Scrutiny: The Political Theory of the White Paper on Governance: Hidden and Fascinating
Scrutiny: The Political Theory of the White Paper on Governance: Hidden and Fascinating
复制标题
审视：治理白皮书的政治理论：隐秘而迷人
DOI：
10.54648/euro2003006
复制
发表时间：
2003
影响因子：
0.6
通讯作者：
A. Follesdal
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
A. Follesdal
委员会治理白皮书就欧盟面临的几个重要问题提出了发人深省的建议，从改进政策制定和实施流程到增强欧盟在全球舞台上的国际代表性和知名度。白皮书的一个显着特点是，这些提案的宣布并没有过多关注替代方案前提和政策提案的复杂权衡，而这些前提和政策提案肯定应该为此类建议提供信息。为了捍卫这种沉默，这种反思在准备阶段更加明显，但在过程中被抑制。工作文件的历史和任务充分解释了为什么缺乏原则性论证。一份更具自我反思性和明确哲学性的文件在政治上肯定是不可行的。鉴于白皮书的主要作用是为共同体行动提出具体建议，这似乎也没有必要。鉴于其任务，将白皮书评估为政治哲学条约将是一个类别错误。当然，它不应该仅仅因为它没有解决的问题而被拒绝。然而，白皮书提案的隐含前提值得仔细审查。这些提案被宽容地解释为基于某些政治和合法性的前提和模式——这些令人担忧的前提应该会影响他们的评估。该文件似乎建立在权力概念以及委员会适当作用和责任的概念之上，这些概念令人着迷——令人着迷的是一种极其有趣的矛盾感觉。这些反思的目的是论证白皮书建立在充满争议前提的政治和合法性模型之上。权力和合法权威的隐含概念令人着迷，引发了从尤维纳尔的问题开始的问题：“谁守护着条约的守护者？”这些问题没有被提出，也没有得到解答。这在欧盟委员会在未来欧洲政治秩序中的适当作用方面最为明显。委员会应在涉及不同领土级别的政治代理人的多层次治理过程中以及委员会与网络内的私人行为者之间发挥主导优化作用。委员会本身就能找到没有冲突的解决方案。只有在共同体机构之间，白皮书才预见到冲突，在这种情况下，委员会的立场应主导理事会的立场。欧盟委员会独自可靠地为欧洲整体利益行事，这应该主导所有其他问题。委员会应根据广泛的立法享有广泛的行政裁量权，并且不受详细审查。以下评论指出了白皮书提案中的一些差距。需要对其他更合理的观点进行批判性辩护，但必须等待其他场合。批评意见是根据白皮书中提出的五项良好治理原则构建的。然而，正如将要清楚的那样，这不应被视为同意委员会的假设，即这五项原则是详尽无遗的或无可争议的。
The Commission White Paper on Governance presents thought-provoking proposals regarding several important issues facing the EU, ranging from improving the policy making and implementation processes to bolstering the Union’s international representation and visibility on the global arena. A striking feature of the White Paper is that the proposals are proclaimed without much attention to the complex weighing of alternatives premises and policy proposals that surely should inform such recommendations. In defence of this silence, such reflections were more visible in the preparatory stages, but were subdued during the process. The history and task of the Working Paper provides ample explanations of why principled arguments are absent. A more self-reflective and explicitly philosophical document would surely be politically unfeasible. It would also appear unnecessary, given the primary role of a White Paper of laying out concrete proposals for Community action. In light of its tasks, it would be a category mistake to assess the White Paper as a treaty of political philosophy. Surely it should not be rejected merely on the basis of what it does not address. Yet the implicit premises of the White Paper proposals merit close scrutiny. The proposals are charitably interpreted as resting on certain premises and models of politics and legitimacy – worrisome premises that should affect their assessment. The document appears to build on a conception of power, and on a conception of the Commission’s appropriate role and responsibilities that are fascinating – fascinating in the ambivalent sense of being terrifyingly interesting. The aim of these reflections is to argue that the White Paper rests on a model of politics and of legitimacy bursting with controversial premises. The implicit conceptions of power and legitimate authority are fascinating, begging for questions starting with Juvenal’s: “Who guards the guardian of the Treaties?” Such questions are left unasked – and unanswered. This is most evident concerning the appropriate role of the Commission within the future European political order. The Commission should serve as a dominant optimiser within the processes of multi-level governance involving political agents at various territorial levels, and between the Commission and private actors within networks. The Commission, and it alone, can find solutions without conflict. Only among Community institutions does the White Paper foresee conflict, in which case the Commission position should dominate those of the Council. The Commission alone reliably acts in the general European interest, which should dominate all other concerns. The Commission should enjoy broad executive discretion under broad legislation, and be free from detailed scrutiny. The following remarks identify several of the gaps in the White Paper proposals. A critical defence of other, more plausible views is required, but must wait for other occasions. The critical comments are structured according to five principles of good governance set out in the White Paper. However, as will become clear, this should not be taken as agreement to the Commission’s assumption that these five principles are exhaustive or uncontested.