.

  • Christopher J Bickerton “European Economic Integration and State Transformation,” in European Integration (Oxford University Press, 2012), 113–50, http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199606252.001.0001/acprof-9780199606252-chapter-5.

  • Arne Niemann and Demosthenes Ioannou “European Economic Integration in Times of Crisis: A Case of Neofunctionalism?” Journal of European Public Policy, 22, no. 2 (February 2015): 196–218, https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2014.994021.

  • Bastiaan van Apeldoorn, Jan Drahokoupil, and Laura Horn “Introduction: Towards a Critical Political Economy of European Governance,” in Contradictions and limits of neoliberal european governance : From lisbon to lisbon, ed. Bastiaan van Apeldoorn, Jan Drahokoupil, and Laura Horn (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009), 1–20, http://lccn.loc.gov/2008030652.

  • Sabine Saurugger and Clement Fontan “The Judicialisation of EMU Politics: Resistance to the EU’s New Economic Governance Mechanisms at the Domestic Level” European Journal of Political Research, 58, no. 4 (November 2019): 1066–87, https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12322.

10.1.12 International perspectives (panel debate)

Panel debate speakers: Maxine David (www), Senka

Prepare draft jigsaw submission before the seminar, upload final version on Friday 17h

19-20 Nov: Jigsaw

  • Maxine David and Tatiana Romanova “The EU in Russia’s House of Mirrors” JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 57, no. S1 (2019): 128–40, https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.12931.
  • Senka Neuman Stanivuković “Roads of Europe—On Infrastructural Time, Near, Distant, and Past Futures” Global Society, 37, no. 4 (October 2, 2023): 506–26, https://doi.org/10.1080/13600826.2023.2187764.
  • Tereza Hendl et al. “(En)Countering Epistemic Imperialism: A Critique of ‘Westsplaining’ and Coloniality in Dominant Debates on Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine” Contemporary Security Policy, 45, no. 2 (April 2, 2024): 171–209, https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2023.2288468.

Supplemental reading suggestions:

10.1.13 Environmental/climate perspectives (panel debate)

Don’t forget the change of date and time for our panel debate (27 November 17-19h in PCH 1.04)!

Panel debate speakers: Lisanne Groen (www), Matteo Fermeglia (www).

Prepare draft jigsaw submission before the seminar, upload final version on Friday 17h

27 Nov: Jigsaw

  • Maria Julia Trombetta “Linking Climate-Induced Migration and Security Within the EU: Insights from the Securitization Debate” Critical Studies on Security, 2, no. 2 (May 4, 2014): 131–47, https://doi.org/10.1080/21624887.2014.923699.
  • Matteo Fermeglia and Riccardo Luporini “’Urgenda-Style’ Strategic Climate Change Litigation in Italy: A Tale of Human Rights and Torts?” Chinese journal of environmental law, 7, no. 2 (2023): 245–60, https://doi.org/10.1163/24686042-12340108.
  • Sebastian Oberthür and Lisanne Groen “Hardening and Softening of Multilateral Climate Governance Towards the Paris Agreement” Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 22, no. 6 (November 1, 2020): 801–13, https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2020.1832882.

Supplemental reading suggestions:

10.1.14 EU democracy under fire (panel debate)

Panel debate speakers: to be confirmed

Submit your close reading assignment before the seminar; submit your video pitch by Friday 12h

3-4 Dec: Close reading, video pitch

Supplemental reading suggestions:

  • Erik O. Eriksen “Justifying Democracy in the European Union,” in The Routledge Handbook of Critical European Studies, ed. Didier Bigo et al., 1st ed. (Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY : Routledge, 2021.: Routledge, 2020), 34–46, https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429491306-2.
  • Claudia S. Sternberg “Political Legitimacy Between Democracy and Effectiveness: Trade-Offs, Interdependencies, and Discursive Constructions by the EU Institutions” European Political Science Review, 7, no. 4 (November 2015): 615–38, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773914000356.
  • Kalypso Nicolaïdis and Richard Youngs “Europe’s Democracy Trilemma” International Affairs, 90, no. 6 (2014): 1403–19, https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12176.
  • horeth2011a?

10.1.15 Hopes for the future (fishbowl) and course evaluation

Don’t forget the change of date and time for our final plenary session (December 11, 15-18h in BH F0.01)!

Submit your fishbowl preparation assignment before the session

11 Dec: Group meetings: video pitch feedback

  • literature from previous jigsaw sessions
  • your own selection of literature (from your assignment for this week)

Supplemental reading suggestions:

  • Pertinent chapters from Bigo et al. The Routledge Handbook of Critical European Studies. and Riddervold, Trondal, and Newsome The Palgrave Handbook of EU Crises.
  • Hartmut Behr “Technocracy and the Tragedy of EU Governance” Journal of Contemporary European Research, 17, no. 2 (May 25, 2021): 225–38, https://doi.org/10.30950/jcer.v17i2.1178.
  • Christian Kreuder-Sonnen “An Authoritarian Turn in Europe and European Studies?” Journal of European Public Policy, 25, no. 3 (March 4, 2018): 452–64, https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2017.1411383.
  • Mark Rhinard “The Crisisification of Policy-Making in the European Union” Journal of Common Market Studies, 57, no. 3 (May 2019): 616–33, https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.12838.

10.1.16 No lecture

17-18 Dec: No seminar, video

  • if you read this far, you can now relax!

11 Complete list of literature

Apeldoorn, Bastiaan van, Jan Drahokoupil, and Laura Horn. “Introduction: Towards a Critical Political Economy of European Governance.” In Contradictions and limits of neoliberal european governance : From lisbon to lisbon, edited by Bastiaan van Apeldoorn, Jan Drahokoupil, and Laura Horn, 1–20. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009. http://lccn.loc.gov/2008030652.
Bartl, Marija, Pola Cebulak, and Jessica C. Lawrence. “Introduction to The Politics of European Legal Research.” In The Politics of European Legal Research : Behind the Method, edited by Jessica C. Lawrence and Marija Bartl, 1–13. London, 2022. https://www-elgaronline-com.proxy.uba.uva.nl/edcollchap/edcoll/9781802201185/9781802201185.00006.xml.
Behr, Hartmut. “Technocracy and the Tragedy of EU Governance” Journal of Contemporary European Research, 17, no. 2 (May 25, 2021): 225–38. https://doi.org/10.30950/jcer.v17i2.1178.
Bickerton, Christopher J. “European Economic Integration and State Transformation.” In European Integration, 113–50. Oxford University Press, 2012. http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199606252.001.0001/acprof-9780199606252-chapter-5.
Bigo, Didier, Thomas Diez, Evangelos Fanoulis, Ben Rosamond, and Yannis A. Stivachtis, eds. The Routledge Handbook of Critical European Studies. London: Routledge, 2020. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429491306.
“Book Reviews.” The Writing Center • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Accessed April 8, 2024. https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/book-reviews/.
Cardwell, Paul James. “Governance as the Meeting Place of EU Law and Politics.” In Research Handbook on the Politics of EU Law, 10–30. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2020. https://china.elgaronline.com/edcollchap/edcoll/9781788971270/9781788971270.00010.xml.
Crespy, Amandine. “Analysing European Discourses.” In Research Methods in European Union Studies, edited by Kennet Lynggaard, Ian Manners, and Karl Löfgren, 102–20. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137316967_7.
Crespy, Amandine, Tiago Moreira Ramalho, and Vivien Schmidt. “Beyond ‘Responsibility Vs. Responsiveness’: Reconfigurations of EU Economic Governance in Response to Crises” Journal of European Public Policy, 31, no. 4 (April 2, 2024): 925–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2024.2316286.
Curtin, Deirdre. “’Accountable Independence’ of the European Central Bank: Seeing the Logics of Transparency” European law journal : review of European law in context, 23, no. 1–2 (2017): 28–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/eulj.12211.
David, Maxine, Maria Garcia, Toni Haastrup, and Frank Mattheis. “Disrupting and Re-imagining European Studies: Towards a More Diverse and Inclusive Discipline” Journal of Contemporary European Research, 19, no. 2 (2023): 152–62. https://doi.org/10.30950/jcer.v19i2.1294.
David, Maxine, and Tatiana Romanova. “The EU in Russia’s House of Mirrors” JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 57, no. S1 (2019): 128–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.12931.
Delreux, Tom, and Stephan Keukeleire. “Informal Division of Labour in EU Foreign Policy-Making” Journal of European Public Policy, 24, no. 10 (October 27, 2017): 1471–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2016.1216151.
Diez, Thomas. “Introduction: Towards a Critical Theorising of European Integration.” In The Routledge Handbook of Critical European Studies, edited by Didier Bigo, Thomas Diez, Evangelos Fanoulis, Ben Rosamond, and Yannis A. Stivachtis, 1st ed., 15–20. London: Routledge, 2020. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429491306-102.
Dörrenbächer, Nora. “Europe at the Frontline: Analysing Street-Level Motivations for the Use of European Union Migration Law” Journal of European Public Policy, 24, no. 9 (September 24, 2017): 1328–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2017.1314535.
Eriksen, Erik O. “Justifying Democracy in the European Union.” In The Routledge Handbook of Critical European Studies, edited by Didier Bigo, Thomas Diez, Evangelos Fanoulis, Ben Rosamond, and Yannis A. Stivachtis, 1st ed., 34–46. Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY : Routledge, 2021.: Routledge, 2020. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429491306-2.
Fabbrini, Sergio, and Uwe Puetter. “Integration Without Supranationalisation: Studying the Lead Roles of the European Council and the Council in Post-Lisbon EU Politics” Journal of European Integration, 38, no. 5 (July 28, 2016): 481–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2016.1178254.
Fermeglia, Matteo, and Riccardo Luporini. “’Urgenda-Style’ Strategic Climate Change Litigation in Italy: A Tale of Human Rights and Torts?” Chinese journal of environmental law, 7, no. 2 (2023): 245–60. https://doi.org/10.1163/24686042-12340108.
Grünewald, Seraina, and Jens Van ’t Klooster. “New Strategy, New Accountability? The European Central Bank and the European Parliament After the Strategy Review” Common Market Law Review, 60, no. 4 (August 1, 2023): 959–98. https://kluwerlawonline.com/api/Product/CitationPDFURL?file=Journals\COLA\COLA2023071.pdf.
Hendl, Tereza, Olga Burlyuk, Mila O’Sullivan, and Aizada Arystanbek. “(En)Countering Epistemic Imperialism: A Critique of ‘Westsplaining’ and Coloniality in Dominant Debates on Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine” Contemporary Security Policy, 45, no. 2 (April 2, 2024): 171–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2023.2288468.
Heyd, Michael. “How to Write a Book Review–and Why You Should” Journal of Hospital Librarianship, 17, no. 4 (October 2, 2017): 349–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/15323269.2017.1366783.
Hix, Simon, and Bjørn Høyland. The Political System of the European Union. 3rd ed. The European Union Series. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011.
Hooghe, Liesbet, and Gary Marks. “Grand Theories of European Integration in the Twenty-First Century” Journal of European Public Policy, 26, no. 8 (August 3, 2019): 1113–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2019.1569711.
———. “The Neo-Functionalists Were (Almost) Right: Politicization and European Integration.” In The diversity of democracy, edited by Colin Crouch and Wolfgang Streeck, 205–22. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, 2006.
Jørgensen, Knud Erik, Mark Pollack, and Ben Rosamond, eds. Handbook of European Union Politics. London: SAGE Publications Ltd, 2006. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848607903.
Kelemen, R. Daniel, and Kathleen R. McNamara. “State-Building and the European Union: Markets, War, and Europe’s Uneven Political Development” Comparative political studies, 55, no. 6 (2022): 963–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/00104140211047393.
Kreuder-Sonnen, Christian. “An Authoritarian Turn in Europe and European Studies?” Journal of European Public Policy, 25, no. 3 (March 4, 2018): 452–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2017.1411383.
Kronsell, Annica, and Ian Manners. “Single Policy Study: Three Variations in Design.” In Research Methods in European Union Studies, edited by Kennet Lynggaard, Ian Manners, and Karl Löfgren, 86–101. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137316967_6.
Lawrence, Jessica C., and Marija Bartl, eds. The Politics of European Legal Research : Behind the Method. Elgar Studies in Legal Research Methods. London: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2022.
Leruth, Benjamin, Stefan Gänzle, and Jarle Trondal. The Routledge Handbook of Differentiation in the European Union. Routledge International Handbooks. New York: Routledge, 2022. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429054136.
Lynggaard, Kennet, Ian Manners, and Karl Löfgren, eds. Research Methods in European Union Studies. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137316967.
Manners, Ian, and Richard Whitman. “Another Theory Is Possible: Dissident Voices in Theorising Europe” Journal of Common Market Studies, 54, no. 1 (2016): 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.12332.
McCormick, John. “Understanding the EU’s Policymaking Institutions.” In The Routledge Handbook of European Public Policy, edited by Nikolaos Zahariadis and Laurie Buonanno, 199–207. Abingdon: Routledge, 2018.
Middelaar, Luuk van. The Passage to Europe: How a Continent Became a Union. 1st ed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2013. https://doi.org/10.12987/9780300195408.
Moravcsik, Andrew, and Kalypso Nicolaidis. “Explaining the Treaty of Amsterdam: Interests, Influence, Institutions” Journal of Common Market Studies, 37, no. 1 (March 1999): 59–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5965.00150.
Mourlon-Druol, Emmanuel. “Steering Europe: Explaining the Rise of the European Council, 1975–1986” Contemporary European History, 25, no. 3 (August 2016): 409–37. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0960777316000242.
Neuman Stanivuković, Senka. “Roads of Europe—On Infrastructural Time, Near, Distant, and Past Futures” Global Society, 37, no. 4 (October 2, 2023): 506–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600826.2023.2187764.
Nicolaïdis, Kalypso, and Richard Youngs. “Europe’s Democracy Trilemma” International Affairs, 90, no. 6 (2014): 1403–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12176.
Niemann, Arne, and Demosthenes Ioannou. “European Economic Integration in Times of Crisis: A Case of Neofunctionalism?” Journal of European Public Policy, 22, no. 2 (February 2015): 196–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2014.994021.
Oberthür, Sebastian, and Lisanne Groen. “Hardening and Softening of Multilateral Climate Governance Towards the Paris Agreement” Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 22, no. 6 (November 1, 2020): 801–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2020.1832882.
Pasture, Patrick. “The EC/EU Between the Art of Forgetting and the Palimpsest of Empire” European Review, 26, no. 3 (July 2018): 545–81. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1062798718000224.
Patel, Kiran Klaus. “Bridging the Void: Social Justice in the History of the European Union.” In Social Justice in Twentieth-Century Europe, edited by Camilo Erlichman and Martin Conway, 245–66. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009370868.012.
———. Project Europe: A History. 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108848893.
Peeters, Marjan. “EU Climate Law: Largely Uncharted Legal Territory” Climate Law, 9, no. 1–2 (April 27, 2019): 137–47. https://doi.org/10.1163/18786561-00901008.
Phelan, William. “European Legal Integration: Towards a More Liberal Intergovernmentalist Approach” Journal of common market studies, 56, no. 7 (2018): 1562–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.12782.
Reh, Christine. “Pre-Cooking the European Constitution? The Role of Government Representatives in EU Reform” Journal of European Public Policy, 14, no. 8 (December 2007): 1186–1207. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760701656411.
Rhinard, Mark. “The Crisisification of Policy-Making in the European Union” Journal of Common Market Studies, 57, no. 3 (May 2019): 616–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.12838.
Riddervold, Marianne, Jarle Trondal, and Akasemi Newsome, eds. The Palgrave Handbook of EU Crises. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2021. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-51791-5.
Rosamond, Ben. Theories of European Integration. London: Macmillan Press, 2000.
Salomon, Stefan, and Jorrit Rijpma. “A Europe Without Internal Frontiers: Challenging the Reintroduction of Border Controls in the Schengen Area in the Light of Union Citizenship” German law journal, 24, no. 2 (2023): 281–309. https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2021.60.
Saurugger, Sabine, and Clement Fontan. “The Judicialisation of EMU Politics: Resistance to the EU’s New Economic Governance Mechanisms at the Domestic Level” European Journal of Political Research, 58, no. 4 (November 2019): 1066–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12322.
Schmidt, Vivien A. “Democracy and Legitimacy in the European Union Revisited: Input, Output and ‘Throughput’” Political Studies, 61, no. 1 (March 2013): 2–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2012.00962.x.
———. “Reinterpreting the Rules ‘by Stealth’ in Times of Crisis: A Discursive Institutionalist Analysis of the European Central Bank and the European Commission” West European Politics, 39, no. 5 (September 2, 2016): 1032–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2016.1186389.
Segers, Mathieu, and Steven Van Hecke, eds. The Cambridge History of the European Union: Volume 1: European Integration Outside-In. Vol. 1. The Cambridge History of the European Union. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108780865.
———, eds. The Cambridge History of the European Union: Volume 2: European Integration Inside-Out. Vol. 2. The Cambridge History of the European Union. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108781480.
Slapin, Jonathan B. “Bargaining Power at Europe’s Intergovernmental Conferences: Testing Institutional and Intergovernmental Theories” International Organization, 62, no. 1 (January 2008): 131–62. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818308080053.
Sternberg, Claudia S. “Political Legitimacy Between Democracy and Effectiveness: Trade-Offs, Interdependencies, and Discursive Constructions by the EU Institutions” European Political Science Review, 7, no. 4 (November 2015): 615–38. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773914000356.
Trombetta, Maria Julia. “Linking Climate-Induced Migration and Security Within the EU: Insights from the Securitization Debate” Critical Studies on Security, 2, no. 2 (May 4, 2014): 131–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/21624887.2014.923699.
Vasilopoulou, Sofia, and Liisa Talving. “Opportunity or Threat? Public Attitudes Towards EU Freedom of Movement” Journal of European public policy, 26, no. 6 (2019): 805–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2018.1497075.
Vauchez, Antoine. Brokering Europe: Euro-Lawyers and the Making of a Transnational Polity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107326323.
Wallace, Helen, Mark A. Pollack, and Alasdair R. Young. Policy-Making in the European Union. Seventh edition. The New European Union Series. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2015.
Zahariadis, Nikolaos, and Laurie Buonanno, eds. The Routledge Handbook of European Public Policy. London: Routledge, 2018. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315682723.
Ziegler, Katja S., Päivi J. Neuvonen, and Violeta Moreno Lax. Research Handbook on General Principles in EU Law : Constructing Legal Orders in Europe. Research Handbooks in European Law. Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2022. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781784712389.
Zvargulis, Alex R. “How to Write an Academic Book Review.” San José State University Writing Center, Spring 2021. https://www.sjsu.edu/writingcenter/docs/handouts/Academic%20Book%20Reviews.V2.pdf.

Citation

BibTeX citation:
@online{shahin2025,
  author = {Shahin, Jamal and Vos, Claske},
  title = {Cultures of {European} {Governance}},
  date = {2025-06-15},
  langid = {en}
}
For attribution, please cite this work as:
Shahin, Jamal, and Claske Vos. “Cultures of European Governance,” June 15, 2025.