Search icon

Newsletter March 2005


Before taking up the Salvesen Chair at Edinburgh University, Jo Shaw was Jean Monnet Professor of European Law at the University of Manchester, and Professor of European Law at the University of Leeds. She has been Scholar in Residence at Harvard University; and Senior Research Fellow at the Federal Trust. She is on the editorial board of European Law Review and currently Chair of the University Association for Contemporary European Studies (2003-2006). Her teaching and research focus is on the EU constitution and institutions, particularly from a socio-legal and interdisciplinary perspective. She recently received funding from the ESRC and the British Academy in particular for a project on electoral rights for non-nationals in Europe.

On 8th March 2005 Professor Jo Shaw gave a very insightful seminar entitled Mainstreaming Equality Under EU Constitutional Law. Firstly, she drew attention to how she was commissioned by ENAR (European Network Against Racism), to provide a comprehensive overview of the challenges and benefits of a coherent mainstreaming policy on anti-racism. This she did, in order to evaluate where the principle of mainstreaming has led to, what the outcomes of the mainstreaming policy are, and what next steps should be undertaken.

Jo Shaw’s seminar in UL was aimed at teasing out what the role for mainstreaming gender might be. Whilst using the definition of mainstreaming as provided by the UK Equal Opportunities Commission, and making reference to numerous historical points of importance throughout her talk, such as, for example, the introduction of the anti-discrimination provision in the EC Treaty, by the Amsterdam Treaty, Article 13 EC, Professor Shaw highlighted the difficulties for a project of mainstreaming. Pointing out that while the equality principle is a relatively simple idea, Jo Shaw contended that constitutional change requires a new way of thinking about policymaking, at all levels.

According to Jo Shaw, mainstreaming, while it undoubtedly has a transformative political power in that it requires parties and legislatures to take gender into account, is nevertheless not without its limitations. There is no body to direct it, and it can also be vague, directionless, and lacking effective enforcement mechanisms. Regarding the terms, equality and diversity, Jo Shaw drew attention to how these are highly contested expressions. Interestingly then, putting forward the question that if these terms are so strongly debated, how is it possible to settle on one definition in policymaking? Thus demonstrating how this is a highly disputed area. The seminar was followed by numerous questions from the audience.

Deirdre Kelleher

'Been There, Done That: What EU Studies Can Teach International Relations'
Inaugural Lecture Of Professor Alex Warleigh

March 22nd 2005 saw the Inaugural Lecture of Professor Alex Warleigh. It had a good attendance, which included, among others, President Roger Downer, Professor Don Barry, Dean O’ Connor and the Chancellor.

Professor Roger Downer commenced proceedings with some opening remarks. He said that the Inaugural Lecture was an “opportunity for the academic dimension of the University to be celebrated”. The President highlighted the great work done by Alex Warleigh, mentioning the vast array of publications that he has.

Alex Warleigh’s Lecture itself was attention grabbing. He stated that we can learn a lot from thinking about EU studies. He pointed out that EU studies are not perfect, as they have failed to look beyond the EU. Also, he said that EU studies have problems as well, highlighting that he is not merely saying, “EU studies good, IR studies bad”.

Alex then affirmed what IR scholars would get from a closer look at EU studies. To do so, he turned to speak about what the recent turn in EU studies has brought. Scholars of EU studies focus on different sets of issues, more so than in the past. Analysis of the EU decision-making process has grown. All this work, he claimed, demonstrates the EU as a system, a set of processes, a set of values, norms, constraints and also how the EU and the national have been fused together. Likewise, a focus on comparative politics in EU studies has provided a deeper sense of how the EU functions and shows a way of bringing different disciplines together.

Continuing on, Alex spoke of the two main ways in which EU studies can help IR scholars. It can help IR scholars rethink the scope of IR and also change how they study IR. EU studies, he believes, can help IR studies understand the complexity of international organisations, can help us understand the role of norms and power usage, and also understand the role of states and what statehood means in current global politics. At this point he described EU studies as a “fundamentally rich source of scholarship”.

Alex then turned to question why IR has not been more open to EU studies? He claimed that this is due to a number of reasons including: snobbery, the self-image of a discipline and also limits to applicability, for example, international law may never be the same as that of European in terms of its innovative character, depth or breadth.

To conclude, Alex argued that the time has come for IR scholars to approach EU studies with a new energy. Also, finishing with a short clip of Kylie singing, “it’s never too late to change your mind”, he demonstrated how he feels that there is hope for the future in terms of a generous process of dialogue and shared research agendas between IR and EU studies.

Deirdre Kelleher


The University Association for Contemporary European Studies (UACES) is committed to exchanging ideas on Europe. It provides an independent forum for informed debate and a clearing house for information about European affairs. It is directly involved in promoting research and establishing teaching and research networks. 
With almost 1,000 members, mainly but by no means exclusively based in the UK, UACES is one of the world’s premier European Studies associations.
For over 30 years, UACES has brought together academics involved in researching and teaching on Europe with practitioners active in European affairs. It encourages people from all disciplines to become involved.
UACES has a regular programme of Conferences, Workshops and Study Groups throughout the year. A much anticipated event is the three-day international conference in Zagreb, Croatia in 2005. Other initiatives include support for the UACES Student Forum and financial assistance for graduates doing research on Europe.
Our quarterly newsletter, 'UACES News', includes conference reports, an events diary, news items, and other information of interest to members. Back copies are available on our website.
UACES provides support for Conferences, Workshops and Study Groups. Members are encouraged to apply for funding. We also organise an Annual Research Conference which attracts over 200 participants. Members benefit from discounted registration fees when attending conferences.
UACES has a regularly updated website, giving details of activities, and providing links to sites of interest, including a listing of Universities offering courses in European Studies. UACES European Studies On-Line Essays and Reflection Papers have been launched. We also provide members with access to an email list which allows you to access over 600 members.
JCMS (the 'Journal of Common Market Studies') is the UACES journal, published by Blackwell. It includes 'The European Union: Annual Review', and is available to all Individual members at specially negotiated rates.
A 'Directory of Expertise on Europe' is published, listing the research interests of UACES members.
Now published by Routledge, the 'Contemporary European Studies' series brings together new and established areas of research in the area of European studies. The books are aimed at academics, students and professionals wishing to keep abreast of developments in contemporary Europe. They are designed to make complex subjects and new research understandable and accessible to a wider readership. Recent titles have included 'Flexible Integration: Which Model for the European Union?' by Alex Warleigh.
We have a graduate Student Forum that has over 400 members with its own committee of students. The Student Forum organises its own workshops, and has its own website and email list. Other benefits for students include subsidised conference registrations, subsidised travel to conferences and UACES student Scholarships. Graduate students interested in European affairs are encourage to become involved.
Details are found on:
All postgraduates in the Centre for European Studies (CEUROS) at UL are offered membership of UACES free of charge. This, and the free business cards provided by CEUROS, help to create a supportive environment for researchers in this internationally recognised centre of excellence.


The key recommendation regarding research is that numbers of PhD students in Irish universities should be doubled by 2010. It proposes that there should be a clear procedure for transfer to higher education for those who are entering through non-traditional routes.
It provides interesting data here regarding the relatively low level of investment in research and development (R and D) activity in Ireland generally. R and D personnel comprise only 0.95% of the Irish labour force compared with 1.39% for the EU on average.
The average number of PhD graduates per 1000 population (25-29 Year olds) is 1.8% in Ireland compared with an EU average of 2.9%. It recommends more than doubling the number of PhD students in Irish universities by 2010.
It points out that only 17% of Irish companies collaborate with HEIs in Ireland and 27% of foreign-owned companies.
It recognises the importance of having a sustainable research culture in the Universities and of the need to meet the cost of such activity.
It proposes drawing a clear distinction between the IT’s and the Universities in relation to research functions: the Universities’ role is to do basic research and the IT’s work is to focus on more applied and regionally specific research. It proposes having targeted and concentrated research-funding strategies.
It proposes funding research active departments at the expense of the inactive, and having different staff-student ratios to take account of the difference in research activity. They talk of the need for university departments to be able to ‘pump prime new young lecturers to enable them to move into research immediately on appointment’. It clearly assumes that new lecturers will all be young! This contradicts its earlier recommendation regarding the need to create places for mature students in higher education. It implicitly assumes that these mature students will not go on to become academics.
It proposes developing ‘inter-university’ graduate colleges around particular research strengths to provide advanced research training for postgraduate students.

Kathleen Lynch, UCD


Developing European Regions? Comparative Governance, Policy Networks and European Integration. By Maura Adshead. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2002.

Maura Adshead's Developing European Regions? can be located in the general area of public policy analysis applied within the specific context of the European Union. In it, Adshead offers a comparative analysis of EU regional policy, with empirical cases drawn from regions in three different EU countries: Thuringen in Germany, Limerick in Ireland, and Merseyside in the United Kingdom. Her objective is to establish the extent to which the regional policy arena has been effectively Europeanized across different European regions. As such, this book will be relevant not only for students of European studies and public policy analysis, but also for those interested more generally in comparative politics and area studies.
An appropriate starting point for her research is the multilevel governance (MLG) literature, which asserts that decision-making competencies in the European Union are shared by actors operating at different levels of activity rather than monopolized by state executives (see Marks, Hooghe, and Blank 1996; Marks et al. 1996). Loss of control by state executives is also implied by a second assertion regarding the impact of collective decision making among member states that erodes the control of individual state executives. From this multilayered theoretical perspective, analysts in the field of European public policy increasingly see governments as being challenged by the notion that governance the authoritative allocation of resources can occur either through government or outside government. As postulated by MLG analysts, governance itself consists of "a set of overarching, multi-level policy networks" in which "political control is variable, not constant, across policy areas" (Marks et al. 1996:42, quoted in Adshead, pp. 14 15).
The multilevel governance approach offers a useful theoretical focus for Adshead in that it accommodates different levels of analysis in accounting for the role of the European Union in national policymaking and, more broadly, at all policy levels. But, as Adshead clearly recognizes, multilevel governance is methodologically limited in terms of providing an operational framework for policy analysis. As she notes, the approach "provides no clearly defined expectations that can be used to evaluate integration it does not make clear how changes at different levels of analysis relate to each other and why it fails to identify the origins of these networks [or] explain the connection between the formation of these new policy networks and the decline of national government control over policy" (pp. 14 15)

On the basis of her research design and extensive primary research, Adshead draws a number of compelling conclusions. Two of the most interesting relate to the process of integration and the relationship between Europeanization and state control. Integration is shown to be a nonuniform phenomenon. Not only can it occur to a greater or lesser extent in the same policy area in different EU states, but it can be manifested in different ways in different states. As for Europeanization and state control, she concludes that no one type of network can guarantee that the influence of the European Union will be significant. Integration "is about a coincidence of consensus between policy actors from different levels of government" (p. 180). More important perhaps, Adshead concludes that integration should not be understood as a zero-sum power relationship between different levels of governance. The "increased involvement of the EU in regional development policy is not necessarily sustained by decreasing the 'control capacity' or policy authority of central governments" (p. 180).

Brian White, University of Staffordshire



Dr Lucian Ashworth

Tuesday 5 April 2005

Room F2030

Everyone welcome!