The European Union: Redefining What We Know - Term Paper Example

RUNNING HEAD: EU REDEFINING WHAT WE KNOW The European Union: Redefining What We Know The European Union: Redefining What We Know Europe has a rich, long history, and as with any entity with a past one will assuredly find conflict. Europe has seen its share of turmoil, but has for decades also seen the purpose and promise of a unified front. This history of a shared vision began shortly after World War II and has continued via Treaty since shortly after the conclusion of the war. This has been an evolutionary process. Finally, in 1992 the Treaty of Maastricht (Beginnings) was signed which gave birth to a new form of shared governance and a cooperative spirit amongst the European community. The European Union (EU) was born. Since the moment of its inception it has never looked back and is now struggling to further define its role through introduction of a union wide constitution which would shift its perceived power from that of a treatise entity to that as an autonomous sovereign body. It is within the political context of this notion that concern has arisen within the membership of the EU. However, by redefining our perceptions of what is entailed with adoption of an EU constitution we will see that with or without the constitution the EU will continue to function in much the same way as it has since its inception. However, with a shift in thinking the possibilities of what it can become with adoption of the constitution becomes even more intriguing. The European Union is unique in that it is not a sovereign nation in the traditional legal sense, rather a legal alliance comprised of many different sovereign states. Yet, through its shared power it has decision making authority to act on behalf of its member states while holding no sovereign or military power of its own. While this may be true, there are also strengths involved in this configuration. Unlike an individual sovereign state which is limited by its own resources and individual structure, the EU can draw on a vast array of resources when necessary from each of its member states (Gourlay 404). In order to understand the uniqueness of what the EU is attempting to do when establishing a constitution, we need to first define several of the terms associated with what typically a nation or separate state is associated. Miriam Webster dictionary defines democracy as "government by the people; especially: rule of the majority." In the context of the EU, this is the case of the founding principles of the EU within the scope of its authority. The problem lies with the fear that sharing this umbrella with member nations, the uniqueness of each individual nation may become blurred and worse, as some fear, overlooked. The benefit of redefining what a democracy can be is looking beyond borders of nations and basing decisions on consensus and common, shared goals where the total strength of many untied for exceeds the sum of the total alone. Miriam Webster dictionary defines sovereignty as "supreme power especially over a body politic." When one refers to sovereignty generally it is perceived to be within the framework of a separate governmental body comprised of a separate state or nation. However there is somewhat of precedence for a more all encompassing body that sits above a group of nations. Several examples of these would be the United Nations and the International Court of Justice. The limitations, however, surface when you consider that neither of these entities has enforceable authority; they rely on each individual state within their membership to self monitor and enforce the decisions within their own state. In so far as the EU has no sovereignty on its own right according to the strict dictionary definition and meaning commonly arrived at by the populous, redefining what sovereignty is or, maybe more accurately, what we perceive it to be, may be in order. Although the definition of sovereignty has been interpreted differently over the centuries of its use there are some fundamental precepts that, regardless of application, have remained: "supreme authority within a territory" (Philpott, 2003). The modern theory rising from that is that the supreme authority is attached to a specific terrority which denotes a state. However, if we examin each of the words and then connect them perhaps we arrive at a shifitng in out perceptions on what does, or can, denote sovereignty. First the term authority refers to power conferred upon an entitiy not through cohersive measure but as the word implies by choice. The term authority connotes a rightness or legitamaticy as opposed to power gained through deceipt or force. Further, not only is authority given; rather supreme authority is granted. Supremacy equates to superiority over any body or group under its perview. In the politcal sense this implies, for instance, that the national body of a state would supercede that of a city within its scope of control. The last area within the historical fundamental precepts of sovereignty is territory. The modern meaning of this, in context, has come to be accepted as a separate, distinct state. However, territoriality can and, in the case of the EU, should be expanded to examine exactly what the concept of territory can be if not locked within the current geo-political constraints of modern thinking. Rather than locking ourselves into a strict definition, "territoriality is a principle by which members of a community are to be defined" (Philpott, 2003). It is only within our own minds and preceived notions that we place geographic limitations on what we consider to be territory with regard to sovereignty. When reviewing this within the context of the EU, terrority denotes a group of people or nations under one common umbrella of shared governance where supreme authority is given by each state within the bounds of that umbrella. Additionally, although authority is supreme there is no limitation and, therefore, restirction on what authority is given. As authority is, as we defined, achieved by freely giving of power superior to that of its members there is, by definition, no reason why this sovereignty has to be all encompassing across every area. While universal sovereignty may not be given in this case to the EU by its member states, however, the fact that universal sovereignty has not been given does not take away the supremacy it has been afforded in certain areas such as law. Hence, is the case of the EU, or what it could be if veiwed within this framework. As an example, although the EU as a combined entity of twenty five nations is not perceived as a military force nor has it made a show of force as a military being, it is only surpassed in military strength by the United States. "For instance, outside the US Navy, there are just 12 aircraft carriers in the world in service or being built. Eight of those ships belong to EU member states. The European states have kept between 50,000 and 100,000 troops continuously deployed in operations abroad since 1999" (Ulriksen 457). However, EU strategy is not to develop traditional methods of military superiority; rather, its focus is on developing its military strength based on its own inherent values, personal strengths, interests and visions.1 The EU in this example has not been granted sovereignty in the case of an EU wide military; however that has not limited their sovereignty with regard to the portions given by the member states. With the UK's signing of the European Community Act of 1972 (ECA 1972) and enjoining itself with the European Union (EU) it has been argued that Parliament has relinquished its sovereignty. In [2001} EWCH Admin 934, the Morgan Judgment, the court held that per Section 2, 2. (2) of the ECA 1972 the state was afforded authority to enact subordinate legislature. Further in 2 (4) of the same section it was argued that Parliament had bound itself by signing legislation that resulted in Parliament's relinquishing sovereignty in that this act supersedes British law which is in conflict with EU law. Although it can be argued that parliamentary sovereignty has been eroded by passage of this act, the court ruled that the ECA of 1972 is not entrenched and, therefore, can be repealed. Several cases seem to limit the supremacy of Parliament with the emergence of the EU. The landmark case of Costa v ENEL [1964] ECR 1125 is the often quoted ruling delineating the sovereignty of EU. In this ruling it was upheld that EC law overrides any national law that conflicts with it.2 In R v Secretary of State for Transport Ex Parte Factortame (no. 2) [1991] HL held that any act of Parliament incompatible with any requirement of EC law can and must be declared invalid and ineffective to the extent of that incompatibility.3 Another case testing the Sovereignty of the EU was Pickstone and others v Freemans plc [1988] 2 All ER 803, [1988] 3 WLR 265, [1989] A.C. 66 R. The appeal was dismissed on the grounds that the UK Equal Pay Act of 1970 did in fact confirm to EU law.4 As Lord Templeman said in Lister v Forth Dry Dock Co Ltd [1990] 1 AC 546, 558E, "the UK courts are under a duty to follow the practice of the European Court of Justice when construing Community instruments. A purposive approach is to be adopted, and the travaux prparatoires may be referred to for guidance as to what was intended. Community legislation is to be interpreted, so far as possible, in such a way that it is in conformity with general principles of Community Law:"5 As a member of the EU, the UK has given up a portion of it national sovereignty including being bound to EU directives, which are orders, and regulations, which are executive orders. Having, by virtue of joining the EU, relinquished a degree of sovereignty, member states are "upon notification immediately bound by any EU directives or regulations. As such, any member of the EU does not need to enact similar laws as they are by virtue of membership immediately bound by these..." This was upheld in Case 92/78, Simmenthal S.P.A. v. Commission, and 1979 ECR 777. The ECJ further ruled that the member states must repeal any laws that conflict with EU law, and that the courts of the member states must apply EU law as a whole. The EU law is founded on 2 levels: primary legislations which are the treaties and amendments and secondary legislation which encompasses directives, regulations and decisions. One final area that must be considered is that of devolution, which is, in the traditional sense granting of power from the centralized state to its territories. When one thinks of this in context, it is usually perceived as a top to bottom divestiture of power, from higher to lower. In the case of for example the UK's entry into the EU that is to an extent what occurred; in effect not only at the EU UK level but also how EU membership affects UK Wales/Scotland. To that end the UK remains on the secondary level within members of the UK while still maintaining statutory control at the EU level (Carter 2003, pp. 3). However, perhaps we need to view devolution from the other perspective, as well, which has occurred in the case of the EU. Member states have given a portion of their sovereignty, albeit for as long as they choose to remain in the EU, to the larger body of governance, the EU. In conclusion, the uniqueness of the EU is demanding us to redefine what we perceived long standing concepts to be. Democracy does not need to imply solidarity only within the confines of a line on a map. Within the UK the issue of the Sovereignty of Parliament has been a long standing debate, and many may be opposed to what they view as a weakening of the nation was the result of entry to the EU. However, I have demonstrated that although the UK, like every other nation with in the EU, has relinquished a portion of the sovereignty to the EU; it is done not through cohesion, but through choice. Seeing the greater good, the choice was made knowing it is reversible. In desiring to be recognized under a constitution rather than treaty is more an outward show of unity than a necessity. The EU is fully functioning and the principles contained in the proposed constitution do not change any of the fundamental functioning of the EU itself. Rather it is more an attempt to bond the members together not through bureaucracy and usurping individual state sovereignty but through closer cooperation, sense of brotherhood, and unity. References "Beginnings: the history of the European Union." 2006 EUROPA Website. Accessed 14 Jan. 2006, from http://europa.eu.int/abc/history/index_en.htm Case 92/78, Simmenthal S.P.A. v. Commission, 1979 ECR 777. Carter, C. A. (31 Oct. 2002). "The formulation of UK-EU policy post-devolution: a transformative model of governance" Manchester Papers in Politics. European Policy Research Unit (EPRU). University of Edinburgh. 14 Jan. 2006 les.man.ac.uk/devolution/docs/EPRU Paper 9 - Caitriona Carter.pdf Costa v ENEL [1964] ECR 1125 European Community Act of 1972 Gourlay, Catriona. (Autumn 2004) "European Union procedures and resources for crisis management." International Peacekeeping, 11: 3 404-421. 14 Jan. 2006. Academic Search Premier Database. EBSCO Galileo http://search.epnet.com/login.aspxdirect Lister v Forth Dry Dock Co Ltd [1990] 1 AC 546, 558E Lord Hope of Craighead in Rasheed Bank v Shanning International Ltd. House of Lords http://www.ipsofactoj.com/international/2001/Part07/int2001(7)-009.htm Miriam-Webster Dicionary Online. Accessed 14 Jan. 2006, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionaryva=sovereignty Philpott, P. (2003). "Sovereignty". Stanford University Dictionary of Philosophy. Stanford University Website. Accessed 14 Jan. 2006, from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sovereignty/ R v Secretary of State for Transport Ex Parte Factortame (no. 2) [1991] HL "Sovereignty - the traditional view." (n.d.). Sixth Form. The Bournemouth and Poole College Online. Accessed 14 Jan. 2006, from http://sixthformlaw.info/01_modules/mod3/3_31_eu_law/supremacy/01_traditional_view .htm Ulriksen, Stale. (Autumn 2004) "Requirements for future European military strategies and force structures." International Peacekeeping, 11: 3 457-473. Academic Search Premier Database. EBSCO Galileo 14 Jan.2006 http://search.epnet.com/login.aspxdirect Read More