The EU-Moroccan Fisheries Partnership Agreement: A process-tracing case study of the potential extension in 2011

Abstract: This single-case study deals with the process surrounding the potential extension of the EU-Moroccan Fisheries Partnership Agreement in 2011. The purpose is to trace and to explain what arguments that have been wielded by the three involved institutions (the Commission, the Council and the Parliament) and why. For this purpose two logics of political action, the logic of consequentiality and appropriateness, are employed to analyze if these institutions adhere to dissimilar types of reasoning. It is also hypothesized that while the Commission and the Council mainly lean towards the first logic, the Parliament mainly leans towards the latter. The conclusions reached in this thesis highlight a number of different arguments (economic, ecological, legal and political) that have been wielded during the process of extension. The thesis also depicts a pattern closely resembling that being outlined in the hypothesis. On the one hand, the Commission (due to internal pressure and external lobbying) and the Council (due to internal pressure and a perceived need to accommodate the electorates of southern member states) leaned toward favoring a logic of consequentiality. On the other, the Parliament leaned towards favoring a logic of appropriateness (due to MEPs inclination to follow individual beliefs).