EU Economic Integration - Example

Giving Away Sovereignty to Supranational Institutions Name: Tutor: Course: Institution of Affiliation: Date: The jurisdiction of supranational institution is the main subject of debates on regional integration. In recent years, the European Union (EU) has endeavored to create the frame work for the adoption of a common Constitution. Similarly, the establishment of integration systems remains the main area of discussion in South and Central America. Following all these developments, it is appropriate to take time and reflect on what one really implies when deliberating on ‘supranational institutions. One of the definitions has it that these systems are deemed to be identical, with regional organs working at a higher level than that supranational by virtue of the good feature of their official power and bases (Macias, 2003). Supranationalism is said to be neither monolithic nor exclusive. This is best brought out as being a set of rules that take in some form of sharing of autonomy that could be combined in diverse ways with more practices among the governments involved. Putting it in a basic legal form, Supranationalism implies that self-governing states consent to abide by norms that are adopted at the top most level of the organization. In the European Union this is, however, it is misleadingly termed in public forums as a choice to ‘transfer sovereignty’ (Gruber, 2000). Such is the case that European Union Member countries have consented, though not unconditionally, to the superiority of community law. Following this, whenever an event occurs that leads to a conflict between community law and national law, the latter takes precedence. In addition, they consent to the code of direct effect, through which community law establishes obligations and rights directly for citizens. From the above, it is clear that the establishment of supranational institution clearly carries the blame for the gradual loss of the states of sovereignty. This is true basing on the premise that this new system has taken over most of the duties that were once the sole responsibility of the member states. In fact, its structure dictates that its policies should be given the top priority when they seem to conflict with the member states policies (Kaunert, 2003). To better understand this, it is important to first look into the very foundational treaties that led to its formation, and further check the underlying operational principle that are said to have led to the loss of states sovereignty. 1. Treaty of Paris In 1951 the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) or commonly referred the treaty of Paris was signed. This served to bring together Germany, France, Benelux and Italy in a community whose main aim was to establish a mechanism that will ensure free movement of steel and coal and liberated access to elements of production. Moreover, this treaty was geared towards establishing a common High Authority that was mandated to supervise the markets, reverence for price transparency and competition rules. Looking at this one clearly identifies the loss of sole state control over such aspects such as the price of products and setting up of domesticated rules deemed beneficial for its well being (Kaunert, 2010). In such cases, only the states thought as being superior benefited as they could make up rules and policies that favor their positions. Termed as the first Community organization, its formation followed the end of the Second World War at a time when reconstruction of the European continent economy and moves to ensure a long-term peace appeared crucial. Consequently, the thought of pooling Franco-German steel and coal production stemmed up leading to the formation of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) (Magone, 2003). This integration went further to acquire some of the rights once possessed by member states thanks to the political choices made, to help boost smooth flow of these two main materials that formed the basis of the two countries industry and power. The fundamental political purpose was to banish the specter of war, strengthen the Franco-German unity, and pave the way to accelerate the European integration. OBJECTIVES According to the treaties Article 2 its main objective was “to contribute, through the common market for coal and steel, to economic expansion, growth of employment and a rising standard of living.” The institutions carried the mandate of ensuring an organized supply to the common market through systems such as maintain an equivalent access to the elements of production, establishment of the improved working conditions and lower prices. All of this was advanced aiming towards modernization of production and establishment of growth in worldwide trade. However, member countries had no option but to agree to limitations that come along with the establishment of the common market (Sandholtz & Alec, 1998). Such is the case that the treaty introduced the open movement of goods devoid of taxes and customs duties. It prohibited subsidies, special charges imposed by member countries, restrictive practices and aid granted by member countries. From the above it is obvious that this integration restricted the member countries sovereignty with regard to control of imports and export duties and movement of goods vis-à-vis from member states into their countries. STRUCTURE Finally, countries’ loss of sovereignty is depicted through the treaties laid down structure. The Paris treaty had four titles including The European Coal and Steel Community, the one that dealt with the Community institutions, the third handled economic matters and social requirements and the last title was concerned with the general requirements. In addition this, incorporated two protocols; one dealt with the Court of Justice and the further dealings of the European Coal and Steel Community with the ruling body of Europe, and a conference on the transitional requirements. This branch of the treaty handled the execution of the Treaty, general safeguards and its dealings with developing countries (Macias, 1994). Here, the member states relinquished their sovereignty to the European Union on legal matters regarding the trading activities. In addition to this, they lost their freedom to transact with the developing countries since everything was to be done through the established supranational institution. 2. The treaty of Rome Another significant contribution to the loss of EU member countries sovereignty followed the signing of the Treaty of Rome that becomes the founding accord of the European Economic Community (EEC) that afterwards became the European Union. Also referred to as the Treaty of the European Community (TEC), each of the consequent European accords have been built upon or formed from amendments on the Treaty of Rome. Its policies still shape the greater part of EU accord law. The accord focused not only on tremendously economic collaboration, but it also accelerates the pace towards creation of a wider political visualization for a union that seeks to 'eliminate the barriers which divide Europe’. Just like the Paris treaty, The Rome treaty served a great deal in taking over the rights and benefits once enjoyed by member countries. Using its structural systems or institutions such as the Council, the Union Commission, European Court of Justice, and European Parliament, staffed by officials, judges, ministers and parliamentarians from affiliate states. This Union fostered its policies affecting similar institution established in such states (Magone, 2003). For instance , the European parliament was mandated to carry out functions such as formulating interstate trading rules once performed by member countries own parliaments. The Treaty attempts to create a united Europe, termed as an impossible goal, went ahead to ignore the linguistic and cultural barriers (elements of nations sovereignty) that split the continent (Sandholtz & Alec, 1998). However, this treaty had a myriad of ambiguities. Such is the case that while at one point it aimed to encourage economic co-operation, it moved ahead to do this using undemocratic and pointless political machinery that only worked to make some countries benefit by gaining either economic or political power at the expense of others. Lastly, the institutions resulting from this treaty proved to be distant and unfamiliar such that their original structure permitted making of decisions behind closed doors and discouraging open debates. Following such approaches, many member countries found themselves as victims of sovereignty loss unawares. 3. Treaty of Maastricht on European Union The third treaty on European Union that similarly created member states sovereignty loss came to be known as Treaty of Maastricht. This treaty was signed in Maastricht on the 7th day of February 1992 and came into effect on 1st November 1993. The Treaty of Maastricht came into being following both internal and external events happenings at that time. At internal level, affiliate countries wished to complement the advancement brought about by the Single European Act with other new ideas. At an external stage, the disintegration of communism in the regions forming Eastern Europe and the possible German reunification caused a commitment to support the Community's international state. Following similar mannerisms, this treaty came up with a complicated structure that worked to assume the roles once played by member states thus denying them their sovereignty. The Treaty of Maastricht preamble was followed by seven titles. The first title contained a common foreign policy, provisions common to members of the Communities, and judicial collaboration (Tallberg, 2003). The second title comprised of provisions for the restructuring of the EEC Treaty, while the third and fourth titles aimed at restructuring the ECSC and EAEC Treaties (Griller & Jacques, 2008). The fifth title introduced deliberations on common foreign and security policy (CFSP). The sixth title took in agreements on collaboration in the home affairs and justice (JHA). Maastricht Treaty created the European Union consisting of three pillars. The first pillar comprises Euratom and European Community, the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC). It concerns itself with the domains of allowing affiliate countries share their sovereignty by means of Community institutions. In sharing their sovereignty, most states are forced to forego part of the benefits once enjoyed to the community institution. The second pillar curtailed the freedom of member countries to undertake foreign activities and reinforcement of own security policy following the institution of a common foreign and security policy (CFSP). Here, Title V of the EU plays a major role, where it replaces the deliberations of the Single European Act thus allowing affiliate States take common action in the area of foreign policy (Tallberg, 2003). With the Parliament and Commission playing a modest function, this pillar allows intergovernmental decision-making procedure that entirely relies upon unanimity. In such cases, countries with divergent views may not get a place in the final decisions made, especially if it tends to conflict its sovereignty The last aspect relating to loss of sovereignty is with regard to the field of Justice and Home Affairs (JHA).Here, the treaties third title, which deals with justice and home affairs (JHA) permits the community institution to undertake combined action to offer the affiliate countries citizens the most guaranteed protection in the field of justice, freedom and, security. 4. The Treaty of Lisbon This forms the latest treaty signed by the member states of the EU. Its enactment in 2007 served to consolidate all previous EU agreements and treaties. Its proponents suggested that it gave clear the directions and functioning of the EU, and further made its objectives and flaws easier to comprehend. The Lisbon Treaty rubberstamped the power conferred to the European Union to take action in areas such as judicial, foreign policy and human rights, and re-emphasized the thought that all citizen of an affiliate country is considered an EU citizen. In addition to this, it strengthened the EU's sovereignty by establishing it as a legal personality (Seidel, 2010). These numerous flaws pointed to loss of member states sovereignty. First, The Lisbon Treaty resulted to an elected European Union Commission acquiring a greater say over Home Affairs and Foreign Policy. This serves as a challenge to the principle that sovereign states be given power over these significant policy areas. To further illustrate this, it will be essential to consider the insinuation that the treaty transformed EU to become global actor in its own right, superior to, and a separate entity from its affiliate member states. Consequently, it changed from what was an intergovernmental accord into something similar to a single nation. Furthermore, member states loss of sovereignty followed the treaties failure to address the EU's democratic deficit (Seidel, 2010). Such is the case that the Commission maintains its accountability exclusively to the European Council as opposed to being direct answerable to any EU citizens. Finally the treaty of Lisbon interference on states sovereignty is clearly illustrated when looking at the jurisdiction reserved to European Court of Justice. In this case, the ECJ gained authority to dictate the basic rights of every one of EU citizens, having precedence over the long time national institutions. Conclusion In conclusion, the European Union accord focuses on tremendously economic collaboration and acceleration of the pace towards creation of a wider political visualization for a union that will 'eliminate the barriers Europe is worthy praise. However, the various stages of the European economical integration have notably resulted to member countries giving away sovereignty to supranational institutions in the process, a factor that raising concern. For this reason, proper measures should be taken to ensure that future treaties do not deprive their affiliate members this very important element of a nations well being. References Griller, S., and Jacques Z.,2008. The Lisbon Treaty EU constitutionalism without a constitutional treaty? Wien: Springer. Gruber, L., 2000. Ruling the world: power politics and the rise of supranational institutions. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Kaunert, C., 2010 European internal security: towards supranational governance in the area of freedom, security and justice. Manchester [U.K.: Manchester University Press/Palgrave Macmillan. Macias, A., 1994 New Superpower, The European Union. Ft. Belvoir: Defense Technical Information Center. Magone, J., 2003. Regional institutions and governance in the European Union. Westport, Conn.: Praeger. Sandholtz, W. & Alec, S., 1998. European integration and supranational governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Seidel, K., 2010. The process of politics in Europe the rise of European elites and supranational institutions. London: Tauris Academic Studies. Tallberg, J., 2003. European governance and supranational institutions: making states comply. London: Routledge. The Rome Treaty. Alexandria, Va: Sage Publications, 1962. Treaty setting up the European Coal and Steel Community, Paris, 18th April, 1951, as amended by (1) the Treaty of Luxembourg of 27th October, 1956, (2) the Rome Convention of 25th March, 1957, (3) the amendment proposal of 26th January, 1960 ... (4) the C. London: H.M. Stationery Off., 1965. Read More