Network and lead-agency, Appunti di Relazioni Internazionali

Scarica Network and lead-agency e più Appunti in PDF di Relazioni Internazionali solo su Docsity! Network or lead-agency model? In recent years, the European continent has witnessed a substantial number of “transboundary crises”, it means crises that cross geographical borders and affect multiple policy domains. The article discusses the possible advantages and disadvantages of a decentralized, network model and compares it with a more centralized, lead-agency model. It concludes that the current network model is a logical outcome of the punctuated and fragmentary process through which EU crisis management capacities have been created. It also notes that the shortcomings of this model may necessitate elements of a lead-agency model. Such “agencification”of networks for transboundary crisis management may well lead to a hybrid model that is uniquely suited for the peculiar organizational and political creature that the EU is. The Rise of transboundary crisis Contemporary crises and disasters increasingly have the potential to reach across geographical borders and traditional policy boundaries. These so-called “transboundary crises” pose an urgent threat (minaccia) to the multiple life- sustaining systems that cross borders and connect states. The EU is no stranger to transboundary crises (we might say that the EU has become a “policy laboratory” for transboundary crisis management). The latter and its member states have begun to develop *“European” capacity to deal with these threats. However, it is still struggling to contain some effects of the global financial crisis and its challenges to the survival of the euro. Even if the EU union has almost always referred to a“network” or governance approach, more recently institutional tendencies appear to be closer to a “government” or lead-agency model: several types of crisis management capacity are being concentrated in selected Brussels institutions or EU-level agencies. (Salvini's shit). *The way the EU acts is without any institutional blueprint; with each crisis, member states invested additional authority in the Union’s crisis management apparatus. This makes sense,as the design of international crisis management capacity has to negotiate deep tensions, between government and governance, between member state interests and crisis management requirements and so on. Building up crisis management capacity in a network model The EU’s crisis management capacity has actually the shape of a “network(ed)” model. Sense-making 1. An important argument in favor of the network model is that it enhance sense-making capacity. The variety of specialized agencies, that means more information network, and early warning systems at the EU level facilitates the collection of all types of potentially critical information. Even though it becomes harder to bring all of that information together. 2. Another potential advantage is that the network model harbors a wide variety of expertise of a highly technical or scientific nature in the EU agencies, which is given by experts that are well versed in EU congress and processes. 3. A key weakness in the EU’s sense-making capacity is that it is often dependent on resources of member states and, particularly, their willingness to share information. Coordination In response to a transboundary crisis, a network model creates specific challenges of coordination, both “horizontally” (between EU institutions or between member states) and “vertically” (between the EU and member states). To coordinate the inputs and efforts of member states, the Council and the EC have set up some agencies. Ex. Frontex is responsible for creating a harmonized pan-European training system for border guards, including a common core curriculum and training courses to share experiences and exchange best practices. Thanks to these agencies, the EU’s coordinative capacity has worked always surprisingly well- To sum up, the EU is constantly working to improve coordination. HOW? It has “stove-piped” its coordination capacities, creating specialized capacities within particular policy domains. The crucial question here remains: will this network model allow a joint response to transboundary crises that do not exactly fall within one of the predefined crisis categories? It is hard to predict if such a coalition will actually emerge when the need is there, It did emerge in response to the Icelandic ash crisis.