How did Sweden manage the European Union?
How did Sweden manage the European Union?
View/Date of Publication
2001Publisher
Zentrum für Europäische Integrationsforschung (ZEI)Publisher Location
BonnMetadata
Show full item record
Citable Link (Handle URI) 
https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11811/10109
Abstract
From a Swedish perspective the Swedish Presidency during the spring of 2001 was the single most important European event since the accession in 1995. It has even been argued that for the first time since the Vienna conference 1814-1815 Sweden could act on equal terms with the more powerful nations in determining European security policy (Wahlbäck, 2000, p 1).
This raises several questions:
(1) Does the presidency, as such, carry any weight?
(2) Could a small member state, like Sweden, manage the EU as well as a large one like Germany or Great Britain? Is it possible that small is more efficient?
(3) Did Sweden, in the role of the Presidency, influence the policies of the European Union?
(4) To what extent can a reluctant and neutral nation like Sweden manage the Common Foreign and Security Policy area despite its non-NATO membership? What about the EMU?
(5) What were the national and international reactions?
This raises several questions:
(1) Does the presidency, as such, carry any weight?
(2) Could a small member state, like Sweden, manage the EU as well as a large one like Germany or Great Britain? Is it possible that small is more efficient?
(3) Did Sweden, in the role of the Presidency, influence the policies of the European Union?
(4) To what extent can a reluctant and neutral nation like Sweden manage the Common Foreign and Security Policy area despite its non-NATO membership? What about the EMU?
(5) What were the national and international reactions?
Subjects
Schweden, Europäische Union, Sicherheitspolitik, Europäischer Rat
Classification (DDC)
320 PolitikPart of Series
ZEI Discussion Paper ; C96Bjurulf, Bo: How did Sweden manage the European Union?. Bonn: Zentrum für Europäische Integrationsforschung (ZEI), 2001. In: ZEI Discussion Paper, C96.
Online-Ausgabe in bonndoc: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11811/10109
Online-Ausgabe in bonndoc: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11811/10109
@techreport{handle:20.500.11811/10109,
author = {{Bo Bjurulf}},
title = {How did Sweden manage the European Union?},
publisher = {Zentrum für Europäische Integrationsforschung (ZEI)},
year = 2001,
series = {ZEI Discussion Paper},
volume = C96,
note = {From a Swedish perspective the Swedish Presidency during the spring of 2001 was the single most important European event since the accession in 1995. It has even been argued that for the first time since the Vienna conference 1814-1815 Sweden could act on equal terms with the more powerful nations in determining European security policy (Wahlbäck, 2000, p 1).
This raises several questions:
(1) Does the presidency, as such, carry any weight?
(2) Could a small member state, like Sweden, manage the EU as well as a large one like Germany or Great Britain? Is it possible that small is more efficient?
(3) Did Sweden, in the role of the Presidency, influence the policies of the European Union?
(4) To what extent can a reluctant and neutral nation like Sweden manage the Common Foreign and Security Policy area despite its non-NATO membership? What about the EMU?
(5) What were the national and international reactions?},
url = {https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11811/10109}
}
author = {{Bo Bjurulf}},
title = {How did Sweden manage the European Union?},
publisher = {Zentrum für Europäische Integrationsforschung (ZEI)},
year = 2001,
series = {ZEI Discussion Paper},
volume = C96,
note = {From a Swedish perspective the Swedish Presidency during the spring of 2001 was the single most important European event since the accession in 1995. It has even been argued that for the first time since the Vienna conference 1814-1815 Sweden could act on equal terms with the more powerful nations in determining European security policy (Wahlbäck, 2000, p 1).
This raises several questions:
(1) Does the presidency, as such, carry any weight?
(2) Could a small member state, like Sweden, manage the EU as well as a large one like Germany or Great Britain? Is it possible that small is more efficient?
(3) Did Sweden, in the role of the Presidency, influence the policies of the European Union?
(4) To what extent can a reluctant and neutral nation like Sweden manage the Common Foreign and Security Policy area despite its non-NATO membership? What about the EMU?
(5) What were the national and international reactions?},
url = {https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11811/10109}
}
The following license files are associated with this item:
