Civil society and the European common security and defence policy

References

• Allen, D., 1998. Who speaks for Europe? The search for an effective and coherent external policy. In: J. Peterson and H. Sjursen, eds. Common foreign policy for Europe? Competing visions of the CFSP. London and New York: Routledge, 41–58.
   Google Scholar
• Anders, H., 2003. The role of non-state actors in the European small arms regime. Peace Studies Paper 6. Bradford: Bradford University.
   Google Scholar
• Bauer, S. and Bromley, M., 2004. The EU code of conduct on arms exports – enhancing the accountability of arms exports policies. European security, 12 (3), 129–147. doi:10.1080/09662830390436588
   Google Scholar
• Bayne, S. and Trolliet, P., 2009. Stocktaking and scoping of the peacebuilding partnership, study for the European commission – DG RELEX A/2. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/external_relations/ifs/pbp_en.htm
   Google Scholar
• Better Regulation Task Force, 2005. Get connected. Effective engagement in the EU. London: Better Regulation Task Force. Available from: http://www.eesc.europa.eu/resources/docs/getconnected.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Beyers, J., Eising, R., and Maloney, W.A., eds., 2010. Interest group politics in Europe: lessons from EU studies and comparative politics. London and New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Bromley, M., 2008. The impact on domestic policy of the EU code on arms exports: the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, and Spain. SIPRI Policy Paper 21. Stockholm: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Carothers, T., 1999. Civil society. Foreign policy, 117, 18–29.
   Google Scholar
• Cheneval, F. and Schimmelfennig, F., 2013. The case for demoicracy in the European Union. Journal of common market studies, 51 (2), 334–350. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5965.2012.02262.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Commission of the European Communities, 1992. An open and structured dialogue between the commission and special interest groups, Brussels (SEC 92/2272). Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.
   Google Scholar
• Commission of the European Communities, 2000. The commission and non-governmental organizations: building a stronger partnership. Discussion paper, presented by President Prodi and Vice President Kinnock, Brussels.
   Google Scholar
• Commission of the European Communities, 25 July 2001a. European governance: a white paper, COM(2001)428.
   Google Scholar
• Commission of the European Communities, June 2001b. White Paper on Governance, Report of Working Group “Consultation and Participation of Civil Society” ( Group 2a).
   Google Scholar
• Commission of the European Communities, 11 December 2002. Towards a reinforced culture of consultation and dialogue – general principles and minimum standards for consultation of interested parties by the Commission. Brussels: COM(2002) 704 final.
   Google Scholar
• Cram, L., 2001. Governance ‘to go’: domestic actors, institutions and the boundaries of the possible. Journal of common market studies, 39 (4), 595–618. doi:10.1111/1468-5965.00323
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cullen, P., 2009. Pan-European NGOs and social rights: participatory democracy and civil dialogue. In: J. Joachim and B. Locher, eds. Transnational activism in the UN and the EU: a comparative study. London and New York: Routledge Press, 140–153.
   Google Scholar
• Dahl, R., 1989. Democracy and its critics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, I., 2002. The regulation of arms and dual-use exports: Germany, Sweden and the UK. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Debiel, T. and Fischer, M., 2000. Zivile Krisenprävention durch die EU: Zur Programmatik und Institutionalisierung eines Politikfeldes [European Union Civilian Crisis Management]. Friedensgutachten 2000. Münster: Lit-Verlag, 130–138.
   Google Scholar
• Dembinski, M., 2009. NGOs and security: the case of the European Union. In: J. Joachim and B. Locher, eds. Transnational activism in the UN and the EU. London: Routledge, 154–168.
   Google Scholar
• Eising, R., 2003. Interest groups and the European Union. In: M. Cine and N. Perez-Solorzano Borragan, eds. European Union politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 192–206.
   Google Scholar
• EPLO, 2011. Civil society dialogue network. Available from: http://www.eplo.org/civilsociety-dialogue-network.html
   Google Scholar
• Featherstone, K., 2003. Introduction: in the name of ‘Europe’. In: K. Featherstone and C.M. Radaelli, eds. The politics of Europeanization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3–26.
   Google Scholar
• Friedrich, D.G., 2007. Europe's civil society from a normative democratic point of view: the case of the European Unions' migration policy. In: C. Ruzza, eds. Governance and civil society in the European Union; Normative perspectives. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 113–133.
   Google Scholar
• Gourlay, C., 2006. Partners apart: enhancing cooperation between civil society and EU civilian crisis management in the framework of ESDP. Jyväskylä: CMI, EPLO, and KATU. Available from: http://www.eplo.org/assets/files/3.Resources/EPLOPublications/Civil_Society_Conflict_Prevention_Network-Crisis_Management_Initiative-EPLO_Report_Partners_Apart.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Grande, E., 1996. The state and interest groups in a framework of multilevel decision-making: the case of the European Union. Journal of European public policy, 3 (3), 318–338. doi:10.1080/13501769608407037
   Google Scholar
• Greenwood, J., 2009. Institutions and civil society organizations in the EU's multilevel system. In: J. Joachim and B. Locher, eds. Transnational activism in the UN and the EU. London and New York: Routledge, 93–105.
   Google Scholar
• Greenwood, J., 2010. Regulating NGO participation in the EU: a De-Facto accreditation system build on ‘representativeness’? In: J. Steffek and K. Hahn, eds. Evaluating transnational NGOs. Legitimacy, accountability, representation. Houndsmill: Palgrave, 200–219.
   Google Scholar
• Greenwood, J., 2011. Interest representation in the European Union. 3rd ed. New York: Palgrave and Macmillan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Guay, T., 2007. Europe's Defense Industry and the CFSP. Paper presented at a workshop on Civil Society and Interest Representation in the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy, Mannheim, 28–29 November.
   Google Scholar
• Guiraudon, V., 2001. Weak weapons of the weak? Transnational mobilization around migration in the European Union. In: D. Imig and S. Tarrow, eds. Contentious Europeans: protest and politics in an emerging polity. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, 163–186.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J., 1996. Between facts and norms. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Held, D., 1987. Models of democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Helfferich, B. and Kolb, F., 2001. Multilevel action coordination in European contentious politics: the case of the European women's lobby. In: D. Imig and S. Tarrow, eds. Contentious Europeans: protest and politics in an emerging polity. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, 143–162.
   Google Scholar
• Héritier, A., 2003. Composite democracy in Europe: the role of transparency and access to information. Journal of European public policy, 10 (5), 814–833. doi:10.1080/1350176032000124104
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hüller, T. and Kohler-Koch, B., 2008. Assessing the democratic value of civil society engagement in the European Union. In: B. Kohler-Koch, D. De Bièvre, and W.A. Maloney, eds. Opening EU-Governance to civil society. Mannheim: CONNEX Report Series No. 5, 145–181.
   Google Scholar
• Joachim, J. and Dembinski, M., 2011. A contradiction in terms? NGOs, democracy, and European foreign and security policy. Journal of European public policy, 18 (8), 1151–1168. doi:10.1017/S0020818309090018
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keohane, R., Macedo, S., and Morvacsik, A., 2009. Democracy-enhancing multilateralism. International organization, 63 (1), 1–31. doi:10.1017/S0020818309090018
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kielmansegg, P.G., 1996. Integration und Demokratie. In: B. Kohler-Koch and M. Jachtenfuchs, eds. Europäische Integration. Opladen: Leske & Budrich, 47–72.
   Google Scholar
• Kirchner, E., 2006. The challenge of European Union security governance. Journal of common market studies, 44 (5), 947–968. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5965.2006.00669.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kohler-Koch, B., 1996. Die Gestaltungsmacht organisierter Interessen [The power of organized interests]. In: M. Jachtenfuchs and B. Kohler-Koch, eds. Europäische Integration. Opladen: Leske & Budrich, 193–222.
   Google Scholar
• Koher-Koch, B., De Bièvre, D., and Maloney, W., eds., 2008. Opening EU-governance to civil society. Mannheim: University of Mannheim, Connex Report Series No. 5.
   Google Scholar
• Lodge, J., 1994. Transparency and democratic legitimacy. Journal of common market studies, 32 (3), 343–368. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5965.1994.tb00502.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Long, D., 2002. The European Union and the Ottawa Process to Ban Landmines. Journal of European public policy, 9 (3), 429–446. doi:10.1080/13501760210139704
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahoney, C., 2004. The power of institutions: state and interest group activity in the European Union. European Union politics, 5 (4), 441–466. doi:10.1177/1465116504047312
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martens, K., 2005. NGOs and the united nations: institutionalization, professionalization and adaptation. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Mérand, F., Hofmann, S.C., and Irondelle, B., 2010. Transgovernmental networks in European security and defence policy. European integration online papers (EIoP), 14 (1), 1–19.
   Google Scholar
• Moravcsik, A., 1994. Why the European Union strengthens the state: domestic politics and international institution. Center for European studies working paper series, 52. Cambridge: Harvard University.
   Google Scholar
• Natorski, M., 2011. The European Union peacebuilding approach: governance and practices of the instrument for stability. Frankfurt PRIF Report, 111.
   Google Scholar
• Peters, D., Wagner, W., and Deitelhoff, N., 2010. Parliaments and European security policy: mapping the parliamentary field. European integration online papers (EIoP), 14 (1), 1–25.
   Google Scholar
• Putnam, R.D., 1988. Diplomacy and domestic politics: the logic of two-level games. International organization, 42 (3), 427–460. doi:10.1017/S0020818300027697
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Putnam, R.D., 1995. Bowling alone. America's Declining Social Capital. Journal of democracy, 6 (1), 65–78.
   Google Scholar
• Rodekamp, M., 2011. Civil society organizations in the EU's external relations: contributing to input or output legitimacy? Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the International Studies Association, Montreal, 16–19 March.
   Google Scholar
• Rucht, D., 2001. Lobbying or protest? Strategies to influence EU environmental policies. In: D. Imig and S. Tarrow, eds. Contentious Europeans: protest and politics in an emerging polity. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, 125–142.
   Google Scholar
• Rummel, R., 2003. EU Friedenspolitik durch Konfliktprävention: Erfahrungen mit dem Conflict Prevention Network [EU peace and conflict prevention policy: experiences with the conflict prevention network]. In: P. Schlotter, ed. Europa-Macht-Frieden? Zur Politik der Zivilmacht Europa. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 240–277.
   Google Scholar
• Shackleton, M., 2002. The European Parliament. In: J. Peterson and M. Shackleton, eds. The institutions of the European Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 95–117.
   Google Scholar
• Smismans, S., 2003. European civil society: shaped by discourses and institutional interests. European law journal, 9 (4), 473–495. doi:10.1111/1468-0386.00187
   Google Scholar
• Stavrianakis, A., 2010. Taking aim at the arms trade. London: Zed Books.
   Google Scholar
• Steffek, J., Kissling, C., and Nanz, P., 2008. Civil society participation in European and global governance. A cure for the democratic deficit? Houndsmill: Palgrave.
   Google Scholar
• Uçarer, E.M., 2009. Safeguarding asylum as a human right: NGOs and the European Union. In: J. Joachim and B. Locher, eds. Transnational activism in the UN and the EU. London and New York: Routledge, 121–139.
   Google Scholar
• Vanhoonacker, S., Dijkstra, H., and Maurer, H., 2010. Understanding the role of bureaucracy in the European security and defence policy: the state of the art. European integration online papers, 14 (1), 1–33.
   Google Scholar
• Warleigh, A., 2001. Europeanizing civil society: NGOs as agents of political socialization. Journal of common market studies, 39 (3), 617–639.
   Google Scholar
• Webber, M., et al., 2004. The governance of European security. Review of international studies, 30 (1), 3–26. doi:10.1017/S0260210504005807
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolf, K.-D., 2000. Die neue Staatsräson: Zwischenstaatliche Kooperation als Demokratieproblem in der Weltgesellschaft [The new reason of state: interstate cooperation as a challenge for democracy]. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
   Google Scholar