Veto Players and Decision‐making in the EU After Nice
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 6282185 |
|---|---|
| Authors | George Tsebelis (0000-0003-0889-8153, University of California, Los Angeles), Xenophon Yataganas |
| Year | 2002 |
| Volume | 40 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 283-307 |
| Publication date | 2002-06-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | JCMS Journal of Common Market Studies (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0021-9886 • E-ISSN: 1468-5965 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1111/1468-5965.00355 |
| OpenAlex | W2057531035 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 39 |
The Treaty of Nice introduced a triple majority requirement for Council decisions. In order to be valid, Council decisions require not only a qualified majority (slightly larger than before), but also an absolute majority of Member States and, at a country’s request, a 62 per cent majority of the total population of EU countries. We explain why this significant modification of the rules occurred and what the likely consequences are. The triple majority requirement was introduced because the approaching enlargement of the EU differentiates for the first time between the three majoritarian criteria (weighted votes in the Council, majority of countries, and majority of the population). Different countries have insisted on each of these criteria and the final outcome is an explicit incorporation of all three. The likely outcomes of this change in rules are increased difficulty of legislative decisions, a shift of veto powers in favour of the Council, an increased role for the judiciary, and a further bureaucratization of the EU
Economics · Law and economics · Legislature · Majority rule · Nice · Order (exchange · Political science · Politics · Population · Sociology · Treaty · Veto · Demography · European and International Law Studies · European Union Policy and Governance · Law · Taxation and Legal Issues
The role of epistemic communities in the “constitutionalization” of internet governance
A difficult change
Policy Networks and Policy Entrepreneurship in the EU
The core or the winset? Explaining decision-making duration and policy change in the European Union
Better together? Explaining Poland’s and Germany’s bargaining success in EU lawmaking
The Social Dimension of the European Union
A colossus with feet of clay? Assessing Germany’s prevalence in European Union lawmaking
Procedural Change and the Sources of Ex Ante Constraints in EU Legislation
Connecting the dots
Beyond the Big‐Bang Enlargement
Withering the exogenous shock
The Bureaucratisation of Decision-Making in the European Union after Eastern Enlargement
Enlargement and the Environment
Political and stakeholder’s ties in European Union agencies
Domestic politics and the widening–deepening trade-off in the European Union
The Art of Political Manipulation in the European Convention
Bargaining Power at Europe's Intergovernmental Conferences
Forecasting European Union politics
Accession and Reform of the European Union
Institutional constraints, legislative activism and policy change
Thinking locally, acting supranationally
If things can only get worse
The institution of ‘consensus’ in the European Union
Legislative Gridlock and Bureaucratic Politics in the European Union
Coalition Building and Consensus in the Council of the European Union
Negotiating the Post‐Lisbon Comitology System
From Unanimity to Consensus
Access of Experts
Bicameral Winning Coalitions and Equilibrium Federal Legislatures
The soft hostage-taking of EU foreign policy
Oligarchization, formalization, adaptation? Linking Sociological Theory and EU Enlargement Research
Partisan Heterogeneity and International Cooperation
The Joint-Decision Trap Revisited
Who Has Power in the EU? The Commission, Council and Parliament in Legislative Decision‐making
Too big to run? Analysing the impact of enlargement on the speed of EU decision-making
Who Is Powerful
Who Calls for a Common EU Foreign Policy
Challenges to liberal intergovernmentalism
Authority transfer and governmental legal contestation before the court of justice of the EU
| Unique citing works | 39 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 1,77 |
| Citation span | 2004 - 2026 (23) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 39 |