Angaben zur Quelle [Bearbeiten]
| Autor | Jean-Claude Piris |
| Titel | The Constitution for Europe: A Legal Analysis |
| Verlag | Cambridge University Press |
| Jahr | 2006 |
| URL | https://books.google.de/books?id=dPL12PwygIcC |
Literaturverz. |
yes |
| Fußnoten | yes |
| Fragmente | 4 |
| [1.] Ama/Fragment 079 04 - Diskussion Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2017-11-08 23:03:29 Schumann | Ama, BauernOpfer, Fragment, Gesichtet, Piris 2006, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop |
|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 79, Zeilen: 4-9 |
Quelle: Piris 2006 Seite(n): 1, Zeilen: 2 ff. |
|---|---|
| Sixty years is a very short time in history. For thousands of years in Europe, through the Greeks and Romans, the Normans and the Germans, never mind the British and the French, the peoples of Europe have constantly waged war on each other. During the last century alone, from 1914 until 1918 and from 1939 until 1945, merciless wars inflamed the European continent causing hatred and massive destruction, leaving its people bled dry and prey to starvation.289
289 Jean-Claude Piris, The Constitution for Europe. A legal analysis, Cambridge 2006, p. 1. |
In the time-scale of history, sixty years is very short. For centuries, ever since the Greeks and the Romans, since the Normans and the Germans, not to mention the British and the French, the peoples of Europe have constantly waged war on each other. During the last century alone, from 1914 until 1918 and from 1939 until 1945, merciless wars inflamed the European continent causing hatred and massive destruction, leaving its peoples bled white and prey to starvation. |
The source is given at the end of one sentence, but it is not made clear how close these three sentences are to the source. Note that "centuries" become "thousands of years". |
|
| [2.] Ama/Fragment 095 12 - Diskussion Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2017-11-09 16:03:32 Schumann | Ama, BauernOpfer, Fragment, Gesichtet, Piris 2006, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop |
|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 95, Zeilen: 12-31 |
Quelle: Piris 2006 Seite(n): 38, 39, Zeilen: 38: 5 ff.; 39: 1 ff. |
|---|---|
| The idea of transforming the European Economic Community into a "European Union" was first mentioned at the 1972 Summit of Heads of Government in Paris. It was then stated that Member States of the Community, the main organization of the European integration process, declared their intention of converting their entire relationship into an organization called the European Union, before the end of the decade.335 However, the idea got lost during the economic crisis of the seventies, despite the recommendations made in the "Report on European Union", known as a "Tindemans Report", which was submitted, at the request of the Belgian Prime Minister to the Heads of State and Governments in December 1975.336
Ten years later, the "Solemn Declaration on European Union", signed at the European, Council in Stuttgart in June 1983, re-launched the idea by reaffirming the "will to transform the whole complex of relations between their states into a European Union".337 For its part, in 1981, the European Parliament had mandated Altiero Spinelli, one of its members and a former Commissioner, together with an institutional committee, to propose amendments to the existing treaties. This work resulted in a "Draft Treaty instituting the European Union", known as the "Spinelli Treaty"328, which was voted on and accepted by the European Parliament on 14 February 1984 by a majority of 237 votes against 31. However, the Member States did not follow up on this draft which proposed a very co-[herent and bold text, going quite far in the direction of more European integration.339] 335 See para. 7 of the Communique of the Conference of the Heads of State of Government, Paris 19 and 21 October 1972, Bull. EC 10-1972, p. 16. 336 Bull. EC Supplement 1/76. 337 Bull. EC 6-1983, pp. 24-29 338 Bull. EC 2-1984, pp. 7-28. [page 96] 339 Jean-Claude Finis, The Constitution for Europe. A legal analysis, Cambridge 2006, p. 39. |
The idea of transforming the European Economic Community into a ‘European Union’, a single entity which would integrate all aspects of European integration, officially emerged for the first time at the 1972 Summit of the Heads of State or Government in Paris. It was then stated that 'Member States of the Community, the driving wheels of European integration, declared their intention of converting their entire relationship into a European Union before the end of this decade’.1 However, the idea got lost in the turmoil of the economic crisis of the seventies, despite the recommendations made in the ‘Report on European Union’, known as the ‘Tindemans Report’, which was submitted, at their request, by the Belgian Prime Minister to the Heads of State or Government in December 1975.2
Ten years later, the ‘Solemn Declaration on European Union’, signed (which is very unusual for a Declaration) at the European Council in Stuttgart in June 1983, re-launched the idea by reaffirming the ‘will to transform the whole complex of relations between their States into a European Union’.3 For its part, in 1981, the European Parliament had mandated Altiero Spinelli, one of its members and a former Commissioner, [page 39] together with an institutional committee, to propose amendments to the existing treaties. This work resulted in a 'draft Treaty instituting the European Union’, known as the ‘Spinelli Treaty’4 which was voted on and accepted by the European Parliament on 14 February 1984 (by a majority of 237 votes against 31). However, the Member States did not follow up on this draft which proposed a very coherent and very bold text, going quite far in the direction of more European integration. 1 See para. 7 of the Communiqué of the Conference of the Heads of State or Government, Paris, 19 and 21 October 1972 (Bull. EC 10-1972, p. 16). For a good collection of historic documents in an electronic form, see the internet site Archive of European Integration (AEI) of the University of Pittsburgh (http://aei.pitt.edu). 2 Bull. EC Supplement 1/76. Available on the above-mentioned internet site (http://aei. pitt.edu). 3 Bull. EC 6-1983, pp. 24-29. Available on the above-mentioned internet site (http://aei. pitt.edu). Denmark had reservations about some of the paragraphs of this Declaration. 4 Bull. EC 2-1984, pp. 7-28. |
The source is given, but does not become clear to the reader that the entire section is copied from it. Quotation marks are used, but only for a short phrase in the very end. A reference to the source is given on the next page, but with only one of the two pages used noted. |
|
| [3.] Ama/Fragment 096 01 - Diskussion Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2017-11-09 16:04:05 Schumann | Ama, BauernOpfer, Fragment, Gesichtet, Piris 2006, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop |
|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 96, Zeilen: 1-5 |
Quelle: Piris 2006 Seite(n): 39, Zeilen: 5 ff. |
|---|---|
| [However, the Member States did not follow up on this draft which proposed a very co-]herent and bold text, going quite far in the direction of more European integration.339 On this issue, by contrast, the Single European Act of 1986 had limited itself to recalling, in its preamble, the will of the High Contracting Parties "to transform relations as a whole among their States into a European Union"340
339 Jean-Claude Piris, The Constitution for Europe. A legal analysis, Cambridge 2006, p. 39. 340 Ibid., p. 39. |
However, the Member States did not follow up on this draft which proposed a very coherent and very bold text, going quite far in the direction of more European integration.
On this issue, the Single European Act of 1986 limited itself to recalling, in its Preamble, the will of the High Contracting Parties ‘to transform relations as a whole among their States into a European Union’. |
Continuation from the previous page. |
|
| [4.] Ama/Fragment 097 03 - Diskussion Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2017-07-02 13:04:29 WiseWoman | Ama, BauernOpfer, Fragment, Gesichtet, Piris 2006, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop |
|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 97, Zeilen: 3-28 |
Quelle: Piris 2006 Seite(n): 43, Zeilen: 43: 11 ff. |
|---|---|
| During the second half of 2001, the Belgian Presidency decided to work intensively in order to answer the four questions put by the Nice Declaration on the Future of the Union, which were:
- how to establish and monitor a more precise delimitation of the competences between the European Union and its Member States, reflecting the principle of subsidiarity; - the status to be given to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the Union; - a simplification of the Treaties with a view to making them clearer and better understood without changing their meaning; - the role of the national parliaments in the European architecture. One year after the Nice Declaration in 2000, in December 2001, the European Council adopted the Laeken Declaration.343 This Declaration was adopted against the background of decreasing interest of public opinion in the Member States for European integration. It contained a number of statements such as "the Union needs to become more democratic, more transparent and more efficient"344 and it should resolve "three basic challenges" which are: - how to organize the European political area in an enlarged Union, - how to develop the Union into a stabilizing factor, and - a model in the new, multipolar world. The declaration went on to list several questions such as: how to clarify, simplify and adjust the division of competences between the Union and the Member States, whether the Union's various instruments should not be better defined and whether their number should not be reduced, how to increase the democratic legitimacy and transparency of the institutions, how to reorganize and simplify the existing Treaties without changing their content and whether this might not lead in the long run to the adoption of a constitutional text in the Union.345 343 See Annex 1 to the Presidency Conclusions of the European Council, Laeken, 14 and 15 December 2001, Doc. SN 300/1/01 REV 1. 344 Ibid. 345 Jean-Claude Piris, The Constitution for Europe. A legal analysis, Cambridge 2006, p. 44. |
Box 2.2 The four questions put by the 2000 Nice Declaration on the Future of the Union
(1) How to establish and monitor a more precise delimitation of competences between the European Union and its Member States, reflecting the principle of subsidiarity; (2) the status to be given to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the Union; (3) a simplification of the Treaties with a view to making them clearer and better understood without changing their meaning; (4) the role of national Parliaments in the European architecture. During the second semester of 2001, the then Belgian Presidency decided to work intensively in order to materialise these four questions and to establish a formal procedure which would be innovative enough to find bold solutions to these questions. [...] One year after the 2000 Nice Declaration, in December 2001, the European Council adopted the ‘Laeken Declaration’14 (hereafter ‘2001 Laeken Declaration’, named after the castle of the King of the Belgians where the European Council held its meeting). This Declaration was [page 44] adopted against the background of a decreasing interest of public opinion in the Member States for European integration. It contained a number of statements such as 'The Union needs to become more democratic, more transparent and more efficient’ and that it should resolve ‘three basic challenges’ which are ‘how to bring citizens ... closer to the European design’, ‘how to organise ... the European political area in an enlarged Union and how to develop the Union into a stabilising factor and a model in the new, multipolar world’. The Declaration went on to list several questions such as ‘how to clarify, simplify and adjust the division of competence between the Union and the Member States’, ‘whether the Union’s various instruments should not be better defined and whether their number should not be reduced’, how to ‘increase the democratic legitimacy and transparency of the institutions’, how to simplify and reorganise the existing Treaties without changing their content and whether this ‘might not lead in the long run to the adoption of a constitutional text in the Union’. 14 See Annex 1 to Presidency Conclusions of the European Council, Laeken, 14 and 15 December 2001, doc. SN 300/1/01 REV 1 (reproduced below as Annex 1). |
The source is given, but it does not become clear to the reader that the entire section is copied from it. |
|