The Effect of International Agreements on Politics - Coursework Example

An Analysis of international agreements Globalization is an international phenomenon with far-reaching consequences in the social, political and economic realms. Economic globalization, namely the spread of neoliberalism and capitalist-inspired consumerism as the dominant engine of economic growth, has both supporters and detractors. The world is becoming more and more interdependent and whether people think globalization is a good or bad thing, it is here to stay. Along with globalization, regional integration is a force to be reckoned with in the twenty-first century. As the world becomes increasingly interdependent, different regions of the globe are becoming increasingly integrated. Examples of regional economic integration include the GCC (Gulf Co-operation Corporation), NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Association) and the EU (European Union). These are just a few of the many regional arrangements currently proliferating across the globe. International agreements are increasing with global interdependence and this chapter seeks to explain the effects of international agreements on states and decision-makers around the world. Through an exploration of states responses to key international agreements, this chapter will discuss state sovereignty in an increasingly interdependent global world and international agreements in practice through regional organizations such as the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Are international agreements a positive or negative force? This question will be answered as this chapter concludes with a summation of the work studied. We now turn to an analysis of the question of state sovereignty in the 21st century. International Agreements and the Question of State Sovereignty State sovereignty is a basic principle of the current international order and notions of sovereignty are intrinsic to the global system of international affairs. Despite the fact that ideas about state sovereignty shape the international system and are basic premises of the functions of global governance, this important concept is under threat from a variety of forces. Seeking to address the concept of state sovereignty in the twenty-first century, this essay will explore the abrogation of sovereignty as a direct result of globalization and the increased salience of unilateral action by the dominant power in the international system. Firmly entrenched as a guiding principle in international affairs, basic concepts of state sovereignty are responsible for the current structure of the international order. How has sovereignty, a guiding principle of the international order been challenged in recent times? Do international agreements help or hinder questions of sovereignty? These important questions, and many more, will be discussed with reference to an analysis of the roles that international agreements play in a modern, interdependent society. Regional Integration: Introducing the EU Established in the wake of the Second World War, the European Union (formerly the European Economic Community) is a supranational multilateral organization which generates an estimated 30% of the world’s total Gross Domestic Product.1 In addition to being an economic powerhouse, the European Union represents near total European integration in the political, judicial, social and economic spheres. The European Union (EU) represents multilateralism and the evolution of Western diplomatic organization at its very best.2 A supranational body composed of constituent member states, the states of the EU are found largely on the European peninsula. Democracy, negotiation, and collective decision-making through multilateralism are all inherent attributes of the modern EU. As a multinational organization, the EU represents various national interests within an overarching political framework. The EU is an international organization which operates on the basis of negotiation between member states and relies on international agreements and collective decision-making to achieve its ends. Members are joined together and bound by treaties signifying their participation within the larger EU political framework. The political decisions of member-states are thus constrained by their allegiance and signatory status to overarching EU treaties.3 Today, membership in the European Union is actively sought by nearly all countries on the European peninsula as well as by one country straddling both Europe and Middle Asia (Turkey). Although there were initially only five members of the precursor to the European Union (Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands and West Germany), there are presently 27 countries in the EU and countries currently seeking membership in the EU include parts of the former Federal State of Yugoslavia as well as Turkey. Although it has not always been the case, modern-day Europe is characterized by a unifying democratic political culture. While the concept of democracy originated on its shores, the philosophy of democratic governance was challenged in 20th century Europe by authoritarian political movements, including fascism (expressed by Nazi Germany & Mussolini’s Italy), and communism (as exemplified in Eastern Europe during the Cold War). International agreements tie the member states together and represent the inherent democratic nature of the European Union. With Allied victory in World War II and the recent collapse of the Soviet Union, democracy – in varying degrees– is now a universal trend amongst European states. In fact liberal democracy, best expressed by the states of Western Europe with entrenched democratic traditions, is quickly becoming the standard for the continent. Democratic norms and rules have subsequently been established through a pan-European legal framework which exists through binding legal agreements between member states. The following will explore important legal agreements in the recent history of the EU and chart their signficance.4 International Agreements in Practice: The European Union The Treaty of Rome, signed in March of 1957, proposed a common European economic market throughout the European Economic Community. Historically-speaking this was perhaps the most important precursor to the integration of Europe today. Recent treaties, including the Treaty of Amsterdam, the Treaty of Nice, and the failed EU Constitution all followed the precedent set more than 40 years ago in Rome. Despite some controversies, democracy remains alive and well within the EU political framework. In fact, the recent failure to implement a Constitution for Europe affirmed the democratic underpinnings of the Union and proved that debate and collective decision making are inherent components of the working European Union.5 The Maastricht Treaty (1993) creating the European Union, replaced the European Community, and paved the way for further economic, social and political integration within Europe. This integration was strengthened through the implementation of three institutional pillars: 1) European Communities; 2) Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), and 3) police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters as well as the acceptance of a single currency, the Euro. In addition to the three pillars, the acceptance of the Euro as an official currency of members of the so-called “Eurozone” strengthened economic bonds between member states. Following negotiations in the Dutch city of Maastricht, the Treaty of Amsterdam (1999) represented a further evolution of collective decision making amongst EU members.6 Described as a “confederated state”, the European Union represents an evolution of the European democratic tradition. Europe is the cradle of modern democracy and modern European states have successfully maintained a democratic tradition for centuries (Tilly rightful demonstrates entrenched liberal democracy using the case of Britain).7 Despite claims that legislation enacted in Brussels bypasses the rights of individual states, the opposite is true. All states within the union participate in its decision making processes.8 The European Union is arguably the world’s most successful attempt at regional integration. The motto of the EU is “unity in diversity” and collective bargaining, negotiation and a plurality of opinion are attributes of today’s EU. The European Union represents democracy at work and recent treaties obligating all members to abide by common standards in the political and social realms affirm a common standard among the states of Europe. In fact, “by agreeing to pursue that interest within an organization as constraining as the European Union, the member-states have recognized the ultimate superiority of multilateral, as opposed to unilateral, decision making and action in a variety of policy arenas”. Accordingly, multilateralism, democracy, and collective decision making are at the heart of today’s European Union. We now turn to an exploration of how international agreements can safeguard individual state interest through collective action. The Common Security Strategy of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the European Union exemplifies this trend.9 NATO & the EU: A Common Security Strategy In December of 2003, the European Council of the European Union adopted the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), a sober assessment of the security situation in the post 9/11 world and a proactive attempt to enhance international security. Understanding that EU member states face common security challenges and that the most dangerous threats facing Europe today are the same that the United States has had to confront post 9/11, the CFSP represents the most clear European strategy to combat global terrorism. Accordingly, this document makes explicit the transatlantic threats posed by international terrorists and necessitates an active role for the European Community in combating terrorism. Sadly, the Madrid bomb attacks (March 11 2004) and the London bombings (July 7 2005) respectively brought home just how real and sustained the terror threat is to the democracies of Europe. The CFSP is an example of an international agreement in action which serves to safeguard the interests of individual states while securing both sides of the Atlantic ocean. Understanding that Europe is not immune to attacks from Islamic fundamentalists and terror in general, the Common Foreign and Security Policy reaffirms the commitment of EU member states, in conjunction with their NATO allies, to work together in the spirit of global security. A major component of the CFSP is the need to combat the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and ensure forth righteously that these weapons do not land in the hands of terrorists bent on wreaking havoc on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean. Furthermore, the adoption of the CFSP recognizes that failed states and regional conflict can also provide haven for terrorist and seeks to address these issues accordingly. The adoption of the Common Foreign and Security Policy clearly brings the European and North American perceptions of threat closer together and is “an immensely valuable contribution to the transatlantic security relationship”.10 NATO is an important safeguard of transatlantic defence and during the 1990s, the most important issue facing the transatlantic defence community was the question of whether or not NATO would act outside of its traditional scope or sphere of operations and play a role in establishing security beyond the territory of its member states. Following the violent break-up of the Yugoslav Federation, the peace operation undertaken by NATO in Bosnia and Herzegovina forcefully demonstrated that NATO would act outside of its traditional sphere of operations to ensure that civil war on the periphery of its member states would not threaten the security of its European members nor those of the European Union. Later, the decision by NATO to send AWACS to patrol the skies of the United States that fateful morning of September 11, 2001, emphatically demonstrated that NATO would protect not only the skies of Europe but also North American ones as well. Accordingly, the decision by NATO to lead Afghanistan’s International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in August 2003 showed just how willing this organization, composed of Europeans and North Americans, is to confront and combat the threats of the world, wherever they may be. Stressing the importance of NATO’s role in Afghanistan, former NATO secretary general Lord Robertson stated “If we fail, we will find Afghanistan on all of our doorsteps…”.11 The European Union’s Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) works to unify the concerns of NATO with the challenges facing the European Union. In line with NATO’s engagement in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the CFSP accepts preventative engagement and understands the need to be proactive in dealing with the threats of global terror. As long as terrorism continues to threaten both Europe and North America, NATO remains the primary institution through which common defence is provided. Although officially two separate organizations with differing mandates and agendas, the European Union and NATO actually have a complimentary relationship when it comes to security and securing North America and Europe from the threats of tomorrow. While mandated to protect its constituent members, the Atlantic Alliance, as was proven in the former Yugoslavia, can play a proactive role in preserving peace in Europe as well as abroad. Thus, an arm of the EU, the European Defence Agency, can work in tandem with NATO in ensuring peace and prosperity throughout the Atlantic region. From a pure security perspective, these two organizations now work to compliment and reinforce each other. Concluding remarks Globalization has paved the way for economic, social and political integration across the world and international agreements facilitate our common purposes. The European Union is a transnational multilateral organization which represents an exciting new wave of regional integration arrangements. Each member state is bound by international agreements to facilitate common interests and goals. Established to promote the interdependence of its members, our analysis of the EU demonstrates that regional integration facilitates multilateralism and coordinated action on a variety of fronts. As growing multilateral organizations with increasing influence on the international stage, the European Union has established itself as a key geopolitical actor in the post-Cold War and post-9/11 world. Through the establishment of mutual security guarantees following 9/11 through international agreements, the EU has shown that consensus and collective are alive and well in the international system. Safety and security can be promoted through international agreements which bind members to a common purpose and common goals. references Ando, S (1993). Preparing the Ground for an Alliance Peacekeeping Role. NATO Review. 41(2): 33-52. Almond, G.A, Dalton, R.J & Powel Jr., G.B. (2002). European Politics Today, 2nd edition. New York: Longman. Alvarez, J.E. (2006). International Organizations: Then and Now. The American Journal of International Law.100(2): 324-347. Bereuter, D. (2004) NATO and the EU Security Strategy. Oxford Journal on Good Governance, 1(1):21-27. Brown, M. E. (1995). The Flawed Logic of NATO Expansion. Survival, 37(1): 34-52. Clark, G.L. & W. B. Kim (1995). Asian NIEs & the Global Economy: Industrial Restructuring & Corporate Strategy in the 1990s. New York: Johns Hopkins University Press. Coburn, D. 2000. “Income inequality, social cohesion and the health status of populations: the role of neo-liberalism”, Social Science & Medicine, 51( 1):. 135-146. Fierke K.M., Wiener A (1999). Constructing institutional interests: EU and NATO enlargement. Journal of European Public Policy. 6(5): 721-742. Finnemore, M. (1996). Norms, Culture and World Politics: Insights from Sociologys Institutionalism. International Organization, 50, 325-47 Hale, W. & E. Kienle. (1997). After the Cold War: Security and Democracy in Africa and Asia. London: I.B. Tauris. Harvey, D. (2007). A Brief History of Neoliberalism. London: Oxford University Press. Hobsbawm, E. (1994). Age of Extremes: The Short History of the Twentieth Century: 1914-1991. London: Abacus. Holst, J.J. (1992). Pursuing a durable peace in the aftermath of the cold war. NATO Review. 40(4): 9-13. MacGwire, M. (1998) "NATO expansion: A policy error of historic importance", Review of International Studies. 24(1): 23-42. McCalla, R. (1996). NATOs Persistence after the Cold War. International Organization. 50(3): 445-475. Preston, Christopher (1997) Enlargement and Integration in the European Union, New York: Routledge. Sloan, S. (1994) "Transatlantic relations in the wake of the Brussels summit", NATO Review. 42(2): 27-31. Sloan, S. (1995) "U.S. Perspectives on NATOs Future," International Affairs, 71(2): 217-246. Solesby, T. (1978). Helsinki to Belgrade – and beyond’, NATO Review 26(3): 16–22. Stankevicius, C. (1996). NATO enlargement and the indivisibility of security in Europe: a view from Lithuania’, NATO Review 44(5): 21–5. Strayer, R. W. (1998). Why Did the Soviet Union Collapse?: Understanding Historical Change. New York: I. E. Sharpe. Tilly, C. (1993). European Revolutions. London: Blackwell. The Economist (2009). Pocket World in Figures, 2009 Edition. London: Profile Books. Warleigh, A. (2004). European Union: The Basics. New York: Routledge. Wood, S. and Quaisser, W. (2008). The New European Union: Confronting the Challenges of Integration. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers/ Worner, Manfred (1994). Shaping the alliance for the future. NATO Review, 42(1): 3-6. Read More