@article{JachtenfuchsKohlerKoch, author = {Jachtenfuchs, Markus and Kohler-Koch, Beate}, title = {The Transformation of Governance in the European Union}, series = {MZES Arbeitspapier AB III}, volume = {11}, journal = {MZES Arbeitspapier AB III}, publisher = {Univ. Mannheim}, address = {Mannheim}, issn = {0948-0099}, abstract = {The transfer of political competencies to the European level proceeds in small steps in the daily practice of governance and of adjudication. In large intervals, the results of these processes are codified in treaty form by intergovernmental conferences. It therefore seems fruitful to have a closer look at "governance in a dynamic multi-level system". The first part of this paper recalls the political and legal controversy about the nature of the political order of the Union with the aim of justifying the use of the term "governance" with reference to the EU. More or less isolated from the discussion on the nature of the EU and its possible or desirable future development, scholars increasingly deal with the effects of the integration process on responsible and effective governance within the member states. This debate is linked to a broader concern about the problems and prospects of governance under the conditions of increasing internationalization which finds its expression in the transnational expansion of functional subsystems of society, increasing interdependence and the globalization of problems. Policy analysis has started to deal with the changes in institutional structures and political processes caused by the Europeanization of policies. These questions are discussed in the second part which draws on the contributions to a forthcoming book edited by the authors. The third part focuses on the meaning and the possibility of legitimate and efficient governance beyond the state flamework. The fourth part discusses different institutional models for dealing with the problems of governance in a dynamic multi-level system resulting from the integration process. In the light of the perspective developed in this paper, the final part puts forward some general empirical, theoretical and normative questions for further research.}, language = {en} } @article{Jachtenfuchs, author = {Jachtenfuchs, Markus}, title = {Ideen und Interessen : Weltbilder als Kategorien der politischen Analyse}, series = {MZES Arbeitspapier AB III}, volume = {2}, journal = {MZES Arbeitspapier AB III}, publisher = {Univ.Mannheim}, address = {Mannheim}, issn = {0948-0099}, pages = {33}, abstract = {Eine weitverbreitete Meinung in der Politikwissenschaft besagt, daß politisches Handeln durch Interessen bestimmt wird. Dies gilt vor allem f{\"u}r den Bereich der internationalen Politik, wo Staaten als der Prototyp des rationalen, nutzenmaximierenden Akteurs betrachtet werden. Ideen, sofern sie {\"u}berhaupt Gegenstand der Analyse sind, werden in dieser Perspektive zu Oberfl{\"a}chenph{\"a}nomenen der grundlegenden Logik von Macht und Interesse. Im Gegensatz dazu wird hier die These vertreten, daß Ideen zentrale Kategorien der Analyse von Politik im allgemeinen und von internationaler Politik im besonderen sein k{\"o}nnen und nicht lediglich als Rationalisierungen von Machtverh{\"a}ltnissen betrachtet werden m{\"u}ssen. Die Vernachl{\"a}ssigung von Ideen, so die erste These, liegt im Handlungsbegriff rationalistischer Ans{\"a}tze begr{\"u}ndet, denen ein konstruktivistischer Ansatz gegen{\"u}bergestellt wird. Der zweite Abschnitt f{\"u}hrt aus, wie sich Ideen mit Hilfe des Konzepts der Weltbilder systematisch analysieren lassen. Danach wird gezeigt, wie sich mit Hilfe dieses Konzepts Lernprozesse theoretisch und empirisch gehaltvoll konzeptualisieren lassen.}, language = {de} } @article{Jachtenfuchs, author = {Jachtenfuchs, Markus}, title = {Die EG nach Maastricht. Das Subsidiarit{\"a}tsprinzip und die Zukunft der Integration}, series = {Europa-Archiv : Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Internationale Politik}, volume = {47}, journal = {Europa-Archiv : Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Internationale Politik}, number = {10}, issn = {1430-175X}, pages = {279 -- 287}, abstract = {Der Beitrag untersucht die Frage, ob die zunehmende wirtschaftliche und politische Internationalisierung mit einer zunehmenden Verlagerung staatlicher Handlungskompetenzen auf h{\"o}heren Ebenen beantwortet werden kann. Der Artikel st{\"u}tzt sich bei seiner Analyse auf die Ergebnisse von Maastricht und vergleicht die britische und deutsche Verhandlungsposition sowie Form und Inhalt des Subsidiarit{\"a}tsprinzips}, language = {de} } @article{JachtenfuchsKohlerKoch, author = {Jachtenfuchs, Markus and Kohler-Koch, Beate}, title = {Regieren in der Europ{\"a}ischen Union. Fragestellungen f{\"u}r eine interdisziplin{\"a}re Europaforschung}, series = {Politische Vierteljahresschrift}, volume = {37}, journal = {Politische Vierteljahresschrift}, number = {3}, publisher = {Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH}, address = {Baden-Baden}, issn = {1862-2860}, pages = {537 -- 556}, abstract = {Der Prozeß der europ{\"a}ischen Integration wurde in den letzten Jahren wieder verst{\"a}rkt zum Gegenstand sozialwissenschaftlicher Forschung. Theoretische Entw{\"u}rfe waren mit diesem erneuten Interesse jedoch nur selten verbunden oder sie waren disziplin{\"a}r begrenzt, so daß der Gesamtzusammenhang des Integrationsprozesses aus dem Blick geriet. Gleichzeitig bedeutet die zunehmende Wirkungstiefe des Integrationsprozesses f{\"u}r eine Reihe von gemeinhin nicht zur Integrationsforschung z{\"a}hlenden Bereichen (vor allem im Bereich der international vergleichenden Forschung), daß diese in zunehmendem Maße empirisch und konzeptionell mit den Auswirkungen des Integrationsprozesses konfrontiert werden. Es bedarf deshalb einer Zugangsweise auf den Integrationsprozeß, die eine Kommunikation sowohl innerhalb der Politikwissenschaft als auch mit benachbarten Disziplinen {\"u}berhaupt erm{\"o}glicht, ohne durch theoretische Vorentscheidungen die Erforschung einer gemeinsamen Problematik schon im Keim zu ersticken. Es geht also nicht um eine Theorie, sondern um eine Fragestellung mit allerdings weitreichenden theoretischen Implikationen. Eine solche Fragestellung k{\"o}nnte sein, wie, durch wen und mit welchen Auswirkungen Regieren in der Europ{\"a}ischen Union erfolgt. Wir glauben, daß sich hierdurch ein theoretischer und empirischer Beitrag zum Verst{\"a}ndnis der M{\"o}glichkeiten und Grenzen handlungsf{\"a}higer und demokratischer Politik unter den Bedingungen von Verflechtung und Interdependenz leisten l{\"a}ßt, der {\"u}ber die eigentliche Europaforschung weit hinausgeht.}, language = {de} } @article{GenschelJachtenfuchs, author = {Genschel, Philipp and Jachtenfuchs, Markus}, title = {From Market Integration to Core State Powers. The Eurozone Crisis, the Refugee Crisis and Integration Theory}, series = {Journal of Common Market Studies}, volume = {56}, journal = {Journal of Common Market Studies}, number = {1}, doi = {10.1111/jcms.12654}, pages = {178 -- 196}, abstract = {The Eurozone crisis and the refugee crisis are showcases of the problems associated with the EU's shift from market integration to the integration of core state powers. The integration of core state powers responds to similar demand factors as market integration (interdependence, externalities and spillover) but its supply is more tightly constrained by a high propensity for zero-sum conflict, a functional requirement for centralized fiscal, coercive and administrative capacities, and high political salience. We show how these constraints structured the initial design of Economic and Monetary Union and of Schengen, made them vulnerable to crisis, and shaped policy options during the crises: they made horizontal differentiation unattractive, re-regulation ineffective, centralized risk and burden-sharing unfeasible, and the externalization of adjustment burdens to non-EU actors necessary by default. In conclusion, we explore possible escape routes from the trap.}, language = {en} } @article{JachtenfuchsFossum, author = {Jachtenfuchs, Markus and Fossum, John Erik}, title = {Federal Challenges and Challenges to Federalism. Insights from the EU and Federal States}, series = {Journal of European Public Policy}, volume = {27}, journal = {Journal of European Public Policy}, number = {4}, doi = {10.1080/13501763.2016.1273965}, pages = {467 -- 485}, abstract = {The purpose of this collection is to discuss what we may learn from thinking about the EU in federal terms. Our point of departure is that this represents a two-fold challenge. It is on the one hand a matter of establishing 'how federal' the EU is (the EU's federal challenge). On the other, the EU has federal features but is not a state; thus raises the question of whether federal theory and practice may have to be adapted to take proper account of the EU (the EU's challenge to federalism). The contributions to this collection supplement and extend existing scholarship through focusing on two important lines of inquiry. The first focuses on the relationship between federalism and democracy, with particular emphasis on how federal systems respond to and deal with citizens' interests and concerns, within and outside the political system. Particular emphasis is placed on representation, in the process of federalization, and as a feature of established systems. The second line of inquiry places the emphasis on the relationship among the governments of federal systems. The focus is on intergovernmental relations, and the particular merits that emanate from studying these from a federal perspective.}, language = {en} } @article{GenschelJachtenfuchs, author = {Genschel, Philipp and Jachtenfuchs, Markus}, title = {More integration, less federation: the European integration of core state powers}, series = {Journal of European Public Policy}, volume = {23}, journal = {Journal of European Public Policy}, number = {1}, doi = {10.1080/13501763.2015.1055782}, pages = {42 -- 59}, abstract = {We map the pattern and extent of the European integration of core state powers (coercive force, public finance and public administration) and analyse causes and consequences. We highlight two findings: First, in contrast to historical examples of federal state-building, where the nationalization of core state powers precipitated the institutional, territorial and political consolidation of the emerging state, the European integration of core state powers is associated with the institutional, territorial and political fragmentation of the European Union. Second, in contrast to European market integration, state {\´e}lites and mass publics, not organized business interests, are the prime drivers of integration.}, language = {en} } @article{JachtenfuchsKrisch, author = {Jachtenfuchs, Markus and Krisch, Nico}, title = {Subsidiarity and Global Governance}, series = {Law and Contemporary problems}, volume = {79}, journal = {Law and Contemporary problems}, number = {2}, pages = {1 -- 26}, abstract = {Subsidiarity has become increasingly prominent in the theory and practice of global governance and international law. It responds to a need for a principled distribution of tasks between different layers of governance and expresses a general commitment to lower-level decisionmaking at a time when many fear that international authority might be expanding too fast. The symposium which this paper introduces interrogates the prospect and limits of the subsidiarity principle in the global context, focusing on different issue areas - regional economic integration, trade and investment, human rights, and international security, as well as cross-cutting empirical and normative aspects. This framing paper situates subsidiarity among competing principles, evaluates its appeal from a normative perspective and develops a number of conjectures about its prevalence, potential and limitations based on insights from comparative politics as well as the case studies of the project. The picture that emerges from this inquiry is not a homogeneous one. Subsidiarity is not present or desirable in all contexts, and empirically we find significant variation across issue areas and institutional settings. But the principle is beginning to shape different areas and institutional contexts, and it holds significant promise as normative and legal guidance for institutional design and the exercise of authority in the global realm. The landscape of subsidiarity is bound to remain variegated, but the concept is gaining ground and for many actors holds much appeal as a principled way of balancing the need for strong global cooperation with a continuing emphasis on the value of local self-government.}, language = {en} } @article{JachtenfuchsKasack, author = {Jachtenfuchs, Markus and Kasack, Christiane}, title = {Balancing sub-unit autonomy and collective problem-solving by varying exit and voice. An analytical framework}, series = {Journal of European Public Policy}, volume = {27}, journal = {Journal of European Public Policy}, number = {4}, doi = {10.1080/13501763.2016.1273376}, pages = {598 -- 614}, abstract = {We argue that there is a commonality between federal states and the EU: both face a dilemma between sub-unit autonomy and collective problem-solving. We develop the structure of this dilemma, which is pervasive in multilevel systems with a strong element of shared policy-making and most pronounced in the EU. While a substantial part of the federalism literature considers this relationship as precarious and discusses ways to stabilize it, we propose an analytical perspective which focuses on actor dynamics, i.e., on the attempts of sub-units to change the balance between sub-unit autonomy and collective problem-solving by changing their position in two distinct dimensions: exit and voice. Exit measures the degree to which sub-units want to be subject to collective policies, voice measures the influence sub-units seek in collective decisions. We illustrate this framework with examples, mainly from the EU, and conclude that this perspective can shed new light on differentiated integration in the EU and open comparative inquiries.}, language = {en} } @article{JachtenfuchsHerschinger2012, author = {Jachtenfuchs, Markus and Herschinger, Eva}, title = {Informell oder institutionalisiert? Die Internationalisierung der inneren Sicherheit}, series = {Politische Vierteljahresschrift}, volume = {53}, journal = {Politische Vierteljahresschrift}, number = {3}, publisher = {VS-Verl.}, address = {Wiesbaden}, issn = {0720-4809}, doi = {10.5771/0032-3470-2012-3-493}, pages = {493 -- 514}, year = {2012}, abstract = {Although international police cooperation is not a new phenomenon and despite its relevance for the monopoly of force, studies applying a political science or international relations (IR) perspective are scarce. Through a 'competition of claims', this article reviews and organizes current literature on cooperation in internal security to highlight crucial points of entry for IR- and political science approaches. While both claims argue along the lines of functionalist regime theory, the 'informality claim' stresses state's interest to uphold autonomy and their accordant preference for informal cooperation. In contrast, the 'institutionalization claim' underscores the willingness of states to create formal and strong institutions as they promise effi ciency gains in light of transborder problems. By focusing on central issues in police cooperation (terrorism, drugs, money laundering, organized crime) this review highlights that internal security can become a prospering fi eld for IR- and political science theorizing.}, language = {de} } @article{Jachtenfuchs2010, author = {Jachtenfuchs, Markus}, title = {Der Wandel des regulativen Mehrebenensystems in der EU}, series = {dms - der moderne staat}, volume = {3}, journal = {dms - der moderne staat}, number = {1}, publisher = {Budrich}, address = {Leverkusen}, issn = {1865-7192}, pages = {109 -- 124}, year = {2010}, abstract = {Das europ{\"a}ische Mehrebenensystem wird weithin durch eine spezifische Arbeitsteilung charakterisiert, wonach die europ{\"a}ische Ebene stark im Bereich Pareto-optimierender und eher unpolitischer Marktregulierung sei, den Mitgliedstaaten dagegen die klassischen Staatsaufgaben wie Sicherheit, Besteuerung oder Bildung vorbehalten blieben, die tief in individuelle Belange eingreifen. Der Beitrag zeigt anhand der inneren Sicherheit und der Steuerpolitik, dass sich die EU im Gegensatz zu diesem Standardmodell nicht auf Marktregulierung beschr{\"a}nkt, sondern auch staatliche Kernaufgaben intensiv reguliert. Ursache hierf{\"u}r sind externe Effekte der Schaffung des gemeinsamen Binnenmarktes und das Fehlen eigenst{\"a}ndiger Handlungsmittel in diesen Bereichen, das durch Regulierung kompensiert wird. Durch den vorherrschenden Modus der Regulierung bleiben die Eingriffe der EU aber weithin unsichtbar.}, language = {de} } @article{Jachtenfuchs, author = {Jachtenfuchs, Markus}, title = {Unity in Diversity : The European Union After the Fall of the Wall}, series = {IP - Global Edition}, volume = {10}, journal = {IP - Global Edition}, number = {11/12}, publisher = {BVA Bielefelder Verl.}, address = {Bielefeld}, issn = {1439-8443}, pages = {28 -- 31}, language = {en} } @article{Jachtenfuchs, author = {Jachtenfuchs, Markus}, title = {The European Community and the Protection of the Zone Layer}, series = {Journal of Common Market Studies}, volume = {28}, journal = {Journal of Common Market Studies}, number = {3}, publisher = {Wiley-Blackwell}, address = {Oxford}, issn = {1468-5965}, doi = {10.1111/j.1468-5965.1990.tb00367.x}, pages = {261 -- 277}, language = {en} } @article{Jachtenfuchs, author = {Jachtenfuchs, Markus}, title = {Die EG-Umweltpolitik nach dem vierten Aktionsprogramm}, series = {Ars Aequi}, volume = {39}, journal = {Ars Aequi}, publisher = {Tjeenk Willink}, address = {Zwolle}, issn = {0004-2870}, pages = {493 -- 498}, language = {de} } @article{JachtenfuchsGenschel, author = {Jachtenfuchs, Markus and Genschel, Philipp}, title = {Alles ganz normal! Eine institutionelle Analyse der Euro-Krise}, series = {Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Internationale Beziehungen}, volume = {20}, journal = {Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Internationale Beziehungen}, number = {1}, publisher = {Nomos-Verl.-Ges.}, address = {Baden-Baden}, issn = {0946-7165}, doi = {10.5771/0946-7165-2013-1-75}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:b1570-opus4-4173}, pages = {75 -- 88}, language = {de} } @article{Jachtenfuchs, author = {Jachtenfuchs, Markus}, title = {Die EU als Dauerreformprojekt : Politische Ordnungsmodelle und ihre Implikationen}, series = {Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Politikwissenschaft}, volume = {23}, journal = {Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Politikwissenschaft}, number = {3}, publisher = {Nomos-Verl.-Ges.}, address = {Baden-Baden}, issn = {1430-6387}, doi = {10.5771/1430-6387-2013-3-437}, pages = {437 -- 444}, language = {de} } @article{JachtenfuchsHerschingerKasack, author = {Jachtenfuchs, Markus and Herschinger, Eva and Kasack, Christiane}, title = {Scratching the Heart of the Artichoke? : How International Institutions and the European Union Constrain the State Monopoly of Force.}, series = {European Political Science Review}, volume = {3}, journal = {European Political Science Review}, number = {3}, publisher = {Cambridge Univ. Press}, address = {Cambridge}, issn = {1862-2860}, doi = {10.1017/S175577391100004X}, pages = {445 -- 468}, abstract = {In recent years, a growing literature has argued that European Union (EU) member states have undergone a profound transformation caused by international institutions and by the EU, in particular. However, the state core - the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force, embodied by the police - seemed to remain intact. The literature has argued that in this area, international institutions are weak, and cooperation has remained informal and intergovernmental. We take issue with these claims and evaluate the strength of international institutions in two core areas of policing (terrorism and drugs) over time. We find that in terms of decision-making, precision, and adjudication, international institutions have become considerably stronger over time. Even when international institutions remain intergovernmental they strongly regulate how EU member states exercise their monopoly of force. Member states are even further constrained because adjudication is delegated to the European Court of Justice. Thus, even the state core is undergoing a significant transformation.}, language = {en} } @article{JachtenfuchsGenschel2010, author = {Jachtenfuchs, Markus and Genschel, Philipp}, title = {How the European Union Constrains the State : Multilevel Governance of Taxation}, series = {European Journal of Political Research}, volume = {50}, journal = {European Journal of Political Research}, number = {3}, publisher = {Blackwell}, address = {Oxford}, issn = {0304-4130}, doi = {10.1111/j.1475-6765.2010.01939.x}, pages = {293 -- 314}, year = {2010}, abstract = {This article challenges the common assumption that the European Union (EU) has little power over taxation. Based on a comprehensive analysis of EU tax legislation and European Court of Justice (ECJ) tax jurisprudence from 1958 to 2007, the article shows that the EU exerts considerable regulatory control over the Member States' taxing power and imposes tighter constraints on Member State taxes than the American federal government imposes on American state taxation. These findings contradict the standard account of the EU as a regulatory polity that specialises in apolitical issues of market creation and leaves control of highly politicised core functions of government (defence, taxation, social security, education, etc.) to the Member States; despite strong treaty safeguards, national tax autonomy is undermined by EU regulation.}, language = {en} } @article{Jachtenfuchs, author = {Jachtenfuchs, Markus}, title = {The Monopoly of Legitimate Force : Denationalization, or Business as Usual?}, series = {European Review}, volume = {13}, journal = {European Review}, number = {Sonderheft 1}, publisher = {Cambridge University Press}, address = {Cambridge}, issn = {1062-7987}, doi = {10.1017/S1062798705000189}, pages = {37 -- 52}, abstract = {As Max Weber and many others in his tradition have argued, the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force is the core of the modern state. What counts here is not the frequency of the actual use of force but the fact that only the state has the legitimate right to use such force. The military and the police are the most concrete expressions of this monopoly. In recent decades, the use of the military and the police has been subject to external challenges - 'globalization' - and new ideas about police and military intervention. Although at an operational level the state retains full control over the actions of the police and military, the conditions for their use are increasingly shaped by institutionalized legitimating ideas.}, language = {en} } @article{Jachtenfuchs2011, author = {Jachtenfuchs, Markus}, title = {Deepening and Widening Integration Theory}, series = {Journal of European Public Policy}, volume = {9}, journal = {Journal of European Public Policy}, number = {4}, publisher = {Routledge}, address = {London}, issn = {1466-4429}, doi = {10.1080/13501760210152475}, pages = {650 -- 657}, year = {2011}, abstract = {Theories of European integration have traditionally been inwardoriented and presented difficulties in coping with the issue of whether the EU constitutes only a single case. Theoretically oriented research on enlargement offers the possibility of helping us to arrive at generalizable knowledge. However, traditional dichotomies of scientific discourse tend to favour the mutual ignorance of empirical facts and prevent the establishment of better theories and cumulative knowledge.}, language = {en} } @article{Jachtenfuchs, author = {Jachtenfuchs, Markus}, title = {The Governance Approach to European Integration}, series = {Journal of Common Market Studies}, volume = {39}, journal = {Journal of Common Market Studies}, number = {2}, publisher = {Wiley-Blackwell}, address = {Oxford}, issn = {1468-5965}, doi = {10.1111/1468-5965.00287}, pages = {245 -- 264}, abstract = {This article argues that the study of European integration is divided into two distinct approaches: classical integration theory for which the shape of the Euro-polity is the dependent variable; and the governance approach for which it is the independent variable. An historical and conceptual overview of the approach focuses on the efficiency side of governance and excludes issues of democracy and legitimacy. From a sociology of knowledge perspective, the first part traces the roots of the present discussion back to three bodies of literature, namely studies on Europeanization, regulatory policy-making and network concepts. The second part presents the achievements of the approach: putting EU studies in a comparative perspective, directing attention towards democratic governance and bypassing old dichotomies on the future of the nation-state. The final section evaluates present shortcomings, most notably a bias toward problem-solving, the proliferation of case studies and the lack of a coherent theoretical perspective.}, language = {en} } @article{JachtenfuchsDiezJung, author = {Jachtenfuchs, Markus and Diez, Thomas and Jung, Sabine}, title = {Which Europe? : Conflicting Models of a Legitimate European Political Order}, series = {European Journal of International Relations}, volume = {4}, journal = {European Journal of International Relations}, number = {4}, publisher = {Sage}, address = {London [u.a.]}, issn = {1354-0661}, doi = {10.1177/1354066198004004002}, pages = {409 -- 445}, abstract = {Conflicts over the shape of the European Union are usually modelled as conflicts of interests. This article argues that the development of a polity depends not only on interests but also on normative ideas about a legitimate political order (`polity-ideas'). These polity-ideas are extremely stable over time and resistant to change because they are linked to the identity and basic normative orientations of the actors involved. The article has four parts: (1) a theoretical argument how to link ideas and polity development in the EU, (2) a methodological discussion containing four ideal-typical polity-ideas about the EU, (3) a comparative analysis of the development of these ideas in France, Germany and the United Kingdom from 1950 to 1995, and (4) a summary of the empirical findings and a discussion of areas of research for which the theoretical approach and the empirical results presented here might be useful.}, language = {en} } @article{Jachtenfuchs, author = {Jachtenfuchs, Markus}, title = {Theoretical Perspectives on European Governance}, series = {European Law Journal}, volume = {1}, journal = {European Law Journal}, number = {2}, publisher = {Wiley-Blackwell}, address = {Oxford [u.a.]}, issn = {1468-0386}, doi = {10.1111/j.1468-0386.1995.tb00010.x}, pages = {115 -- 133}, abstract = {The paper reviews some theories of social science which could contribute to the development of a concept of European governance going beyond traditional notions, such as federal states' or 'international organisation'. The theoretical argument is based on the culturalist version of neo-institutionalism, which stresses the role of ideas in the functioning and transformation of a political order. It is claimed that both globalisation and functional differentiation transform existing nation-states and shape the emerging European polity. European governance is characterised as poly-centric and non-hierarchical. Finally, different approaches to the legitimation of such a polity are discussed. The paper comes to the conclusion that the emergence of a European political order is part of a process which could require a rethinking of basic social scientific concepts.}, language = {en} }