Is Co-Decision Good for the Environment? an Analysis of the European Parliament's Green Credentials
Is Co-Decision Good for the Environment? an Analysis of the European Parliament's Green Credentials
复制标题
共同决策对环境有利吗？
DOI：
10.1111/j.1467-9248.2009.00782.x
复制
发表时间：
2010
影响因子：
3.1
通讯作者：
Burns C
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Burns C
欧洲议会（EP）长期以来一直被认为是欧盟环境变化的积极力量，但很少有详细的实证审查，以确定其作为绿色冠军的声誉是否当之无愧。也没有对根据共同决定增加欧洲议会权力的环境影响进行任何评估。这些疏忽是纠正的评价欧洲议会的修正案的环境立法使用的类型，他们的生态承诺和重要性的程度方面的排名。欧洲议会的修正案提出的三个程序的决策进行了比较，以确定是否最近增加的欧洲议会的权力下的共同决策程序影响其能力和意愿，通过“绿色”的修正案。很明显，欧洲议会一直在努力加强环境立法，但对于共同决定是否对环境有利，存在一些模糊不清的地方。
The European Parliament (EP) has long been regarded as a positive force for environmental change in the EU, but there has been little detailed empirical scrutiny to determine whether its reputation as a green champion is deserved. Nor has there been any evaluation of the environmental impact of the increase in EP powers under co-decision. These oversights are rectified by an evaluation of the EP's amendments to environmental legislation using typologies that rank them in terms of their level of ecological commitment and importance. EP amendments proposed under three procedures of decision making are compared in order to determine whether recent increases in the EP's powers under the co-decision procedure have affected its ability and willingness to adopt ‘green’ amendments. It is clear that the EP has consistently tried to strengthen environmental legislation but there is some ambiguity as to whether co-decision has been good for the environment.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
3.8
作者：
M. Thatcher
通讯作者：
M. Thatcher
欧洲议会
影响因子：
2
作者：
Petra Ahrens;Lise Rolandsen Agustín
通讯作者：
Lise Rolandsen Agustín
DOI：
--
发表时间：
1999
期刊：
影响因子：
--
作者：
George Tsebelis;Anastassios Kalandrakis
通讯作者：
Anastassios Kalandrakis
DOI：
--
发表时间：
2002
期刊：
影响因子：
--
作者：
A. Jordan
通讯作者：
A. Jordan
欧盟的两院冲突解决：调解委员会讨价还价的实证分析
影响因子：
5
作者：
T. König;Bjorn Lindberg;Sandra Lechner;W. Pohlmeier
通讯作者：
W. Pohlmeier