Universität Wien

210139 SE EC: EU institutions and decision-making (2022W)

(engl.)

5.00 ECTS (2.00 SWS), SPL 21 - Politikwissenschaft
Continuous assessment of course work
ON-SITE

Eine Anmeldung über u:space innerhalb der Anmeldephase ist erforderlich! Eine nachträgliche Anmeldung ist NICHT möglich.
Studierende, die der ersten Einheit unentschuldigt fernbleiben, verlieren ihren Platz in der Lehrveranstaltung.

Achten Sie auf die Einhaltung der Standards guter wissenschaftlicher Praxis und die korrekte Anwendung der Techniken wissenschaftlichen Arbeitens und Schreibens.
Plagiierte und erschlichene Teilleistungen führen zur Nichtbewertung der Lehrveranstaltung (Eintragung eines 'X' im Sammelzeugnis).
Die Lehrveranstaltungsleitung kann Studierende zu einem notenrelevanten Gespräch über erbrachte Teilleistungen einladen.

Registration/Deregistration

Note: The time of your registration within the registration period has no effect on the allocation of places (no first come, first served).

Details

max. 50 participants
Language: English

Lecturers

Classes (iCal) - next class is marked with N

  • Thursday 13.10. 09:45 - 11:15 Seminarraum 1 (S1), NIG 2. Stock
  • Thursday 20.10. 09:45 - 11:15 Seminarraum 1 (S1), NIG 2. Stock
  • Thursday 27.10. 09:45 - 11:15 Seminarraum 1 (S1), NIG 2. Stock
  • Thursday 03.11. 09:45 - 11:15 Seminarraum 1 (S1), NIG 2. Stock
  • Thursday 10.11. 09:45 - 11:15 Seminarraum 1 (S1), NIG 2. Stock
  • Thursday 17.11. 09:45 - 11:15 Seminarraum 1 (S1), NIG 2. Stock
  • Thursday 24.11. 09:45 - 11:15 Seminarraum 1 (S1), NIG 2. Stock
  • Thursday 01.12. 09:45 - 11:15 Seminarraum 1 (S1), NIG 2. Stock
  • Thursday 15.12. 09:45 - 11:15 Seminarraum 1 (S1), NIG 2. Stock
  • Thursday 12.01. 09:45 - 11:15 Seminarraum 1 (S1), NIG 2. Stock
  • Thursday 19.01. 09:45 - 11:15 Seminarraum 1 (S1), NIG 2. Stock
  • Thursday 26.01. 09:45 - 11:15 Seminarraum 1 (S1), NIG 2. Stock

Information

Aims, contents and method of the course

Course Title: Key Controversies in EU integration

Course Description: Does the EU have a democratic deficit? Is the Euro a good or a bad thing? Has the EU become too large? Is Brexit good or bad for European integration? Should the EU have a common army? Are business lobbyists too powerful in Europe? Is the EU's agricultural policy as bad as its reputation? These and other questions are intensely debated among scholars, policymakers, as well as the wider public. In this course, we will use these 'key controversies in European integration' as a lens through which to look at the political science research on European integration. In other words, instead of talking about abstract theories or policy fields, we will - after having covered some foundations - try to better understand these important theories and policy fields through engaging with central debates in European integration.

Learning Outcomes:

The course aims to familiarize students with key debates on the merits and flaws of European integration. At the end of the course, students should be able to

- identify and describe the nature and dynamics of key controversies in European integration;

- summarize and critically assess central theoretical and empirical insights of the political science research on the EU as they shine through the various controversies;

- have the ability to make up their own mind on these controversies while appreciating arguments for both sides.

Assessment and permitted materials

Students are required to attend classes and come prepared (i.e., having done and thought a bit about the readings). In addition, there will be three types of assignments that together make up the final grade.

- First, students need to deliver a very short presentation, either summarizing key points of the text (in Part I) or making the case for one side of a key controversy (in Part II). The point is *not* to comprehensively summarize the reading; this is usually boring for most people involved. Rather, it is to identify key points of the reading and spin them further, for example by connecting them to other things you've read, real-world examples, or something you've seen in the news recently. For the presentations in Part 2 it is particularly important to actually make the case for whichever side of a controversy you were assigned to - a bit like in a debating class.^[Practically, groups will be assigned to sessions and can then decide for themselves who wants to argue which side. For example, if there are two students assigned to a session, one will make a case for one side of a given controversy, and the other student will make the case for the other side.] Presentations can be really short, perhaps 4 and not longer than 5 minutes per person. It's more important that you independently think about the reading and about how to make it interesting for the class. For example, when we discuss whether the EU should have a common army, maybe you find a survey about what Europeans actually think about this topic. Students are required to end the presentation with something that can kick off the discussion. This can be a controversial claim or a discussion question (not too broad, not too specific). The presentation will make up *30%* of your grade.

- Second, there is a short exam towards the end of the seminar that tests whether students remember key arguments from the readings and the sessions. The test ensures that students actually do the readings and pay attention in class. It will consist of around 15 short questions, most of them in multiple choice format. The test will take place in the first 10-15 minutes of our session in **week 10** - so you enough time over the break to go over slides and readings again. This will make up *20%* of your grade.

- Lastly, you need to write a relatively short term paper, which will make up *50%* of your grade. The term paper is actually a collection of two short papers of around 1000-1500 words each, held together by a short introduction. The two papers will focus on one key controversy of European integration (not necessarily one covered in the course). One paper is supposed to use the scientific literature to make the case for one side of such a controversy (e.g. the Euro is good for Europe); the other paper is meant to take the opposing side on the *same controversy*. The final grade will be an average of the grade of the two individual papers. The idea is to encourage you to think as hard as you can about both sides of an issue, even if you have a personal preference. If you just make good arguments for your favored side, but bad ones for the 'other side', this will be 'punished' by the bad paper dragging down your average. The deadline for the term paper will be **Sunday, Feb 19 2023**.

Minimum requirements and assessment criteria

You need to submit all the required assignments to pass the course. Your final grade will be the weighted average of these assignments. What is important to me when it comes to grading are two things. First, stick to the task at hand. If your presentation is meant to be 5 minutes, make it no more than 6. It's almost a dad thing to say, but these skills are important not just at a university, but pretty much everywhere you want to end up at. Second, put a bit of effort into it, or at least make it look that way. Have some decent formatting on papers, but also and more importantly: try to be clear and crisp, which is often harder than writing long and convoluted sentences. Try to prepare a presentation that you yourself would like to listen to. Short, simple points, and make it clear when you found something unclear. You don't need to understand everything, have read a ton of additional literature, or write in a fancy way to get a very good grade. Just stick to the task and try to make sense.

Examination topics

Reading list

A full syllabus will be provided on Moodle

Association in the course directory

Last modified: Tu 04.10.2022 15:49