Arguably, the EU represents a qualitatively different international order from traditional intergovernmental international organizations (IOs), as it has accumulated functions and capacities beyond these. This article compares how the EU and the International Maritime Organization impact three aspects of a national agency’s implementation of international rules: application, conflicts over policy agendas and how it deals with non-compliance. Interviews reveal the EU and the IMO as more similar than expected, but still different. Whereas application seems impacted by various supporting functions of both IOs, the EU’s heavy enforcement mechanisms may possibly hamper the detection of non-compliance and its independent agenda-setting powers may create animosity among national officials over the content of EU rules.
Points for practitioners
This article not only outlines similarities and differences between the EU and the IMO within the maritime safety sector, it also helps identify various channels whereby different types of IOs may impact national administrative processes. It should be of interest to those who work with construction and management of international regimes, as it explores practical effects they may have.
BorlandK (2004) ‘That is not what I said’: Interpretive conflict in oral narrative research. In: Hesse-BiberSNLeavyP (eds) Approaches to Qualitative Research, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 522–534.
2.
BusuiocM (2009) Accountability, control and independence: The case of European agencies. European Law Journal15(5): 599–615.
3.
BusuiocM (2010) European agencies: Pockets of accountability. In: BovensMCurtinD’t HartP (eds) The Real World of EU Accountability: What Deficit?, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 87–116.
4.
Busuioc M (2011) European agencies and their boards: Too much board, too little monitoring. ACELG Working Paper 2011-04. Amsterdam Centre for European Law and Governance, The Netherlands.
5.
ChayesAHandler ChayesA (1993) On compliance. International Organization27(2): 175–205.
6.
CurtinDEgebergM (2008) Tradition and innovation: Europe's accumulated executive order. West European Politics31(4): 639–661.
7.
EgebergM (2003) How bureaucratic structure matters: An organizational perspective. In: PetersBGPierreJ (eds) Handbook of Public Administration, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 116–126.
8.
EgebergM (2006) Multilevel Union Administration: The Transformation of Executive Politics in Europe, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
European Maritime Safety Agency (2011) About – Origins & Tasks. Available at: http://emsa.europa.eu/about.html (accessed 21 December 2011).
11.
FalknerGTreibOHolzleithnerE (2008) Compliance in the Enlarged European Union – Living Rights or Dead Letters?, Aldershot: Ashgate.
12.
GroenleerMKaedingMVersluisE (2010) Regulatory governance through agencies of the European Union? The role of the European agencies for maritime and aviation safety in the implementation of European transport legislation. Journal of European Public Policy17(8): 1212–1230.
13.
GulbrandsenC (2011) EU and the implementation of international law: A case of ‘sea-level bureaucrats’. Journal of European Public Policy18(7): 1034–1051.
14.
Hayes-RenshawFWallaceH (1997) The Council of Ministers, London: Macmillan Press.
15.
HofmannHCH (2008) Mapping the European administrative space. West European Politics31(4): 662–676.
16.
HupePL (2011) The thesis of incongruent implementation: Revisiting Pressman and Wildavsky. Public Policy and Administration26(1): 63–80.
KaedingM (2006) Determinants of transposition delay in the European Union. Journal of Public Policy26(3): 229–253.
21.
LipskyM (1980) Street-level Bureaucracy, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
22.
MarchJGOlsenJP (1984) The new institutionalism: Organizational factors in political life. American Political Science Review78(3): 734–749.
23.
MartensM (2006) National regulators between union and governments: A study of the EU's environmental policy network IMPEL. In: EgebergM (eds) Multilevel Union Administration: The Transformation of Executive Politics in Europe, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 124–143.
PallisAA (2002) The Common EU Maritime Transport Policy: Policy Europeanisation in the 1990s, Aldershot: Ashgate.
26.
PressmanJLWildavskyAB (1973) Implementation: How Great Expectations in Washington are Dashed in Oakland; Or, Why it's Amazing that Federal Programs Work At All, This Being a Saga of the Economic Development Administration as Told by Two Sympathetic Observers who Seek to Build Morals on a Foundation of Ruined Hopes, Berkeley: University of California Press.
27.
Ringbom H (2007) The EU Maritime Safety Policy and International Law. PhD Thesis, University of Oslo, Norway.
28.
RitchieJLewisJ (2003) Generalising from qualitative research. In: RitchieJLewisJ (eds) Qualitative Research Practice, London: Sage, pp. 263–286.
29.
RubinHJRubinIS (1995) Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
30.
SelkouERoeM (2004) Globalisation, Policy and Shipping, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
31.
StevensH (2004) Transport Policy in the European Union, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
32.
StilesK (2010) Who is keeping the sea safe? Testing theories of international law compliance. Cooperation and Conflict45(2): 139–161.
33.
SverdrupU (2007) Implementation. In: GrazianoPVinkMP (eds) Europeanization: New Research Agendas, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 197–211.
34.
TallbergJ (2002) Paths to compliance: Enforcement, management, and the European Union. International Organization56(3): 609–643.
35.
Treib O (2008) Implementing and complying with EU governance outputs. Living Reviews in European Governance 3(5). Available at: http://www.livingreviews.org/lreg-2008-5 (accessed 16 January 2012).
36.
TrondalJ (2010) An Emergent European Executive Order, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
37.
TsebelisG (1995) Decision making in political systems: Veto players in presidentialism, parliamentarism, multicameralism and multipartyism. British Journal of Political Science25(3): 289–325.
38.
VersluisE (2007) Even rules, uneven practices: Opening the ‘black box’ of EU law in action. West European Politics30(1): 50–67.
39.
YinRK (1994) Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
