Notes on the European Union

1) Key theoretical approaches to the European Integration Background – Intellectual context - ­? to understand the theories of European integration, it is important to consider the intellectual context from which the idea of European integration emerged Federalism – Altiero Spinelli - ­? - ­? - ­? - ­? - ­? Spinelli: leader of the European Union of Federalists: Idea: after the Second World War, the classes most privileged under old national system will seek a new order of nation states, that might appear democratic, but the power will return to the privileged classes eventually a? renewing war between states Proposal: o prevent this development, create a federal European state to subordinate national governments to a federal authority a? strategy of the Federalists, aimed to create a federal constitution for Europe Development: Congress took time to organize, taken place in Hague in 1948. By that time, national political systems were already re- ­? establi shed a? Congress turned into the Council of Europe, not a new federal constitutional order Problem: diversity of Europe, different connotations in different part of Europe Mitrany: born in Romania, lived in UK and US, to build a â€Å"working peace system†, influencing integration heorists Against federalism b/c: o Single world government = threat to individual freedom o Regional federations = reproducing national rivalries on a larger scale Idea: root of the war = nationalism Proposal: create a separate international functional agencies, each with authority over specific area of human life o Scheme: individual tasks taken out of the control of the government, handing them to the functional agencies o Argument: Governments will surrender control because they will not fear the loss of sovereignty over e. g. health care, but rather appreciate the advantages of such tasks performed at the egional/world level o a? the more areas of control surrounded, the less states are capable of independent action a? the harder it is to break from the agencies Jean Monnet: planner of a Schuman Plan Combining ideas of functionalism and federalism, crucial for the neofunctionalist theory of European integration Functionalism – David Mitrany - ­? - ­? - ­? - ­? Functional- ­? Federalism – Jean Monnet - ­? - ­? - ­? - ­? Idea: European nation state is inadequate as an economic unit Proposal: developing of supranational institutions as the basis for building economic community (coal and steel at the beginning) o Scheme: remove ontrol of the strategically crucial industries (coal and steel) from the governments, handing over to a free- ­? standing agency (High Authority) o Challenge: Western German State o Solution: strategic industries removed from German control; ensuring adequate supplies of coal for the French steel industry a? economies are interconnected Theories Neofuncionalism – Ernst Haas - ­? - ­? - ­? - ­? - ­? Plur alist theory – state not a single unified actor, neither it is the only actor on the international stage (non- ­? state actors also important) Integration = process, once started, would undermine the sovereignty of states eyond the expectations of governments Activities of states = outcome of pluralistic political process, in which government decisions are influenced by the interest groups and bureaucratic actors European Commission = most important non- ­? state international actor, manipulating domestic and international pressures on national governments to advance to process of European integration Mechanisms of the integration o Spillover  §? Integration in one sector will cause integration in further sectors, in order to fully enjoy the benefits of the integration of the original sector 1. Functional spillover †¢ Economies made up of nterconnected parts a? impossible to isolate one sector from others †¢ If MS integrated one sector of the economies, the in terconnectedness between the sectors will lead to a spillover into other sectors †¢ Integration in one sector will work only if the interconnected sector is also integrated †¢ E. g. : increasing coal production across MS requires brining other forms of energy into the scheme. Otherwise, switch by one MS away from coal towards e. g. oil or nuclear fuel will throw out all the calculations for coal production 2. Political spillover †¢ Building up political pressure in favor of further integration †¢ Once ne sector is integrated, lobbying of interest groups occurs at supranational level (the organization in charge of running that sector) - ­? - ­? Groups will appreciate the benefits as a result of integration, realizing the barriers preventing these benefits from being fully enjoyed (not integrating other sectors) a? advocating further integration and lobbying the governments †¢ E. g. : ECSC makes the representatives it the coal and steel industry switching the lobby activities (partly) from national governments to the new supranational agency (High Authority) o Technocratic automaticity  §? Institutions created will sponsor urther integration as they become more powerful and autonomous than member states Assessment of the theory o 1950s: neofunctionalism = winning theory explaining the transition from the ECSC into EC o 1960s: the end of neofunctionalism – Empty Chair Crisis (1965 – 1966) Gaulle’s veto; national governments showing power they are ready to use to determine the nature and pace of integration Aspects to be considered – theory not always applicable o Pluralist social structures  §? Member states must be democratic o Substantial economic and industrial development  §? A certain level of development – no significant gap among hem o Common ideology among participating units  §? No centrally planned economies †¢ Mistakes of neofunctionalism: o Regional integration is not a self-  ­? contained process, but influence by a wider international context o Governments are uniquely powerful actors as they had formal sovereignty and democratic legitimacy o integration in low politics, not high politics (national security, defense) as states tend to protect their sovereignty (advocated by French in 1950) national government controls the nature and pace of integration in order to protect and promote national interest acknowledges the importance of other ctors than governments: o low politics (e. g. social policy): interest groups did influence, but were no the only ones – also government officials, parties in office rejects the theory of spillover effects: rejects the idea of common security policy, foreign policy or common armed forces power of supranational institutions increased because governments believed it to be their national interest a? integration only as far as the government allows power to the European Council and Council of Europe Intergovernmen talism – Stanley Hoffman - ­? - ­? - ­? - ­? - ­? - ­? - ­? Liberal intergovernmentalism – Andrew Moravcsik - ­? - ­? ational interests = part of a domestic political process, within which economic interests are dominant two- ­? level game o demand side  §? political elites, lobbyist, interest groups are acting and forming the demand of the state a? domestic events influence the demands of state interests on the international level o supply side  §? interacting of each state with conflicting interests on the level of intergovernmental sessions – Council of Ministers †¢ 1st stage – reach agreement on the common policy †¢ 2nd stage – reach agreement on institutional arrangements supranational institutions reduce transactional costs – more fficient to co- ­? exist a? institutions = tools, the main emphasis is on member states that can reduce the power of its supranational bodies Theory applied on negotiation of the Treaties of Rome (1955 – 58), Consolidation of the common market and CAP (1958 – 83), negotiation of SEA (1984 – 88), negotiation of the Treaty on EU (1988 – 91) a? conclusions: 1. Decisions = reflection of the preferences of national governments, not preferences of supranational organizations 2. National preferences = reflection of the balance of economic interests 3. delegating the power to the supranational authority means to ensure the ommitments of all parties, not a belief in the inherent efficiency of international organizations - ­? - ­? Extra Supranational governance – Stone Sweet, Sandholtz - ­? - ­? EU not one international regimes, but a series of regimes Increased transactions across national borders would create supranational society that favored the creation of supranational rules (more simple for operation) Multi- ­? level governance – Gary Marks - ­? - ­? - ­? - ­? - ­? rather an approach – EU as a political system with interconnected institutions existing at multiple levels with unique features national government = important decisional role, upranational institutions = autonomic role multilevel actions by multilevel actors (lobbies, companies, parties, states, interest groups) at international, state and regional level a? no superior actor, they are equal many informal relations existing (European norms), that are respected by different actors theory does not address the issue of transferring sovereignty and loyalty Constructivism - ­? - ­? rather an approach advocate of Europeanization, establishing common norms, habits, culture to bring people together – new social community (ministries with European department to synchronize the policies with the ones of he EU) – recognizes multi- ­? level governance popular in EU 15 - ­? 2) Formation of 3 Communities in the context of economic and political developments in post- ­? WWII Europe ECSC  œ 1952 – Treaty of Paris EEC, EURATOM – 1957 – Treaty of Rome Motives for the formation of the Communities - ­? - ­? - ­? - ­? Reaction to the World Wars: horrifying example (lost lives) a? seeking a peaceful and stable European environment, political and economic cooperation instead of competition Soviet threat: cooperation blocks further Soviet expansion a? Cold war = catalyst for integration of western Europe Political willingness: political ooperation and development replacing economic competition, viewed as a factor in the outbreak of wars o countries seeking cooperation for different reasons  §? Germany, Italy – seeking respectability  §? France – seeking security from Germany Economic development: destroyed Europe needed reconstruction o Marshall plan (US interested in Europe) – financing the reconstruction of Europe, establishing what is now known as OECD o Bretton Woods Conference  §? 1944, 44 nations to talk about pos t- ­? war economic order  §? GATT  §? IMF (to regulate the international monetary and financial order a? stable exchange rate) Schuman:French Foreign Minister; plan in collaboration with Jean Monnet Key points o relations between France and Germany needs to be renewed o linking French and German coal and steel industry by placing under control of a supranational body a? making war unthinkable and materially impossible (coal and steel = needed to produce armaments, thus capability of waging war) UK no involved in negotiations 1950 Schuman plan - ­? - ­? - ­? ECSC – Treaty of Paris (1951/1952) - ­? - ­? - ­? reduce tariffs by imposing levies on coal and steel production failed to create a single market for coal and steel a? further step needed joined by