The European Union () has been proactive in environmental protection and conservation within and outside Europe. However, among various policy realms, the most severe non-compliance by the member states exists in the realm of environmental protection and conservation. In this policy realm, nature protection and biodiversity conservation constitute the largest portion of non-compliance by the member states. In addition, in this policy area, development of common rules entailing transfer of member states competence has been obstructed continuously. This phenomenon contradicts with an existing potent theoretical account that stresses the importance of the demand for a single common rule at the level from non-state actors, and autonomous activities of supranational organizations seeking to attain transfer of member states competence at the level. The theory emphasizes that this collaboration between non-state actors and supranational organization will activate both negative and positive integration in a sustained fashion. Yet it focuses primarily on the cases of negative integration, including deregulation and market liberalization. Although we can observe that apparently quite similar factors have worked in the case of nature and biodiversity policy, this policy area has not experienced transfer of member states competence. This article addresses why and how this has happened and provides implications contributing to theorization of positive integration.
This article traces initiation, adoption, implementation, and enforcement processes of the 1979 Birds Directive and the 1992 Habitats Directive, the common rules constituting the core of nature and biodiversity policy. The analysis of these two directives reveals the limitations of the existing theoretical framework primarily concerned with negative integration. Although the Birds and Habitats Directives were both initiated by supranational organizations in response to the strong pressures from citizens and environmental organizations, due to the distributional conflicts among the member states, the Commission was unable to play a role as policy entrepreneur. Again, responding to the demand from environmental organizations, supranational organizations, especially the European Court of Justice, enforced the Birds and Habitats Directives against the member states from the perspective of strict environmental protection. Yet this aroused oppositions from the member states and led to the revision of the common rules on nature and biodiversity, thus hindering transfer of member states competence. This strict enforcement has reinforced the confrontation between environmental interests represented by environmental organizations and supranational organizations, and economic interests supported by the member states and firms, thus further obstructing transfer of member states competence.

抄録全体を表示

　Securing the connection to power transmission and distribution networks and promoting new entries into the electricity market are crucial for the rapid expansion of renewable energy sources （RES）. The

’s energy policies guarantee the connection to power transmission and distribution networks and entry into the electricity market for RES in order to increase the amount of RES in countries.

　The priority measures for RES are especially important. However, there are two technical terms that describe priority measures. Firstly, “Priority Access” mentioned in the Renewable Energy Directive in 2001 （Directive 2001/77/EC） and secondly, “Priority Connection” as described in the RES Directive in 2009 （Directive 2009/28/EC）.

　This article examines what the two technical terms mean in relation to the development of the concept of priority measures in the RES Directives in 2001 and 2009.

　Three procedures of Priority Access were established in Directive 2001/77/EC: 1） priority connecting to the grid, 2） priority access to the electricity markets and 3） priority access in case of congestion. Thus, Priority Access in Directive 2001/77/EC included not only access to the market but also the concept of grid connection.

　The concepts of priority measures were adjusted in the RES Directive in 2009. Priority Access in Directive 2009/28/EC means that access to electricity markets is ensured under the premise that the RES is connected to the grid. Furthermore, it involves technical constraints of the system and the Priority Dispatch of RES based on the Merit Order from the Internal Market in Electricity Directive in 2003 （Directive 2003/54/EC）. On the other hand, Priority Connection in Directive 2009/ 28/EC indicates a “physical connection” to the grid based on the premise that the RES is not connected to the grid.

　The conclusion of this discussion is that the clarification of the concepts of priority measures would help to establish an environment in which the use of RES can be maximized. It is helpful to take the technical constraints and economic precedence into consideration when making policies for the expansion of RES and forming the single energy market.

　Moreover, the development of priority measures is important to realize the four objectives in the energy sector mentioned in Article 194 of the Lisbon Treaty and achieving a low-carbon society.

抄録全体を表示

European countries started integration of company law from the 1960s. European countries groped for the system which be able to get country agree, aiming at unifying company law. In recent years, in order to correspond to change of environment, such as development of an information technology, and generating of a financial crisis, European Union focuses on corporate governance and is carrying out company law reform.
This paper focuses on an argument until it catches the integrative company law which is the foundation of the corporate governance in today’s European Union. First, this paper considers confrontation between the member states produced in the arguments from 1960 to 1990 which aimed at establishment of company law of unific European countries. This paper shows clearly that European countries next shifted the system of the member states into the harmonizing plan by the arguments from 1990 to 2000 which it aimed at establishing an alternative system. Furthermore, this paper clarifies having shifted the plan into integration of corporate governance and having carried forward the step to a new stage by reform in and after 2000 when the Societas Europaea was born in Europe.
Integration of the company law system in the European Union is the result to which the 1960s which tried unification of the corporate system to 30 years were applied and which was constructed as a system where it can agree. This result will surely have the power of overcoming the monetary crisis of these days. Furthermore, European Union is gazing at formation of the previously more detailed company law system. This experience of European Union has a possibility of forming the standard in the world, as an example of a success of the advanced experiment which unifies a regional company law system. This paper analyzes the company law institutional reform over this honest long period of time.
Then the mission of Europe as an integrated area and a battle of right protection of a member nation are caught systematically.
This paper has the novelty of arguing how the corporate institutional reform in European Union is utilized in the future reform.

抄録全体を表示

In February 2016, European Council agreed upon the Special Decision for the UK, which would hold BREXIT referendum. The content of the decision would become a disadvantage for Eastern European countries and violate

citizens’ equality criteria. Why did Eastern European countries tolerate? Why did not other Western European countries dispute this content? In order to account for these questions, I explore the logic of bargaining dynamics that bridges the issues of internal migration and transnational posted workers.

Main discussion materials are the political process of two

directive drafts. The preferences of major political parties of UK, France, Germany and Poland are examined mainly on the results of voting behaviors at the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers. As a result, the following (A) and (B) are presented, along with the logic of bargaining mechanics that stretchily affected the Special Decision in February 2016.

(A) Regarding the Eastern European countries, UK Conservative government, while giving losses in terms of internal migration, tried to give benefits in terms of transnational posted workers. On the other hand, French Socialist government, to the Eastern countries, while giving losses in terms of transnational posted workers, tried to guarantee benefits in terms of internal migration. The strategies to the Eastern countries by both UK and French governments, despite their opposite composition, were common in terms of protectionism of their own country. UK Conservative Party, in collaboration with the Eastern European countries, have opposed to the “posted workers directive” which had been strongly desired by French Socialist Party from the viewpoint of French own protectionism, however, eventually UK Conservatives turned to agree and realize French Socialists’ hope. As a return of this, French Socialist government has tolerated the UK requirements including justification of discriminatory measures against

internal immigrants in February 2016 Special Decision.

(B) In the process of negotiating “posted workers directive”, the Polish Tusk government, originally in cooperation with UK Conservative party, betrayed UK and ultimately sided with French Socialist Government. The reason for this was that the French Government gave a promise to establish the “Immigrants’ rights promotion directive”. It would be beneficial to Poland, however, had uncertainty in establishment. The reason why Poland, one of Eastern European countries, accepted UK requirements in February 2016 Special Decision can be understood as a price of betrayal against UK Conservative Party during the negotiation process above mentioned.

抄録全体を表示

This article focuses upon the concepts of ‘services of general economic interest (SGEI)’ or ‘services of general interest (SGI)’, which correspond to public services in the , then, investigates the policy-making process of so-called ‘Services directive’. In that process, political actors debated about pros and cons of application of ‘country of origin’ principle to SGEI or SGI.
Through this investigation, I observe that once the key committee (Internal market and consumer protection) in the European Parliament (=EP) approved application of ‘country of origin’ principle to SGEI, however, about 3 months later, at the crucial voting stage of EP plenary session, the application was substantially watered down by compromise between the center-right (EPP-ED) and the center-left (PSE) EP parties. This compromise was largely produced by the formation of new national coalition government in Germany. Because of this conversion, the attempted radical introduction of market mechanism into SGEI or SGI through ‘Services directive’ was definitely avoided.
As for the constellation of political conflict about public services in the , I find three points. Firstly, conventional confrontation between left and right is significantly formed at economic policy dimension as the cleavage between the center-right and the center-left EP parties. Mainly, as confirmed by consistency of Evelyne Gebhardt's protectionist approach to SGEI or SGI, the positive differentiation by PSE against EPP-ED brings about this cleavage. However, EPP-ED also intensified the cleavage when it aligned with Liberal party at the voting stage of the key committee in the EP.
Second, some national political parties' positions expected by their affiliated EP parties are distorted by their domestic condition. On the one hand, national center-left parties from United Kingdom, Spain, Hungary, and the other center and eastern new member states, hoped application of ‘country of origin’ principle to SGEI or SGI. On the contrary, UMP, French center right party supported Gebhardt's protectionist approach very positively, and sudden conversion of German CDU caused by the formation of national coalition government with SPD can be included in this kind of distortion.
Thirdly, there is ‘east-west’ cleavage between new and old member states. Especially, regardless of their affiliated national parties between center-left and center-right, most deputies from center and eastern new member states were at heart eager for the application of ‘country of origin’ principle to SGEI or SGI, which were opposed, for example, by French political parties, irrespective of center-left or center-right.

抄録全体を表示

In recent decades, human rights law has assumed increasing relevance to international refugee law, including defining the eligibility for refugees. Although refugee law and human rights law developed separately to establish different protection frameworks, these two laws apparently overlap in that human rights violations can lead to becoming a refugee, and refugees have human rights. While widely acknowledged as a necessity of the human rights-based approach to refugees, there has been a long debate on how to use and incorporate human rights law into international refugee law. The

has endorsed the approach of incorporating human rights law into international refugee law in the Asylum Qualification Directive （QD）, by introducing two forms of international protection: refugee status under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status Refugees and its 1967 Protocol （Refugee Convention） and subsidiary protection status under mainly the European Convention of Human Rights （ECHR） and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. This article examines how human rights law interplays with international refugee law in the QD （Directive 2011/95/）, referring to the commentaries of the QD and the Refugee Convention, and the relevant cases from the Court of ECHR and the Court of Justice of the European Union. Firstly it explains the QD relationship to the Refugee Convention and human rights treaties. Secondly, it takes up Article 9 of the QD as a substantive example of how these two laws interplay in the refugee qualification, since the element of acts of persecution is the core qualification of refugees, which is not stipulated in the Refugee Convention but in Article 9 where details of acts of well-founded fear of persecution using the human rights are indexed. This article concludes by pointing out what the implications in effect or meaning of defining refugees by human rights law are in the asylum law, and how the possibility of enhancing the concept of ‘right of asylum’ could be derived, depending on how far human rights law could be incorporated in the qualification of refugees: the success of which would support the current theory of international refugee law perceived as reconstructing refugee law as a part of human rights law.

抄録全体を表示

This paper presents a legal study of M & A between the energy enterprises in the European Union. Generally, the national interest is negative in the internal market, but toward the liberalization of European Energy Market in 2007, we can find some conflicts between the national interests, namely “Patriotisme economique”, for example the M & A for Suez (France). We study that the fundamental freedom of laws, —free circulation of capitals and freedom of establishment—, has a certain effect on such conflicts between the member states.
In the merger plan between Suez and Gaz de France (GDF), there is two points at issue: the European concurrence law and the fundamental freedom of EC treaty. For the first point, the Commission approved their merger plan on November 14, 2006 after examination by merger regulation (Regulation 139/2004). For the second point, the French Decret No. 2005-1739 has an indirect influence on their merger plan.
This paper analyzes the legal system by the points of M & A. Against the national interest in the internal market, we have the merger regulation (139/2004), the take over bids directive (2005/56/EC) and the European Company regulation (2157/2004) etc., and also many case laws of the European Court of Justice (ECJ).
The first part explains the harmonization of the practice of take over bids in the members states and the transposition of the directive 2005/56/EC in France, where is the scene of merger between of Suez and GDF. This directive regulates the practice of take over bids in the position of liberalism, but the article 12 of this directive gives the reciprocity for the defense against take over bids. In consequence the member states could be protectionist. France has chosen this article 12 and can protect French national company from the menace of take over bids by foreign investors and/or companies.
The second part analyzes the case laws of ECJ concerning Free circulation of capitals and Freedom of establishment. If the specific shares (Golden Shares) are issued for the defense against take over bids, it seems to violate Free circulation of capitals (Art. 56 EC) and Freedom of establishment (Art. 43 EC). On June 4, 2002, ECJ pronounced that the French case (C-438/99) and the Portuguese case (C-367/98) violated the fundamental freedom of EC treaty, but the Belgian case (C-503/99) was justified by the clear criteria of objection. On June 2, 2005, ECJ pronounced that the Italian national law limiting the voting right for certain foreign shareholders of energy company, violated the free circulation of capitals (C-174/04).
In conclusion, this paper states that the question of national interest remains to be solved in the European energy politics and the M & A for national company. The common interest in the Community should continuously be pursued by 27 member states of , including Bulgaria and Romania.

抄録全体を表示

The EEC's first banking directive (77/780/EEC) established the authorization system for credit institutions in each member state in 1977. Twelve years later, the single authorization system and the home country control were adopted through the second banking directive (89/646/EEC). In the financial services sector, the integration of a single market has made great strides forward.
The universal banking model which the adopted came from the German banking system, however such a system had never existed in France until 1984. The German banking system has served as a basis for the regulatory structure of the common market of the . Under the influence of this system in neighboring countries, the French banking system underwent various reforms. The universal banking system was introduced by the Banking Act of 24 January 1984.
In the 1990s, each member state liberalized their financial services markets and brought on competition in an open-market system under a single currency, the euro. The regulatory harmonization of the financial services market was further brought to fruition via the Financial Services Action Plan (FSAP).
Despite freer competition and many examples of state enterprises being privatized, there still appears to be low competition from outside players in each domestic market, which is confirmed by an Commission report which showed that cross-border M & A activity is still very low.
This report suggests that measures up to now, such as single-nationality or regulatory harmonization may not be enough to spur cross-border competition. Further policies that encourage freer competition across the may be needed. For example, one area in need of improvement may be changing policies that continue to allow local governments to protect and favor their regions' public or legal institutions. Private institutions have long protested against such protectionism.
In Germany, as a result, the guarantees for the saving banks (Sparkasse) and its central institutions (Landesbank) from their public owner were abolished in July of 2005. In France some parts of the largest state-owned credit institution, CDC, were separated and privatized, leading the savings bank division, known as Caisses d'épargne, to be spun out as a cooperative bank.
From the viewpoint of the traditional German economic model, which is known as “Soziale Marktwirtschaft” (social market economy), the privatization of state-owned institutions might be interpreted as the demise of Germany's long-held social market economy. However, there is still great inheritance in many of the member countries under such privatization moves. These cases on Germany and France in give some suggestions to the recent economic policies in Japan under the globalization.

抄録全体を表示

One of the measures for the maritime accidents such as collision or running aground of tankers is to accommodate the ship in distress, as early as possible, into a sheltered or protected place in the best possible condition and transfer her cargo and fuel oil to the other ship or facility in order to prevent or mitigate the environmental damage. The place where a ship in distress should be accommodated is called “place of refuge.”
As the framework of place of refuge, IMO (International Maritime Organization) Guidelines on Places of Refuge for Ships in Need of Assistance (Res. A. 949(23)) was adopted, on the international level, subsequently to the directive establishing a Community vessel traffic monitoring and information system (2002/59/EC) within the . Both of them haven't stipulated the obligation or the principle to accommodate a ship in distress to a place of refuge.
Following the tanker “Prestige” accident off the Spanish coast in November 2002, the Commission proposed the amendment of the directive to introduce two principles in November 2005, in order to ensure a harmonized and effective implementation of the place of refuge and clarify the scope of obligations incumbent on the Member States. The first is that a ship in distress must be accommodated in a place of refuge, subject to the result of an assessment of the situation, and the second is the requirement for the Member States to set up “an independent competent authority” with which is replaced the present provision “a competent authority” to assess the situation and take a decision, in good time and free from political pressure, for the accommodation of a ship in distress. The amendment is more ambitious than the present IMO guidelines.
The proposal has been under consideration by the Parliament and the Council within the framework of the co-decision procedure since the transmission by the Commission. There is a big difference between the institutions: the Parliament basically supports the amendment proposed by the Commission but the Council is less enthusiastic on it and those arouse the interest in carrying out research on the measure for maritime accidents. The present paper examines the significance and the problem of the amendment proposal, especially from the viewpoints of the two principles above, through the positions expressed by both these institutions.

抄録全体を表示

This article touches on the relationship between policy of the and that of the member state. There is a research area of “Europeanization” as one of preceding researches analyzing relations between the and the member states. In this research area, some scholars who study domestic impact of Europeanization often use the integrated approach used within the International Relations study and the Comparative Politics. This approach should be welcomed, because the is not treated as a research object sui generis, but more general one by using the approach.
However, there are some problems to be solved in the arguments that preceding researches have developed. Firstly, it remains to be unsolved whether independent/dependent variables can be set up clearly in analyzing the relations between the and the member states. Secondly, the word “Europeanization” is broad and what “Europeanization” means depends on time and issues. So, in this article, policies of the and the member states are analyzed by focusing on the issue in case of telecommunications sector.
As for the telecommunications sector, telegraph and telephone were exclusively controlled and managed by the state. However, in the 1970s and the 1980s, telecommunications sector was internationalized due to the technological innovation related to the electric communication, and it became possible to provide new services. New and strategic services had emerged from the PTT sector which was originally controlled by the states, so each member state had to tackle with both new service area and traditional ones such as telegraph, voice telephony, and network infrastructures.
From the latter half of the 1980s until 1992, the EC did have discretion to make policies only related to new service sectors. Member states had discretion in the area of voice telephony, network infrastructures. As far as policies that were suggested by the EC level concerned the actors engaged in the PTT sector in the member states, member states approved and enforced the policy of the EC. It was after 1992 that EC started to liberalize the traditional service areas related to telephone and infrastructure. Member states agreed to the EC's plan because they came to notice that they had to reform traditional service sector to develop new service sector. However, this did not show that all of the actors in the member states agree with the reforms. Member states faced difficulty to implement the reforms due to the resistance of the domestic actors, especially labor unions that had many privileges in the traditional service sector.
The research agenda that tries to apply the knowledge of the to the general considerations can contribute to the various arguments we can see today, because such considerations will give us some frameworks to analyze the relationship between international organization/institution and its members. It is urgent necessary for us who are studying the from the outside to provide a framework so that we can use the findings from the for the general considerations. The approach used in this paper will be a help.

抄録全体を表示

　This article deals with a case where the discretionary power of the host country’s authority on the M&A of banks has been restricted by the amendment of the provisions on the qualifying holdings of the

Banking directive.

　Previous research on the harmonization of

bank regulations has focused on the fact that the European Commission and Member States have promoted regulatory harmonization and that Member States with different banking systems have conflicted or compromised over harmonization of regulations, but it is often outside the analysis that not only the European Commission and Member States but also banks are interested in harmonizing the banking system and are trying to promote harmonization of banking regulation. Therefore, the author’s aim is to focus on the large banks as well as the European Commission and Member States as important actors in harmonizing the banking regulation.

　This paper uses the “assessing the degree of preference attainment” approach in “interest group theory” which is a related field of policy process theory. Then, to compare the preferences of each actor （the European Commission, member countries, large banks and small and medium size banks） with the consequences of regulatory changes. The Second Banking Directive （1989） granted discretionary powers to the host country regarding the review of the bank merger by the article on qualifying holdings. At that time this was consistent with preferences of banks and Member States who had been seeking protection and the development of domestic banks. In contrast, since the end of the 1990s, large banks in the

have tried to internationalize through cross-border M&A. As a result, host country intervention is regarded as a barrier to entry and the preference of large banks has shifted to restricting the authority to examine qualifying holdings by host countries. The preference of such a large bank was rather consistent with that of the European Commission. Finally, along with the preferences of the major banks and the European Commission, the Banking Directive was revised in 2007 resulting in the review authority of the Member States being largely restricted. This paper concludes that harmonization of bank regulation in the has been realized in the form of restricting the examiner’s authority to exercise large share holdings by host countries as a result of the interaction between the management strategy of the large bank and the policy of the European Commission.

抄録全体を表示

In a prolonged economic crisis, failure of multiculturalism has been repeatedly argued in Europe, and this perception of failure has been reinforced by the intermittent upsurge of international terrorism during the past decade. In this context, the emergence of civic integration policy has been often argued as a proof of European retreats from multiculturalism. This “civic integration” which requires immigrants to integrate into host society spread rapidly across European countries as a new policy model, and was also exported to the

by several Member States. This “Europeanization” of civic integration has often interpreted and criticized as a typical example of “uploading” effort of control-minded national governments to legitimize their restrictive domestic policies.

In this article, I intend to modify this intergovernmental interpretation on the diffusion of the civic integration model by conducting two sets of case analyses in two different levels. Firstly, in domestic level, political processes on the adoption of civic integration in the Netherlands and those in Germany will be comparatively analysed. Compared to the Dutch case where a rise of far-right party and a politicization of immigrant issues at the beginning of 2000s pushed a deep transformation of immigrant integration politics and policy, an introduction of German civic integration was led by left wing Red-Green government without strong influence of far right party. This article argues that the difference in party politics constellation between two countries generated a subtle divergence in nature of their civic integration, from liberal to restrictive.

Secondly, in European level, this article assesses how European institutions have reacted to the insertion of civic integration into the

. Despite the ’s lack of strong formal competence, the European Commission and the CJEU has gradually limited discretions of Member States to take restrictive measures in immigrant integration policy. On the one hand, the CJEU has reduced national margin of discretions by issuing a series of judgements. On the other hand, the European Commission has invited national governments not to take excessively restrictive measures by actively exploiting the court’s Jurisprudence. As a result, the European institutions have gradually defined a possible range of civic integration by cutting down room for restrictive policy.

From those two observations, this article argues a limitation of intergovernmental understanding on the European convergence towards civic integration policy.

抄録全体を表示

This paper examines the forms and roles of stakeholder involvement and public participation in the environmental governance.
The Commission adopted the White Paper on European Governance in 2001. It concerns the way in which the Union uses the powers given by its citizens because the Union is often seen as remote and at the same time too intrusive. The White Paper, therefore, proposed “Better involvement”, “Better policies, regulation and delivery”, “The 's contribution to global governance” and “Refocused policies and institutions”, and defined five principles underlying European governance of openness, participation, accountability, effectiveness and coherence.
On the other hand, the “participation” is one of the indispensable conditions in the sustainable development as Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration defines “Environmental issues are best handled with the participation of all concerned citizens, at the relevant level”. It is recognized that the environmental policy has been legitimized by the policy effectiveness since its beginning and later required the democratic procedures which strengthen democracy and also ensure efficient policy implementations.
The has adopted a lot of directives including provisions on public participation, e. g. the EIA directive. And the Commission adopted legislative instruments in order to apply the Århus Convention-access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters-to the European Community institutions and bodies, e. g. “general principles and minimum standards for the consultation of interested parties”. The opens up the policy-making process to get more people and organizations involved in shaping and delivering it's policy. However, it is to be understood that the institutions and bodies remain the decision-making authority and the representative democracy is essential in the political systems.
These systems and measures seem to institutionalize the “deliberation” in the environmental policy process, which allows for the information provided by those concerned and their views to be taken into account at the earliest possible stage in the political decision-making process and is believed to contribute to solve the problems mentioned in the White Paper. The successful environmental policy needs the interaction and partnership among all levels and all sectors with democratic process. The deliberative arrangements cannot always lead to the ecologically rational policy output, but the deliberation is expected to play an important role in the democratic legitimacy of environmental policy.

抄録全体を表示