Territorial Cohesion and Subsidiarity under the European Union Treaties: A Critique of the ‘Territorialism’ Underlying

REFERENCES

• Anderson J. (1996) The shifting stage of politics: new medieval and postmodern territorialities?, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 14(2), 133–153. doi: 10.1068/d140133
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barca Report (2009) An Agenda for a Reformed Cohesion Policy: A Place-based Approach to Meeting European Union Challenges and Expectations, , Independent report prepared at the request of Danuta Hübner, Commissioner for Regional Policy (available at: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/future/barca_en.htm)
   Google Scholar
• Benz A. (2000) Two types of multi-level governance: intergovernmental relations in German and EU regional policy, Regional and Federal Studies 10(3), 21–44. doi: 10.1080/13597560008421130
   Google Scholar
• Burns M. (1992) Dreyfuss: A Family Affair 1789–1945. Chatto & Windus, London.
   Google Scholar
• Commission of the European Communities (1999) European Spatial Development Perspective: Towards Balanced and Sustainable Development of the Territory of the EU. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.
   Google Scholar
• Commission of the European Communities (2008) Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Committee of the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee: Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion – Turning Territorial Diversity into Strength. COM. (2008) 616. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels. (available at: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/consultation/terco/index_en.htm)
   Google Scholar
• Committee of the Regions (2009) White Paper on Multilevel Governance (Own Initiative Report), , CONST-IV-020 (available at: http://www.cor.europa.eu/pages/EventTemplate.aspx?view=folder&id=53788fb1-937b-44ce-bd39-b20f3313bc83&sm=53788fb1-937b-44ce-bd39-b20f3313bc83)
   Google Scholar
• Committee of the Regions (2010) A New Treaty: A New Role for Regions and Local Authorities. Committee of the Regions, Brussels.
   Google Scholar
• Dale E. (1965) Management: Theory and Practice. McGraw Hill, New York, NY
   Google Scholar
• Dangschat J. S. (2006) Raumplanung unter Unsicherheit – Beherrschbarer Widerspruch?, In SelleK. (Ed.) Zur räumlichen Entwicklung beitragen: Konzepte, Theorien, Impulse (Planung neu denken, Bd1), Edition Stadt/Entwicklung, pp. 378–388. Dorothea Rohn, Dortmund.
   Google Scholar
• David C. H. (2005) Subsidiaritätsprincip, In RitterE.-H. et al. (Ed.) Handwörterbuch für Raumordnung, Akademie für Raumforschung und Landesplanung, pp. 1129–1134. Hanover.
   Google Scholar
• Davoudi S. and Strange I. (Eds) (2009) Conceptions of Space and Place in Strategic Spatial Planning. Routledge, London.
   Google Scholar
• Delanty G. and Rumford C. (2005) Rethinking Europe: Social Theory and the Implications of Europeanization. Routledge, London.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission (2010a) Communication from the Commission: Investing in Europe's Future: Fifth Report on Economic, Social and Territorial Cohesion, , (available at: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/official/reports/cohesion5/pdf/5cr_en.pdf)
   Google Scholar
• European Commission (2010b) Communication from the Commission: Europe 2020: A Strategy for Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive Growth, , (available at: http://ec.europa.eu/eu2020/pdf/COMPLET%20EN%20BARROSO%20%20%20007%20-%20Europe%202020%20-%20EN%20version.pdf); adopted by the European Council on 17 June (available at: http://ec.europa.eu/eu2020/pdf/council_conclusion_17_june_en.pdf)
   Google Scholar
• Faludi A. (1997) A roving band of planners, Built Environment 23(4), [Special Issue: ‘Shaping Europe: The European Spatial Development Perspective’, Eds A. Faludi and W. Zonneveld], 281–287
   Google Scholar
• Faludi A (2007) In FaludiA (Ed.) Territorial Cohesion and the European Model of Society. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge MA.
   Google Scholar
• Faludi A. (2010) Cohesion, Coherence, Cooperation: European Spatial Planning Coming of Age? RTPI Library Series. Routledge, London.
   Google Scholar
• Faludi A. and Waterhout B. (2002) The Making of the European Spatial Development Perspective: No Masterplan. RTPI Library Series. Routledge, London.
   Google Scholar
• Føllesdal A. (2000) Subsidiarity and democratic deliberation, In Eriksen E. O. and Fossum J. E. (Eds) Deliberative Constitutional Politics in the European Union: Integration through Deliberation, pp. 85–110. Routledge, London.
   Google Scholar
• Gatawis S. (2000) Grundfragen eines europäischen Raumordnungsrechts (Beiträge zur Raumplanung und zum Siedlungs- und Wohnungswesen, Bd. 196). Selbstverlag des Zentralinstituts für Raumplanung und des Instituts für Siedlungs- und Wohungswesen der Universität Münster, Münster.
   Google Scholar
• Harvey D. (1969) Explanation in Geography. Edward Arnold, London.
   Google Scholar
• Harvey D. (1996) Justice, Nature and Geography of Difference. Blackwell, Oxford.
   Google Scholar
• Haughton G., Allmendinger Ph., Counsell D. and Vigar G. (2010) The New Spatial Planning: Territorial Management with Soft Spaces and Fuzzy Boundaries. Routledge, London.
   Google Scholar
• Healey P. (2010) Making Better Places – The Planning Project in the Twenty-First Century. Palgrave, London.
   Google Scholar
• Heidenreich M. and Zeitlin J. (Eds) (2009) Changing European Welfare State Regimes: The Influence of the Open Method of Coordination on National Reforms. Routledge, London.
   Google Scholar
• Held D. and McGrew A. (2007) Introduction: Globalization at risk?, In Held D. and McGrew A. (Eds) Globalization Theory: Approaches and Controversies, pp. 1–11. Polity, London.
   Google Scholar
• Hoetjes, B. J. S. (2001) Besturen op Europees niveau: lagen en listen, lusten en lasten. Lecture given at the University of Maastricht, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
   Google Scholar
• Hooghe L. (1996) Introduction: Reconciling EU-wide policy and national diversity, In Hooghe L. (Ed.) Cohesion Policy and European Integration: Building Multi-Level Governance, pp. 1–24. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
   Google Scholar
• Hooghe L. and Marks G. (2001) Multilevel Governance and European Integration. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, MD
   Google Scholar
• Hooghe L. and Marks G. (2003) Unraveling the central state, but how? Types of multilevel governance, American Political Science Review 97(2), 233–243.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hooghe L. and Marks G. (2010) Types of multi-level governance, In Enderlein H., Wälti S. and Zürn M. (Eds) Handbook on Multilevel Governance, pp. 17–31. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
   Google Scholar
• Janin Rivolin U. (2005) Cohesion and subsidiarity: towards good territorial governance in Europe, Town Planning Review 76(1), [Special Issue: ‘Territorial Cohesion’, Ed. A. Faludi], 93–106
   Google Scholar
• Janin Rivolin U. (2010) EU territorial governance: learning from institutional progress, European Journal of Spatial Development, , article no. 38 (available at: http://www.nordregio.se/EJSD/refereed%2038.pdf)
   Google Scholar
• Kersten J. (2010) Europäische Raumentwicklung nach dem Lissabon-Urteil des Bundesverfassungsgerichts, Umwelt und Planungsrecht – Zeitschrift für Wissenschaft und Praxis 6/2010, 201–208.
   Google Scholar
• Khanna P. (2011) How to Run the World: Charting a Course to the Next Renaissance. Random House, New York, NY
   Google Scholar
• Kunzmann K. R. (1982) The European regional planning concept, Ecistics 294, 217–222.
   Google Scholar
• Marks G. and Hooghe L. (2004) Contrasting visions of multi-level governance, In Bache I. and Flinders M. (Eds) Multi-level Governance, pp. 15–30. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
   Google Scholar
• Paillet P. H. (1995) Subsidiarité, aménagement du territoire et Union européenne, EUREG no. 2, 4–6.
   Google Scholar
• Richardson K. (2009) Rethinking EU regional policy: the case for radical reform and a new role for real economic areas, Urban Research and Practice 2(3), 344–352. doi: 10.1080/17535060903319350
   Google Scholar
• Rifkin J. (2004) The European Dream: How Europe's Vision of the Future is Quietly Eclipsing the American Dream. Tarcher, New York, NY
   Google Scholar
• Rosenau J. N. (1999) Toward an ontology for global governance, In Hewson M. and Sinclair T. (Eds) Approaches to Global Governance Theory, pp. 287–301. State University of New York Press, Albany, NY
   Google Scholar
• Rosenau J. N. (2004) Strong demand, huge supply: governance in an emerging epoch, In Bache I. and Flinders M. (Eds) Multi-level Governance, pp. 31–48. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
   Google Scholar
• Sabel C. F. and Zeitlin J. (2010) In Sabel C. F. and Zeitlin J. (Eds) Experimentalist Governance in the European Union: Towards a New Architecture. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
   Google Scholar
• Sassen S. (2006) Territory, Authority, Rights: From Medieval to Global Assemblages. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ
   Google Scholar
• Scholte J. A. (2000) Globalization: A Critical Introduction. Macmillan, Houndmills.
   Google Scholar
• Siedentop H. (1995) Das Subdisiaritätsprinzip der EG und die Mitgliedstaaten, EUREG no. 2, 7–11.
   Google Scholar
• Szyszak E. (2006) Experimental governance: the open method of coordination, European Law Journal 12(4), 486–502. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0386.2006.00329.x
   Google Scholar
• Territorial Agenda 2020 (2011) Territorial Agenda of the European Union 2020: Towards an Inclusive, Smart and Sustainable Europe of Diverse Regions; Agreed at the Informal Ministerial Meeting of Ministers Responsible for Spatial Planning and Territorial Development on 19th May 2011, Gödöllodblac, Hungary (available at: http://www.eu2011.hu/files/bveu/documents/TA2020.pdf)
   Google Scholar
• Thrift N. (2003) Space: the fundamental stuff of geography, In Halloway S. L., Rice S. and Valentine G. (Eds) Key Concepts in Geography, pp. 95–108. Sage, London.
   Google Scholar
• Van der Woud A. (1987) Het lege land: De ruimtelijke orde van Nederland 1798–1848. Meulenhoff Informatief, Amsterdam.
   Google Scholar
• Von Wedel J. (2010) Remediävalisierung II: Zur Programmatik der Europäischen Regionalpolitik, Raumforschung und Raumordnung 68, 389–396. doi: 10.1007/s13147-010-0052-4
   Google Scholar
• Waterhout B. (2011) European spatial planning: current state and future challenges, In Addams N., Cotella G. and Nunes R. (Eds) Territorial Development, Cohesion and Spatial Planning: Knowledge and Policy Development in an Enlarged EU, pp. 84–102. Routledge, Abingdon.
   Google Scholar
• Weatherill S. (2004) Competence creep and competence control, Yearbook of European Law 23(1), 1–55. doi: 10.1093/yel/23.1.1
   Google Scholar
• Zeitlin J. (2005a) The open method of co-ordination in question, In Zeitlin J., Pochet P. and Magnusson L. (Eds) The Open Method of Co-ordination in Action: The European Employment and Social Inclusion Strategies, pp. 19–33. P.I.E.-Peter Lang, Brussels.
   Google Scholar
• Zeitlin J. (2005b) The open method of co-ordination in action: theoretical promise, empirical realities, reform strategy, In Zeitlin J., Pochet P. and Magnusson L. (Eds) The Open Method of Co-ordination in Action: The European Employment and Social Inclusion Strategies, pp. 447–503. P.I.E.-Peter Lang, Brussels.
   Google Scholar
• Zonneveld W. and Waterhout B. (2005) Visions on territorial cohesion, Town Planning Review 76(1), [Special Issue: ‘Territorial Cohesion’, Ed. A. Faludi], 15–27 doi: 10.3828/tpr.76.1.2
   Google Scholar