Following
World War II, there was a profound political motive for peace and security
within Europe and, as a result, European integration began (Pinder, Chapter 1,
para. 7). Belgium, France, Italy, the Federal Republic of Germany, the
Netherlands, and Luxembourg were the six countries that really began this
process with the establishment of the European Coal and Steel Community. As
Pinder notes, the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community was really
the first step “in a process of political as well as economic unification”
within Europe (Chapter 1, para. 11). After the creation of the European Coal
and Steel Community, European integration continued with the Treaties of Rome,
setting up the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy
Community, with a focus placed on creating a
common market and open borders for trade between the six countries (Pinder, Chapter 2, para. 8). The success
of this would lead to other countries within Europe applying to join; thus, the
Community expanded in 1951 from six countries “to fifteen by 1995, and to 27 in
2007” (Wallace et al., 5). Many steps were taken along the way, including the
signing of various treaties seeking to enhance political and economical integration
within Europe. This would ultimately lead to the Maastricht Treaty which would
establish the European Union (Pinder, Chapter 2, para. 12).
The
history of how the European Union was created was not as simple as the first
paragraph depicts. Throughout the entire process, the balance between member
states and an actual European Community was difficult. As Wallace et al. notes,
the European Union is “built out of three original separate Communities, each
with different powers, characteristics, and policy domain, complemented by
other ‘pillars’ of organized cooperation” (5). As a result, consensus was not
always guaranteed. The European Union has now emerged as a partnership model
with a key feature of its policy process placed upon cross-agency coordination
(Wallace, 10). This emergence; however, has led to the fragmentation of member
state’s national governments (Goet et al., 9). What has become evident, is that
the peculiar institutional structure of the European Union has become a
challenge for governments (Goet et. al., 9).
This
history of struggle between the European Union (particularly the Commission)
and the European member states suggests that the current economic (and
governance) crisis will only heighten this struggle. While European member states
will want to have more control in how to deal with the issues plaguing their
economy, the European Union has become a dominating influence, something that
some member states don’t appreciate. Thus, the current economic crisis will
challenge the relationship between the European Union and its member states.
However, European integration has gone too far for a reversal. In order to get
pass the current crisis, member states and the European Union will have to work
together and continue to build towards a more integrated Europe once dreamed
about 60+ years ago.
***Note: I downloaded the book from Pinder on my Kindle so I
had to use paragraphs instead of page numbers. Hopefully that is okay.
A good post Emily (and using paragraphs instead of page #s for a Kindle book version is fine). I'm curious as to whether you can expand a bit on the point you make, referencing Goetz et al., about the fragmentation of member state governments. Where, specifically, do we see this fragmentation? How is it impacting the operation of the EU, especially in the current crisis?
ReplyDeleteTo put the question another way, what does it mean that the Lisbon Treaty (the most recent EU treaty - http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/index_en.htm) abolished the pillar structure of different policy fields with different modes of coordination/cooperation and put it in its place a more harmonized governance structure?
I think that we see fragmentation between countries whose government's seem to be more nationalist and others who seem to be "pro-Europe" and as a result of this, tension arises between the member states. Particularly in the current crisis, tension between member state governments has increased and the impact of this on the operation of the EU is significant. With the creation of harmonization of the governance structure in the Lisbon Treaty, the Council and Parliament are co-legislatures. This means that member state ministers and the Parliament, who represent Union citizens, are more likely to clash as a result of this fragmentation and crisis. Consequently, coordination and cooperation will be difficult.
DeleteI think Emily's point that the EU "has gone too far for a reversal" is really true. I have heard this argument several times in the course of readings and events I have attended with my internship. I'm not sure if there's a specific tipping point where this occurred, but, at least in thinking about international security, I think it might be interesting to consider the EU through the lens of Democratic Peace Theory.
ReplyDeleteDemocratic Peace Theory essentially maintains that democratic states will not engage in armed conflict with one another. Within the context of the EU, this certainly seems to have been true since the end of the second world war. In a sense, I think that the core and largely democratic values of the EU that it requires its members to uphold have served as a means to foster peace between the states. Given that each member states has accepted these values, barring some kind of drastic and unrealistic reversal, it does seem that states are too interconnected to simply allow the EU to fall apart. Of course, there are many other sectors (i.e. political, social, and economic) that have fostered EU integration, but I do think democratic peace theory can serve as something of an explanatory tool to show both why and how the European integration will continue.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteGrant -- I certainly think that you are correct in pointing to the shared values of democracy and its associated rights and freedoms that have become the core of the European Union. What is perhaps more interesting, though, is that the EU represents a form of supranational integration far deeper, and broader, than the "passive" sort or coexistence posited by the Democratic Peace Thesis. Yes, war is certainly "off the table" as a political option among the countries of the EU, but integration has gone far beyond this.
DeleteThe DPT only tells us that democracies are not likely to fight one another (*and* that they are *very* likely to go to war against non-democracies). As we know, though, the countries of the EU have adopted a range of integrative and cooperative measures far beyond the DPT. In fact, the DPT cannot account for this deeper type of cooperation, but that is OK -- this just tells highlights the need for additional theorizing about the EU to help us explain and understand the integration process
I agree that the crisis may put a strain on the relationships between the member states and the EU but looking at the history I think that crisis will give way to alternative thinking and problem solving. By this I mean that (as Emily has stated) the EU has come "too far for a reversal" so creative thinking is needed to resolve these issues for all member states. Instead of traditional problem solving policies that were only meant for the original six states, the EU will have to adjust, as it has in the past, to the concerns and interests of its 27 members today.
ReplyDeleteIn short, most major crises in the EU have (eventually) lead to a new Treaty (SEA, Maastricht, Lisbon) and closer integration, even as critics proclaimed the end of the Union at the time of each crisis!
ReplyDelete