Example collocations logo

Supranational in sentence

126 examples of Supranational in a sentence

Like the EU, Austria-Hungary was an experiment in supranational engineering, comprising 51 million inhabitants, 11 nationalities, and 14 languages.
Voters in the UK objected to several of the key premises of regional integration: free labor mobility and seemingly open-ended immigration, regulation by supranational authorities in Brussels, and currency union (which has serious flaws, such as the lack of a fiscal transfer mechanism among member states).
This obsession with tactics has affected governance at all levels, from local administrations to supranational institutions, allowing major actors to operate within uncoordinated realities, without any shared goals guiding their decision-making.
Severe economic distress and political pressure are buffeting relationships among citizens, sovereign states, and supranational institutions such as the European Central Bank.
International financial institutions such as the EBRD and supranational bodies such as the European Union and the G-20 will play a key role in tackling such challenges in coming years.
Europe's autonomous nation states have already passed important elements of their sovereignty to supranational decision-making through the Treaty of Europe.
Only when a transfer of competencies to the supranational level leads to efficiency gains that exceed the welfare losses due to centralization should national and regional responsibility be replaced by the supranational.
At the supranational level, the new European Commission is pursuing its goal of “better regulation” using as little formal lawmaking as possible, focusing instead on recommendations, codes of conduct, and guidelines.
In trade zones formed by heterogeneous states, vested interests tend to be diverse and find it hard to lobby at the supranational level.
This has led to calls for new alternatives, such as “responsible nationalism” or “inter-governmental” – as opposed to supranational – decision-making in the European Union.
Those seeking closer economic integration have a special responsibility to be strong advocates of global governance reforms: If authority over domestic policies is ceded to supranational bodies, then the drafting, implementation, and enforcement of the rules and regulations has to be particularly sensitive to democratic concerns.
In the future, national and supranational issues will, one hopes, matter less for innovation.
The political recalibrations occurring in the world’s major economies highlight the limits on the level and pace of immigration a society can absorb without excessive disruption; on citizens’ willingness to abide centralized, let alone supranational, rule; and on public tolerance of economic weakness.
On the other hand, an underlying European governance problem – at both the national level and that of supranational European Union institutions – has been intensifying since the early 1990’s.
Membership in the EU sometimes requires ceding control to a complex web of often-inefficient Brussels-based supranational institutions.
Underpinning the proposed reforms is the so-called “principle of unity of liability and control,” which demands that both the power to make decisions and liability for their consequences are kept at the same political level, be it national or supranational.
Which supranational agency will be in charge of issuing eurobonds?
Even today, tensions over further centralization (e.g., to supranational authority, as in Europe) and devolution (e.g., for Scotland, Québec, or Kurdistan) are intense.
Achieving these goals does not depend on (further) technical discussions, but on forging a new political consensus in favor of a more supranational approach.
But, in today’s world of sovereign states, treaties creating new international institutions with supranational powers are not realistic alternatives.
Perhaps it will help that, under the fiscal compact, the rules are to be adopted at the national level, as opposed to the SGP, which operated on the supranational level.
Since the radical anti-establishment Syriza’s election in Greece almost two years ago, voters seem to have taken to the idea of national governments standing up to supranational and multilateral organizations such the European Commission and the International Monetary Fund.
But Europe’s supranational institutions – the European Commission, the European Parliament, the ECB, and regulatory authorities – are in their infancy.
It was about creating and transferring stability through the strengthening of international governance and supranational structures.
And at what level of government – federal, regional, municipal, or supranational – are the latter responsibilities best exercised?
I see several reasons underlying the ECB’s success in implementing a supranational monetary policy – and thus in firmly establishing the euro’s stability.
Both projects sought to construct a genuinely supranational Europe.
Their idea is that the eurozone could not afford a neo-fascist government in a member country, and that preventing such an outcome requires both carrots (transfer mechanisms) and sticks (supranational powers).
Indeed, whatever the role of bilateral cooperation, the only supranational organization capable of sustained combat operations is NATO.
National courts may consider the effects of European integration on their constitutional and democratic institutions, affirming or rejecting the integration that has already taken place, or setting limits to supranational arrangements that might further impinge on national sovereignty.
BackNext