Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T03:51:57.118Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Expansion of Closer Cooperation as Contra-Indication to the Idea of European Integration: A Critique of Joschka Fischer's Speech and Giuliano Amato's Comment Thereon

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Timo Tohidipur

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

[1] In his speech at the Humboldt University in Berlin, 12 May 2000, Joschka Fischer described the expansion of “reinforced cooperation” as a necessary first stage to Europe's further development. He pointed out that, with the tool of closer cooperation, those states desiring to cooperate more closely than other member states of the European Union could make progress in many areas like environmental protection, the fight against crime, the development of common immigration and asylum policies and on foreign and security policy. As a model for a successful “reinforced cooperation” he mentioned the Economic and Monetary Union and Schengen. Although he did not want the closer cooperation to be misunderstood as the end of integration and consequently the preliminary stage to a divided Union, he further underscored the concept by proclaiming that this step would constitute the formation of a “center of gravity.” Such a group of states should conclude a new European framework treaty, would develop their own institutions and establish a government that speaks with one voice within the European Union. This proclaimed “center of gravity” should be the avant-garde, some kind of driving force for the completion of political integration.

Type
Research Article
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 2 , Issue 14: Special issue – European Constitutionalism , 2001 , E3
Copyright
Copyright © 2001 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

Article 43 EU must be read with Article 40 EU and Article 11 EC.Google Scholar
For an in-depth description, see Filip Tuytschaever, DIFFERENTIATION IN EUROPEAN UNION LAW 49 (1999).Google Scholar
Stefan Griller/Dimitri P. Droutsas/Gerda Falkner/Katrin Forgó/Michael Netwich, THE TREATY OF AMSTERDAM-FACTS, ANALYSIS, PROSPECTS 207 (2000).Google Scholar
Protocol (No 25) on certain provisions relating to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as annexed to the Treaty of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
See the preambles of the Treaty establishing the European Community and the Treaty on European Union.Google Scholar
Zuleeg, Manfred, What holds a nation together ? Cohesion and Democracy in the United States and in the European Union, 45 American Journal of Comparative Law 505–506 (1997); Joseph H.H. Weiler, The Reformation of European Constitutionalism, in Karl F. Kreuzer/Dieter H. Scheuing/Ulrich Sieber (Eds.) DIE EUROPÄISIERUNG DER MITGLIEDSTAATLICHEN RECHTSORDNUNGEN DER EUROPÄISCHEN UNION, page 9–35 (27 f.).Google Scholar