Buy in shop
, to see if you have full access to this publication.
Book Titles No access

Normative Argumente in EU-Vertragsverhandlungen

Das bessere Argument als Verhandlungsressource?
Authors:
Series:
Internationale Beziehungen, Volume 22
Publisher:
 2014

Bibliographic data

Copyright year
2014
ISBN-Print
978-3-8487-0507-8
ISBN-Online
978-3-8452-4797-7
Publisher
Nomos, Baden-Baden
Series
Internationale Beziehungen
Volume
22
Language
German
Pages
272
Product type
Book Titles

Table of contents

ChapterPages
  1. Titelei/Inhaltsverzeichnis No access 1 - 6
  2. Inhaltsverzeichnis No access 7 - 10
  3. Tabellenverzeichnis No access 11 - 14
  4. Abbildungsverzeichnis No access 15 - 16
  5. Einleitung No access 17 - 23
  6. Literaturdiskussion: Normative Argumente in internationalen Verhandlungen No access 24 - 51
  7. Untersuchungsgegenstand: EU-Vertragsverhandlungen No access 52 - 68
  8. Theorie und Hypothesen: Verwendung und Wirkung normativer Argumente in EU-Vertragsverhandlungen No access 69 - 115
  9. Forschungsdesign: Messung des Argumentationsverhaltens und der weiteren Variablen No access 116 - 163
  10. Analyse und Ergebnisse: Normative Argumente in EU-Vertragsverhandlungen No access 164 - 244
  11. Schlussfolgerungen und Ausblick No access 245 - 252
  12. Literaturverzeichnis No access 253 - 264
  13. Annex No access 265 - 272

Bibliography (212)

  1. Adler, E. (1997). Seizing the Middle Ground: Constructivism in World Politics. Euro-pean Journal of International Relations, 3(3), 319–363. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1177/1354066197003003003
  2. Alexa, M. (1997). Computer-assisted text analysis methodology in the social science (ZUMA Arbeitsbericht No. 97/07). Mannheim: ZUMA. Open Google Scholar
  3. Arregui, J., & Thomson, R. (2009). States´ bargaining success in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy, 16(5), 655–676. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1080/13501760902983168
  4. Arrow, K. J. (Ed.) (1995). Barriers to Conflict Resolution. New York: Norton & Com-pany. Open Google Scholar
  5. Aspinwall, M., & Schneider, G. (2001). Institutional research on the European Union: mapping the field. In M. Aspinwall & G. Schneider (Eds.), The Rules of Integration: Institutionalist Approaches to the Study of Europe (pp. 1–187). Manchester: Manchester University Press. Open Google Scholar
  6. Aspinwall, M., & Schneider, G. (Eds.) (2001). The Rules of Integration: Institutionalist Approaches to the Study of Europe. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Open Google Scholar
  7. Aubert, V. (1963). Competition and dissensus: two types of conflict and of conflict resolution. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 7, 26–42. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1177/002200276300700105
  8. Bächtiger, A., & Steiner, J. (2005). Special Issue: Empirical Approaches to Deliberative Democracy. Acta Politica, 40(2). Open Google Scholar
  9. Bailer, S. (2006a). Nationale Interessen in der Europäischen Union: Macht und Ver-handlungserfolg im Ministerrat. Frankfurt / New York: Campus Verlag. Open Google Scholar
  10. Bailer, S. (2006b). The Dimensions of Power in the European Union. Comparative Eu-ropean Politics, (4), 355–378. Open Google Scholar
  11. Bailer, S. (2004). Bargaining success in the European Union. European Union Politics, 5(1), 99–123. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1177/1465116504040447
  12. Bailer, S. (2010). What factors determine bargainig power and success in EU negotiations? Journal of European Public Policy, 17(5), 743–757. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1080/13501761003748765
  13. Bara, J., Weale, A., & Biquelet, A. (2007). Analysing Parliamentary Debate with Computer Assistance. Swiss Political Science Review, 13(4), 577–605. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1002/j.1662-6370.2007.tb00090.x
  14. Barry, B. (1980). Is it better to be powerful or lucky? Part 1. Political Studies, 28(2), 183–194. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.1980.tb01244.x
  15. Beach, D. (2004). The unseen hand in treaty reform negotiations: the role and influence of the Council Secretariat. Journal of European Public Policy, 11(3), 408–439. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1080/rjpp13501760410001100279
  16. Behnke, J. (2005). Lassen sich Signifikanztests auf Vollerhebungen anwenden? Einige essayistische Anmerkungen. Politische Vierteljahresschrift, 46(1), 1–15. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1007/s11615-005-0240-y
  17. Behnke, N. (2009). Agenda-Setting für Verfassungsreformen. In S. Shikano, J. Behnke, & T. Bräuninger (Eds.), Jahrbuch für Handlungs- und Entscheidungstheorie: Verfassungsreformen (pp. 11–53). Open Google Scholar
  18. Behnke, N., & Benz, A. (2006). Verfassungswandel und Verfassungspolitik (Antrag für eine DFG-Forschergruppe). Hagen. Open Google Scholar
  19. Behnke, N., & Benz, A. (2009). The Politics of Constitutional Change between Reform and Evolution. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 39(2), 213–240. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1093/publius/pjn039
  20. Benoit, K., Laver, M., Arnold, C., Pennings, P., & Hosli, M. O. (2005). Measuring Na-tional Delegate Positions at the Convention on the Future of Europe Using Comput-erized Word Scoring. European Union Politics, 6(3), 291–313. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1177/1465116505054834
  21. Benoit, K., Laver, M., & Mikhaylov, S. (2009). Treating Words as Data with Error: Uncertainty in Text Statements of Policy Positions. American Journal of Political Science, 53(2), 495–513. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00383.x
  22. Benz, A. (1994). Kooperative Verwaltung: Funktionen, Voraussetzungen, Folgen. Ba-den-Baden: Nomos. Open Google Scholar
  23. Biesenbender, J. (2011). The Dynamics of Treaty Change: Measuring the Distribution of Power in the European Union? European Integration Online Papers, (5), Article 5, from http://eiop.or.at/eiop/index.php/eiop/article/view/2011_005a. Open Google Scholar
  24. Biesenbender, J. (2012). Bargaining at EU Intergovernmental Conferences 1996 - 2004. Dissertation Universität Konstanz. Unpublished manuscript, Konstanz. Open Google Scholar
  25. Bräuninger, T., & König, T. (2000). Making Rules for Governing Global Commons: The case of deep-sea mining. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 44(5), 604–629. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1177/0022002700044005003
  26. Buchanan, J. M., & Tullock, G. (1962). The Calculus of Consent: Logical Foundation of Constitutional Democracy. Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press. Open Google Scholar
  27. Bueno Mesquita, B. de (2003). Principles of International Politics. People´s Power, Preferences, and Perception (2nd ed.). Washington D.C.: CQ Press. Open Google Scholar
  28. Bürgin, A. (2007). Die Legitimität der EU: Normative Standards als Verhandlungsres-source im Verfassungskonvent. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783845205304
  29. Checkel, J. T. (2001). Why Comply? Social Learning and European Identity Change. International Organization, 55(3), 553–588. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1162/00208180152507551
  30. Checkel, J. T., & Moravcsik, A. (2001). A Constructivist Research Program in EU Studies? European Union Politics, 2(2), 219–249. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1177/1465116501002002004
  31. Christiansen, T., Falkner, G., & Joergensen, K. E. (2002). Theorizing EU treaty reform: beyond diplomacy and bargaining. Journal of European Public Policy, 9(1), 12–32. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1080/13501760110104154
  32. Christiansen, T., Joergensen, K. E., & Wiener, A. (Eds.) (1999). Special Issue on the Social Construction of Europe. Journal of European Public Policy, (6). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1080/135017699343450
  33. Christiansen, T. & Reh, C. (2009). Constitutionalizing the European Union. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-10281-2
  34. Closa, C. The European Union Constitution Database: Universität Zaragossa. Retrieved May 20, 2012, from http://www.unizar.es/euroconstitucion/Treaties/ Open Google Scholar
  35. Treaty_Const_Bibliography.htm. Open Google Scholar
  36. Closa, C., & Fossum, J. E. (Eds.) (2004). Arena Report: No 5. Deliberative Constitu-tional Politics in the EU. Oslo. Open Google Scholar
  37. Da Conceicaio-Heldt, E. (2006). Integrative and Distributive Bargaining Situations in the European Union: What Difference Does it Make? Negotiation Journal, 22(2), 145–165. Open Google Scholar
  38. Deitelhoff, N. (2006). Überzeugung in der Politik: Grundzüge einer Diskurstheorie in-ternationalen Regierens. Franfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Open Google Scholar
  39. Deitelhoff, N. (2009). The Discursive Process of Legalization: Charting Islands of Per-suasion in the ICC Case. International Organization, 63, 33–65. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1017/S002081830909002X
  40. Deitelhoff, N., & Mueller, H. (2005). Theoretical Paradis- Empirically Lost? Arguing with Habermas. Review of International Studies, 31, 167–179. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1017/S0260210505006364
  41. Dingwerth, K. (2010). Research Project on Changing Norms of Global Governance: Universität Bremen, from http://www.globalnorms.uni-bremen.de/. Open Google Scholar
  42. Dryzek, J. S. (1990). Discursive Democracy: Politics, Policy, and Political Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1017/9781139173810
  43. Dryzek, J. S. (2006). Deliberative Global Politics. Cambridge: Polity Press. Open Google Scholar
  44. Dür, A., & Mateo, G. (2010a). Bargaining Power and Negotiation Tactics: The Nego-tiations on the EU´s Financial Perspective, 2007-2010. Journal of Common Market Studies, 48(3), 557–578. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5965.2010.02064.x
  45. Dür, A., & Mateo, G. (2010b). Choosing a bargaining strategy in EU negotiations: power, preferences, and culture. Journal of European Public Policy, 17(5), 680–693. Open Google Scholar
  46. Dür, A., Mateo, G., & Thomas, D. C. (2010). Negotiation theory and the EU: the state of the art. Journal of European Public Policy, 17(5), 613–618. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1080/13501761003748500
  47. Elgström, O., & Jönsson, C. (2000). Negotiation in the European Union: Bargaining or Problem Solving? Journal of European Public Policy, 7(5), 684–704. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1080/13501760010014902
  48. Elgström, O., & Jönsson, C. (2000). Negotiation in the European Union: bargaining or problem-solving? Journal of European Public Policy, 7(5), 684–704. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1080/13501760010014902
  49. Elgström, O., & Smith, M. (Eds.) (2000). Negotiation and Policy Making in the Euro-pean Union. Journal of European Public Policy, 7(5). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1080/13501760010014894
  50. Elster, J. (1986). The Market and the Forum: Three Varieties of Political Theory. In J. Elster & A. Hylland (Eds.), Foundations of Social Theory (pp. 103–132). Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
  51. Elster, J. (1995). Strategic Arguing. In K. J. Arrow (Ed.), Barriers to Conflict Resolu-tion (pp. 237–257). New York: Norton & Company. Open Google Scholar
  52. Elster, J. (1998). Deliberation and constitution making. In J. Elster (Ed.), Deliberative Democracy (pp. 97–122). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
  53. Elster, J. (Ed.) (1998). Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139175005
  54. Eriksen, E. O., & Fossum, J. E. (2004). Europe in search of legitimacy: strategies of legitimation assessed. International Political Science Review, 25(4), 435–459. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1177/0192512104045089
  55. European Commission (1978). General considerations on the problems of enlargement: Communication sent by the Commission to the Council. COM(78) 120 final. Open Google Scholar
  56. European Commission (2004). Enlargement and institutional changes: MEMO/04/61. Open Google Scholar
  57. European Council (1996). Turin European Council. Presidency Conclusion. 29 March 1996. Open Google Scholar
  58. European Council (1999). Helsinki European Council. Presidency Conclusion. 11.12.1999. Open Google Scholar
  59. European Council (2001). The Future of the European Union: The Laeken Declaration: Bulletin or the European Union 12. (14-15 December). Open Google Scholar
  60. Falkner, G. (2002). EU treaty reform as a three-level process. Journal of European Public Policy, 9(1), 1–11. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1080/13501760110104145
  61. Finke, D. (2009a). Domestic Politics and European Treaty Reform: Understanding the Dynamics of Governmental Position-Taking. European Union Politics, 10(4), 482–506. Open Google Scholar
  62. Finke, D. (2009b). Challenges to Intergovernmentalism: An Empirical Anlaysis of EU Treaty Negotiations since Maastricht. West European Politics, 32(3), 466–495. Open Google Scholar
  63. Finke, D. (2010). European Integration and its Limits: Intergovernmental conflicts and their domestic origins. Essex: ECPR Press. Open Google Scholar
  64. Finke, D., König, T., Proksch, S.-O., & Tsebelis, G. (2012). Reforming the European Union: Realizing the Impossible. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Open Google Scholar
  65. Finnemore, M., & Sikkink, K. (1998). International Norm Dynamics and Political Change. International Organization, 52(4), 887–921. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1162/002081898550789
  66. Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1981). Getting to Yes: Negotiating an Agreement without giving in. London: Hutchinson Business. Open Google Scholar
  67. Focault, M. (1974). Die Ordnung des Diskurses. Franfurt am Main: Fischer. Open Google Scholar
  68. Franck, T. (1990). The Power of Legitimacy Among Nations. New York: Oxford Uni-versity Press. Open Google Scholar
  69. Früh, W. (2011). Inhaltsanalyse: Theorie und Praxis. Konstanz: UVK Verlagsgesell-schaft. Open Google Scholar
  70. Garret, G., & Tsebelis, G. (1999). Why resist the temptation to apply power indices to the European Union. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 11(3), 291–308. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1177/0951692899011003001
  71. Gelman, A., & Hill, J. (2007). Data Analysis Using Regression and Multi-level/Hierarchical Models. New York: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
  72. Grobe, C. (2010). The power of words: Argumentative persuasion in international ne-gotiations. European Journal of International Relations, 16(1), 5–29. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1177/1354066109343989
  73. Gross, C., & Kriwy, P. (2009). Kleine Fallzahlen in der empirischen Sozialforschung. In C. Gross & P. Kriwy (Eds.), Quantitative empirische Sozialforschung mit kleiner Fallzahl (pp. 9–21). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. Open Google Scholar
  74. Gross, C., & Kriwy, P. (Eds.) (2009). Quantitative empirische Sozialforschung mit kleiner Fallzahl. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. Open Google Scholar
  75. Gulliver, P. H. (1979). Disputes and negotiations: a cross-cultural perspective. New York: Academic Press Inc. Open Google Scholar
  76. Haas, E. B. (1961). International Integration: The European and the Universal Process. International Organization, 15(3), 366–392. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300002198
  77. Habeeb, W. M. (1988). Power and Tactics in International Negotiation: How Weak Nations Bargaining with Strong Nations. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press. Open Google Scholar
  78. Habermas, J. (1984). The Theory of Communicative Action: Vol. 1 of Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Boston: Beacon Press. Open Google Scholar
  79. Hall, P. A., & Taylor, R. C. R. (1996). Political Science and the Three New Institu-tionalisms. Political Studies, 44, 936–957. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.1996.tb00343.x
  80. Hanrieder, T. (2008). Moralische Argumente in den Internationalen Beziehungen: Grenzen einer verständigungsorientierten "Erklärung" moralischer Debatten. Zeit-schrift für Internationale Beziehungen, 15(2), 161–186. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/0946-7165-2008-2-161
  81. Hanrieder, T. (2011). The false promise of the better argument. International Theory, 3(3), 390–415. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1017/S1752971911000182
  82. Hatakoy, A. (2008). The Effectiveness of Decision Making in European Union Treaty Negotiations: An Empirical Analysis of Arguing and Bargaining in the Debates on the European Constitutional Convention. Dissertation FU Berlin. Unpublished manuscript. Open Google Scholar
  83. Helbling, M., Hoeglinger, D. & Wüest, B. (2010). How Political Parties Frame European Integration. European Journal of Political Research, 49(4), 496-521. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2009.01908.x
  84. Heppt, A. (2008). "Theoretical Paradise-empirically saved"? Vorschlag zur Konzepti-onalisierung und empirischen Identifikation "besserer Argumente". Unpublished manuscript. Open Google Scholar
  85. Heritier, A. (2007). Explaining Institutional Change in Europe. Oxford: Oxford Uni-versity Press. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199298129.001.0001
  86. Hix, S. (2002). Constitutional Agenda Setting Through Discretion in Rule Interpretation: Why the European Parliament won at Amsterdam. British Journal of Political Science, 32(2), 259-280. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1017/S0007123402000108
  87. Hobolt, S. B. (2009). Europe in Question: Referendums on European Integration. Ox-ford: Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199549948.001.0001
  88. Hoffman, S. (1966). Obstinate or Obsolete? The Fate of the Nation-State and the Case of Western Europe. Daedalus, (85), 862–915. Open Google Scholar
  89. Holzinger, K. (2001a). Kommunikationsmodi und Handlungstypen in den Internatio-nalen Beziehungen. Anmerkungen zu einigen irreführenden Dichotomien. Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen, 8, 243–286. Open Google Scholar
  90. Holzinger, K. (2001b). Verhandeln statt Argumentieren oder Verhandeln durch Argu-mentieren? Eine empirische Analyse des Verhältnisses von Argumentieren und Verhandeln auf der Basis der Sprechakttheorie. Politische Vierteljahresschrift, 42(3), 414–446. Open Google Scholar
  91. Holzinger, K. (2004a). Strategic Arguing. Swiss Political Science Review, 10, 201–210. Open Google Scholar
  92. Holzinger, K. (2004b). Bargaining Through Arguing. An Empirical Analysis Based on Speech Act Theory. Political Communication, 21(2), 195–222. Open Google Scholar
  93. Holzinger, K. (2005). Context or Conflict Types: Which Determines the Selection of Communication Mode. Acta Politica, 50, 239–254. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ap.5500100
  94. Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2009). A Postfunctionalist Theory of European Integra-tion: From Permissive Consensus to Constraining Dissensus. British Journal of Po-litical Science, 39, check, from doi: 10.1017/S0007123408000409. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1017/S0007123408000409
  95. Hopmann, P. T. (1995). Two Paradigms of Negotiation: Bargaining and Problem Solv-ing. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, (542), 24–47. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1177/0002716295542001003
  96. Hopmann, P. T. (1996). The Negotiation Process and the Resolution of International Conflicts. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press. Open Google Scholar
  97. Hosli, M. O. (2008). Negotiating the European Economic and Monetary Union. Homo Oeconomicus, 25(2), 203–223. Open Google Scholar
  98. Hug, S., & König, T. (2002). In view of Ratification: Governmental Preferences and Domestic Constraints at the Amsterdam Intergovernmental Conference. International Organization, 56(2), 447–476. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1162/002081802320005531
  99. Hug, S., & König, T. (2007). Domestic structures and constitution-building in an inter-national organization. Review of International Organization, (2), 105–113. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1007/s11558-007-9021-2
  100. Hurrelmann, A., Krell-Laluhová, Z., Nullmeier, F., Schneider, S., & Wiesner, A. (2009). Why the democratic nation-state is still legitimate: A study of media discourse. European Journal of Political Research, 48, 483–515. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2009.00844.x
  101. Iklé, F. (1964). How nations negotiate. New York: Harper and Row. Open Google Scholar
  102. Jachtenfuchs, M. (2002). Deepening and widening integration theory. Journal of Eu-ropean Public Policy, 9(4), 650–657. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1080/13501760210152475
  103. Jachtenfuchs, M. (2002). Die Konstruktion Europas. Verfassungsideen und institutio-nelle Entwicklung. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Open Google Scholar
  104. Katzenstein, P. (Ed.) (1996). The Culture of National Security. New York: Columbia University Press. Open Google Scholar
  105. Kelemen, D. R. (2006). Comment: Shaming the shameless? The constitutionalization of the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy, 13(8), 1302–1307. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1080/13501760601000199
  106. Keohane, R. O., & Nye, J. (1977). Power and Interdependence: world politics in tran-sition. Boston: Little, Brown and Co. Open Google Scholar
  107. Klüver, H. (2009). Measuring Interest Group Influence Using Quantitative Text Anal-ysis. European Union Politics, 10(4), 535–549. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1177/1465116509346782
  108. Kohler, U., & Kreuter, F. (2008). Datenanalyse mit Stata: Allgemeine Konzepte der Datenanalyse und ihre praktische Anwendung (3rd ed.). München: Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag. Open Google Scholar
  109. Kohler-Koch, B. (2000). Framing: the bottleneck of constructing legitimate institutions. Journal of European Public Policy, 7(4), 513–531. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1080/13501760050165343
  110. König, T., & Hug, S. (Eds.) (2006). Policy-making Processes and the European Con-stitution: A Comparative Study of Member States and Accession Countries. London: Routledge. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.4324/9780203965801
  111. König, T., & Luetgert, B. (2003). The Treaty of Nice. Intergovernmental Prenferences, Domestic Constraints and the Reform of European Institutions (Konferenzpapier ECPR General Conference Marburg). Open Google Scholar
  112. König, T., Warntjen, A., & Burkhart, S. (2006). The European Convention: Consensus without unity? In T. König & S. Hug (Eds.), Policy-making Processes and the Eu-ropean Constitution: A Comparative Study of Member States and Accession Coun-tries. London: Routledge. Open Google Scholar
  113. Kratochwil, F. (1989). Rules, Norms, and Decisions. On the Conditions of Practical and Legal Reasoning in International Relations and Domestic Affairs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511559044
  114. Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content Analysis. An Introduction to Its Methodology. Thou-sands Oaks: Sage Publications. Open Google Scholar
  115. Landwehr, C., & Holzinger, K. (2010). Institutional determinants of deliberative inter-action. European Political Science Review, 2(3), 373–400. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1017/S1755773910000226
  116. Laver, M., Benoit, K., & Garry, J. (2003). Extracting Policy Positions from Political Texts Using Words as Data. American Political Science Review, 97(2), 311–331. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1017/S0003055403000698
  117. Laver, M., & Garry, J. (2000). Estimating Policy Positions from Political Texts. Amer-ican Journal of Political Science, 44(3), 619–634. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2307/2669268
  118. Lax, D. A., & Sebenius, J. K. (1985). The Power of Alternatives or the Limits to Nego-tiation. Negotiation Journal, 163–179. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1111/j.1571-9979.1985.tb00304.x
  119. Lax, D. A., & Sebenius, J. K. (1986). The Manager as Negotiator. Bargaining for Co-operation and Competitive Gain. New York, London: The Free Press. Open Google Scholar
  120. Liese, A. (2006). Staaten am Pranger. Zur Wirkung internationaler Regime auf die inner-staatliche Menschenrechtspolitik. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. Open Google Scholar
  121. Linhart, E. (2006). Die Erklärungskraft spiel- und tauschtheoretischer Verhandlungs-modelle in Abhängigkeit vom Institutionalisierungsgrad des Verhandlungssystems. Mannheim: Mannheim University Press. Open Google Scholar
  122. Lorenz, A. (2008). Verfassungsänderungen in etablierten Demokratien: Motivlagen und Aushandlungsmuster. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. Open Google Scholar
  123. Lowe, W. (2008). Understanding Wordscores. Political Analysis, 16, 359–371. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpn004
  124. Luhn, H.-P. (1958). A Business Intelligence System. IBM Journal, 314–319. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1147/rd.24.0314
  125. Magnette, P., & Nicolaidis, K. (2004). The European convention. Bargaining in the shadow of rhetoric. West European Politics, 27(3), 381–404. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1080/0140238042000228068
  126. McKibben, H. E. (2010). Issue characteristics, issue linkage, and states´ choice of bar-gaining strategies in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy, 17(5), 694–707. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1080/13501761003748682
  127. Milner, H. (1997). Interests, Institutions, and Information: Domestic Politics and Inter-national Relations. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Open Google Scholar
  128. Monroe, B. L., & Schrodt, P. A. (2008). Introduction to the Special Issue: The Statistical Analysis of Political Text. Political Analysis, 16, 351–355. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpn017
  129. Moravcsik, A. (1998). The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State Power from Messina to Maastricht. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Open Google Scholar
  130. Moravcsik, A., & Nicolaidis, K. (1999). Explaining the Treaty of Amsterdam: Interests, Influence, Institutions. Journal of Common Market Studies, 37(1), 59–85. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1111/1468-5965.00150
  131. Moravcsik, A., & Vachudova, M. A. (2003). National Interests, State Power and EU Enlargement. East European Politics and Societies, 17(1), 42–57. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1177/0888325402239682
  132. Morgenthau, H. J. (1952). The national interest of the United States. American Political Science Review, 46, 961–988. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2307/1952108
  133. Morgenthau, H. J. (1967). Politics Among Nations. The Struggle for Power and Peace (2nd ed.). New York: Knopf. Open Google Scholar
  134. Morin, J.-F., & Gold, R. E. (2010). Consensus-seeking, distrust and rhetorical entrap-ment: The WTO decision on access to medicines. European Journal of Internatio-nal Relations, 16(4), 563–587. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1177/1354066110366054
  135. Müller, H. (1994). Internationale Beziehungen als kommunikatives Handeln. Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen, 1(1), 15–44. Open Google Scholar
  136. Müller, H. (2004). Arguing, Bargaining and all that: Communicative Action, Rationalist Theory and the Logic of Appropriateness in International Relations. European Journal of International Relations, 10(3), 395–435. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1177/1354066104045542
  137. Müller, H., & Deitelhoff, N. (2005). Theoretical Paradise – Empirically Lost? Arguing with Habermas. Review of International Studies, 31(1), 167–179. Open Google Scholar
  138. Naurin, D. (2007). Deliberation Behind Closed Doors. Transparency and Lobbying in the European Union. Colchester: ECPR Press. Open Google Scholar
  139. Naurin, D. (2010). Most Common When Least Important: Deliberation in the European Union Council of Ministers. British Journal of Political Science, 40(1), 31–50. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1017/S0007123409990251
  140. Naurin, D., & Wallace, H. (Eds.) (2008). Unveiling the Council of the European Union: Games Governments Play in Brussels. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1057/9780230583788
  141. Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The Content Analysis Guidebook. London: Sage Publications. Open Google Scholar
  142. Neyer, J. (2006). The Deliberative Turn in Integration Theory. Journal of European Public Policy, 13(5), 779–791. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1080/13501760600809160
  143. Niemann, A. (2004). Between communicative action and strategic action: the Article 113 Committee and the negotiations on the WTO Basic Telecommunications Services Agreement. Journal of European Public Policy, 11(3), 379–407. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1080/13501760410001694237
  144. Odell, J. S. (2000). Negotiating the World Economy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Open Google Scholar
  145. Odell, J. S. (2010). Three islands of knowledge about negotiation in international or-ganizations. Journal of European Public Policy, 17(5), 619–632. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1080/13501761003748534
  146. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collectiv action. New York: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807763
  147. Panke, D. (2006). More Arguing than Bargaining? The Institutional Design of the Eu-ropean Convention and Intergovernmental Conferences Compared. Europe-an Integration, 28(4), 357–379. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1080/07036330600853976
  148. Panke, D. (2010). Small States in the European Union Structural Disadvantages in EU Policy-Making and Counter-strategies. Journal of European Public Policy, 17(6), 801–819. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2010.486980
  149. Pierson, P. (1996). The Path to European Integration: A Historical Institutionalist Analysis. Comparative Political Studies, 29(2), 123–163. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1177/0010414096029002001
  150. Plümper, T., Schneider, C., & Troeger, V. (2005). The Politics of EU Eastern En-largement: Evidence from a Heckman Selection Model. British Journal of Political Science, 36, 17–38. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1017/S0007123406000020
  151. Pollack, M. A. (1996). The New Institutionalism and EC Governance: The Promise and Limits of Institutional Analysis. Governance, 9(4), 429–458. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0491.1996.tb00251.x
  152. Putnam, R. D. (1988). Diplomacy and domestic politics: the logic of two-level games. International Organization, 42(3), 427–460. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300027697
  153. Rabe-Hesketh, S., & A.Skrondal (2008). Multilevel and longitudinal modeling using stata (2nd ed.). College Station Texas: Stata Press. Open Google Scholar
  154. Raiffa, H. (1982). The Art and Science of Negotiation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni-versity Press. Open Google Scholar
  155. Reh, C. (2007). Pre-cooking the European Constitution? The role of government repre-sentatives in EU reform. Journal of European Public Policy, 14(8), 1186–1207. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1080/13501760701656411
  156. Reh, C. (2009). The Lisbon Treaty: De-Constitutionalizing the European Union? Journal of Common Market Studies, 47(3), 625–650. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5965.2009.01819.x
  157. Reinhard, J. (2012). "Cause we are all Europeans!" When do EU Member States use normative arguments? Journal of European Public Policy (online first), from DOI:10.1080/13501763.2012.662072. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2012.662072
  158. Risse, T. (2000). Let´s argue! Communicative Action in International Relations. Inter-national Organization, 54(1), 1–39. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1162/002081800551109
  159. Risse, T., & Kleine, M. (2010). Deliberation in Negotiations. Journal of European Public Policy, 17(5), 708–726. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1080/13501761003748716
  160. Risse, T., Ropp, S., & Sikkink, K. (Eds.) (1999). The Power of Human Rights: Interna-tional Norms and Domestic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511598777
  161. Rittberger, B. (2005). Building Europe´s Parliament: Democratic Representation Beyond the Nation State. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1093/0199273421.001.0001
  162. Rittberger, B., & Schimmelfennig, F. (2006). Special Issue: The Constitutionalization of the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy, 13(8). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1080/13501760600999474
  163. Schaal, G. S., & Ritzi, C. (2009). Empirische Deliberationsforschung (MPIfG Working Paper No. 09/9). Köln. Open Google Scholar
  164. Scharpf, F. W. (1997). Games real actors play. Actor-centered institutionalism in policy research. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. Open Google Scholar
  165. Scharpf, F. W. (1999). Governing in Europe: Effective and Democratic? Oxford: Ox-ford University Press. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198295457.003.0001
  166. Schelling, T. (1963). The Strategy of Conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Open Google Scholar
  167. Schimmelfennig, F. (2001). The Community Trap: Liberal Normen, Rhetorical Action, and the Eastern Enlargement of the European Union. International Organization, 55(1), 47–80. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1162/002081801551414
  168. Schimmelfennig, F. (2003). The EU, NATO and the integration of Europe: rules and rhetoric. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511492068
  169. Schimmelfennig, F., & Moravcsik, A. (2009). Liberal Intergovernmentalism. In A. Wiener & T. Diez (Eds.), European Integration Theory (2nd ed., pp. 67–87). Ox-ford: Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar
  170. Schimmelfennig, F., & Rittberger, B. (2006). Explaining the Constitutionalization of the European Union,. Journal of European Public Policy, 13(8), 1148–1167. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1080/13501760600999474
  171. Schimmelfennig, F., Rittberger, B., Bürgin, A., & Schwellnus, G. (2006). Conditions for EU constitutionalization: a qualitative comparative analysis. Journal of European Public Policy, 13(8), 1168–1189. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1080/13501760600999482
  172. Schneider, C. (2009). Conflict, Negotiation and European Union Enlargement. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
  173. Schneider, G., & Cederman, L.-E. (1994). The change of tide in political cooperation: a limited information model of European integration. International Organization, 48(4), 633–662. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300028332
  174. Schneider, G., Finke, D., & Bailer, S. (2010). Bargaining Power in the European Union: an evaluation of competing game-theoretic models. Political Studies, 58(1), 85–103. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2009.00774.x
  175. Schnell, R., Hill, P. B., & Esser, E. (2005). Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung (7th ed.). München: Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag. Open Google Scholar
  176. Schonhardt-Bailey, C. (2008). The congressional debate on partial-birth abortion: Con-stitutional gravitas and moral passion. British Journal of Political Science, 38, 383–410. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1017/S0007123408000203
  177. Schwellnus, G. (2006). Reasons for constitutionalization: non-discrimination, minority rights and social rights in the Convention on the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Journal of European Public Policy, 13(8), 1265–1283. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1080/13501760600999565
  178. Sebenius, J. K. (1984). Negotiating the law of the sea. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni-versity Press. Open Google Scholar
  179. Seeger, S. (2008). Die Institutionen- und Machtarchitektur der Europäischen Union mit dem Vertrag von Lissabon. In W. Weidenfeld (Ed.), Lissabon in der Analyse. (pp. 63–98). Baden-Baden: Nomos. Open Google Scholar
  180. Selck, T. J. (2006). The effects of issue salience on political decision-making. Consti-tutional Political Economy, 17, 5–13. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1007/s10602-006-6790-1
  181. Slapin, J. (2006). Who is Powerful? Examining Preferences and Testing Sources of Bargaining Strength at European Intergovernmental Conferences. European Union Politics, 7(1), 51–76. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1177/1465116506060912
  182. Slapin, J. (2008). Bargaining Power at Europe´s Intergovernmental Conferences: Testing Institutional and Intergovernmental Theories. International Organization, 62, 131–162. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1017/S0020818308080053
  183. Slapin, J. (2009). Exit, Voice and Cooperation: Bargaining Power in International Or-ganizations and Federal Systems. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 21(2), 187–211. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1177/0951629808100763
  184. Slapin, J., & Proksch, S.-O. (2008). A Scaling Model for Estimating Time-Series Party Positions from Texts. American Journal of Political Science, 52(3), 705–722. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2008.00338.x
  185. Snow, D. A., Rochford, E. B., Wordon S.K., & Benford, R. D. (1986). Frame alignment processes, micromobilization, and movement participation. American Sociological Review, 51, 464–481. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2307/2095581
  186. Steiner, J., Bächtiger, A., Spörndli, M., & Steenbergen, M. R. (2004). Deliberative Politics in Action: Analyzing Parliamentary Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
  187. Stone, P. D. D. C. S. M. S., & Ogilvie, D. M. (1966). The General Inquirer: A Com-puter Approach to Content Analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Open Google Scholar
  188. Stone Sweet, A., & Sandholtz, W. (1997). European integration and supranational governance. Journal of European Public Policy, 4(3), 297–317. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1080/13501769780000011
  189. Sullivan, J., & Lowe, W. (2010). Chen Shui-bian: On independence. China Quarterly, (203), 619–638. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1017/S0305741010000627
  190. Tallberg, J. (2006). Leadership and Negotiation in the European Union. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511492075
  191. Tallberg, J. (2008). Bargaining Power in the European Council. Journal of Common Market Studies, 46(3), 685–708. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5965.2008.00798.x
  192. Tallberg, J. (2010). Explaining the institutional foundations of European Union negoti-ations. Journal of European Public Policy, 17(5), 633–647. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1080/13501761003748559
  193. Thomson, R. (2008). Responsibility with Power: The Council Presidency of the Euro-pean Union. Journal of Common Market Studies, 46, 593–617. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5965.2008.00793.x
  194. Thomson, R., Stokman, F. N., Achen, C. H., & König, T. (Eds.) (2006). The European Union Decides. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
  195. Thurner, P. W., & Pappi, F. U. (2009). European Union Intergovernmental Conferences: Domestic Preference Formation, Transgovernmental Networks, and the Dynamics of Compromise. New York/London: Routledge. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.4324/9780203879702
  196. Thurner, P. W., Pappi, F. U., & Stoiber, M. (2002). EU Intergovernmental Conferences: A Quantitative Analytical Reconstruction and Data-Handbook of Domestic Preference Formation, Transnational Networks, and Dynamics of Compromise dur-ing the Amsterdam Treaty Negotiations (Arbeitspapiere No. 60). Mannheim: Mannheimer Zentrum für Europäische Sozialforschung. Open Google Scholar
  197. Tsebelis, G. (1990). Nested games: rational choice in comparative politics. California series on social choice and political economy. Berkeley: University of California Press. Open Google Scholar
  198. Tsebelis, G., & Proksch, S.-O. (2007). The Art of Political Manipulation in the Euro-pean Convention. Journal of Common Market Studies, 45(1), 157–186. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5965.2007.00707.x
  199. Ulbert, C., & Risse, T. (2005). Deliberately Changing the Discourse: What Does Make Arguing Effective? Acta Politica, (40), 351–367. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ap.5500117
  200. Voigt, S. (1999). Explaining constitutional change: a positive economics approach. Cheltenham: Elgar. Open Google Scholar
  201. Walton, R. E., & McKersie, R. B. (1965). A Behavioural Theory of Labor Negotia-tions: An Analysis of a Social Interaction System. New York: McGraw-Hill. Open Google Scholar
  202. Warntjen, A. (2008). The Council Presidency: Power Broker or Burden? An Empirical Analysis. European Union Politics, 9(3), 316–338. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1177/1465116508093487
  203. Warntjen, A. (2010). Between bargaining and deliberation: decision-making in the Council of the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy, 17(5), 665–679. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1080/13501761003748641
  204. Weidenfeld, W. (Ed.) (1998). Amsterdam in der Analyse: Strategien für Europa. Gü-tersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung. Open Google Scholar
  205. Weidenfeld, W. (Ed.) (2001). Nizza in der Analyse. Gütersloh: Verlag Bertelsmann Stiftung. Open Google Scholar
  206. Weidenfeld, W. (Ed.) (2005). Die Europäische Verfassung in der Analyse. Gütersloh: Verlag Bertelsmann Stiftung. Open Google Scholar
  207. Weidenfeld, W. (Ed.) (2008). Lissabon in der Analyse. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783845210117
  208. Wiener, A. (2006). Comment: Fact or artefact? Analysing core constitutional norms in beyond-the-state contexts. Journal of European Public Policy, 13(8), 1308–1313. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1080/13501760601000215
  209. Young, P. H. (1991). Chapter 1: Negotiation Analysis. In P. H. Young (Ed.), Negotia-tion Analysis (pp. 1–23). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Open Google Scholar
  210. Young, P. H. (Ed.) (1991). Negotiation Analysis. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Open Google Scholar
  211. Zangl, B., & Zürn, M. (1996). Argumentatives Handeln bei internationalen Verhand-lungen: Moderate Anmerkungen zur post-realistischen Debatte. Zeitschrift für In-ternationale Beziehungen, 3(2), 341–366. Open Google Scholar
  212. Zürn, M., & Stephen, M. (2010). The View of Old and New Powers on the Legitimacy of International Institutions. Politics, 30(1), 91–101. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9256.2010.01388.x

Similar publications

from the topics "International Organizations & NGOs", "European Politics & European Union"
Cover of book: Weltbilder und Weltordnung
Educational Book No access
Gert Krell, Peter Schlotter, Alexandra Homolar, Frank A. Stengel
Weltbilder und Weltordnung
Cover of book: Europa
Book Titles No access
Hans Jörg Schrötter
Europa
Cover of book: Le sanzioni dell’UE nei confronti della Russia tra sicurezza internazionale e diritti umani
Edited Book No access
Antonino Alì
Le sanzioni dell’UE nei confronti della Russia tra sicurezza internazionale e diritti umani
Cover of book: Understanding the Emergence of Joint Debt Issuance on the EU Agenda
Book Titles No access
Sara Arezes
Understanding the Emergence of Joint Debt Issuance on the EU Agenda
Cover of book: Kritische Normenforschung in den Internationalen Beziehungen
Edited Book Full access
Stephan Engelkamp, Katharina Glaab, Antonia Graf
Kritische Normenforschung in den Internationalen Beziehungen

Notice

This work is protected by copyright and may only be used in accordance with the provisions of the Terms of Use and License Agreement. Any use of the work beyond this is expressly prohibited and will be prosecuted.

Give feedback

We welcome your feedback on content and features. Your message helps us to continuously improve our service.

Rating
Attach images
or drag and drop
PNG or JPG (max. 3 MB)

Login

Forgotten your password?
Login via Open Athens
Don't have an account yet?
Register now

Cite publication

Download: RIS BibTex