##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

Ariadna Ripoll Servent

Abstract

This study uses rationalist and constructivist explanations of co-decision in the European Parliament (EP). It seeks to understand the change in the policy preferences of the EP during negotiations on the ‘Returns’ directive – dealing with the voluntary or compulsory return of irregular immigrants. This article shows that the introduction of co-decision contributed considerably to the EP’s change of stance on immigration policies. A long-standing advocate of civil liberties in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ), the EP was expected to raise the standards of protection for third-country nationals. In view of the inability of the EP to construct a more liberal policy, the study uses two institutionalist approaches to understand why the EP was unsuccessful in raising the standards. Therefore, the approaches aim at identifying the logics and layers of change. The empirical application of the models highlights the necessity to integrate rationalist and constructivist understandings of co-decision in order to understand motivations for policy change. Synergies in the direction of change also point to the importance of institutional motivations, in order to understand major changes in the policy preferences of the EP.

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##

Keywords
Co-decision; European Parliament; Returns directive; Rationalism; Constructivism; Justice and Home Affairs; Irregular immigration
Section
Research Articles
Article Copyright
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Material published in the JCER is done so under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 licence, with copyright remaining with the author.
  • Articles published online in the JCER cannot be published in another journal without explicit approval of the JCER editor.
  • Authors can 'self-archive' their articles in digital form on their personal homepages, funder repositories or their institutions' archives provided that they link back to the original source on the JCER website. Authors can archive pre-print, post-print or the publisher's version of their work.
  • Authors agree that submitted articles to the JCER will be submitted to various abstracting, indexing and archiving services as selected by the JCER.
Further information about archiving and copyright are contained within the JCER Open Access Policy.