European Integration and Sovereignty - Essay Example

European Integration and Sovereignty This paper critically looks at why some European s chose integration after the World War II without minding about ceding their sovereignty. Perhaps European history for the last 50 years can show that a nation’s participation in the integration process does not mean that they will necessarily lose their sovereignty. If anything, they stand to gain a lot economically, politically, and socially. Some of the critical aspects the paper seeks to look at include relations and co-operations among member states. During integration, every country usually has a set of rights and limits to these rights. Additionally, the paper will give relevant examples of countries that have embraced the European integration and some of the economic benefits they have had. Perhaps one could also argue that integration helps to foster unity and good relations among the member states. This is embodied in the integration. Following the end of World War II, some European states saw the need of coming together and forming an economic block that would help improve trade as well as political relations among the European countries, some of which had been to war with one another. Perhaps this saw the birth of the European Union (Eriksen & Fossum, 2000, p.56). Given that sovereignty of a country is equally a critical issue, the paper will look at concerns of sovereignty as well as examine whether the European integration caused loss of sovereignty. EU Nations and Sovereignty A major myth that has existed for a long time is that European integration entails a nation surrendering, at least partially part of its sovereignty. The reputation of this fallacy stemmed from the fact that the myth has become an excuse used by countries that are still equivocal about joining the EU (Eriksen & Fossum, 2000, p.9). A critical analysis of this perception, however, points to the contrary. An examination of the contemporary European politics reveals that all countries making up the EU, without any exception, maintain their sovereign rights in major political and economic areas of life. Border protection with EU neighbors, energy relations, national defense, home affairs and justice, education and migration policy-all remain within the absolute jurisdiction of each Member State’s national authorities (Eriksen & Fossum, 2000, p.15). What is more, key areas such as labor market regulation and social policy also fall under the authority of the national governments. Indeed, the national empowerment for the European Union member countries remains the main barrier to implementation of some critical reforms. The deficiency of reforms greatly impeded the implementation of the Lisbon Strategy. If it succeeded, this plan would make the European Union the most dynamic economy in the world as of 2010. One would argue that the member countries might be afraid of losing their sovereignty in foreign trade, especially given the fact that it is significant subject of EU regulation (Smith, 2005, p.17). However, Brussels has no mandate to make any step without the consent of the member EU member states. Although national governments assert that they totally handed over the powers to control foreign trade affairs to supranational levels, they preserve every right to obstruct any move by Brussels that could disadvantage them (Smith, 2005, p.12). According to EU Treaty’s Article 133, the authority of the commission to endorse foreign trade concessions are dignified in an authorization from the EU’s Council, which details the procedures for passage of any document. Of the major purposes of a modern states-national identity, territorial protection, market regulation, and domestic politics-only market regulations is affected with Brussels supranational regulation (Smith, 2005, p.12). By starting the integration process, West European nations did not theoretically ponder about ceding the sovereignty. Perhaps the main idea was to prevent another world war, as well as have good political and economic relations. Obviously, these interests superseded the national sovereignty. They were far more important at the moment. Perhaps this explains the basic concept behind European integration. Rather than look at it as ceding part of the national sovereignty, the West European nations used this opportunity to pool together resources and sovereignties that were designed to achieve a considerable synergetic effect (European Union Studies Association, n.d, p.67). Involvement in the process of integration provided a financial and economic advantage that arguably went beyond national boundaries. National bureaucracies, functioning within the structure of European Union, not only ensured material benefits for the member states, but also stimulated political maturation and perfection of economic and foreign activities carried out by each state. The EU has an intricate administrative mechanism that helps all member states to master and perfect their skills in taking care of their own interests. Following the lessons learnt during the two world wars, the Western European countries hoped for a lasting peace and good relations among the members (Adler-Nissen & Gad, 2013, p.7). This interest overrode the selfish interest of sovereignty. The EU integration intended to pool efforts with the main objective of making every individual state more competitive and viable. Following the huge success of EU integration, it can be argued that the integration indeed did not rob member countries of their sovereignty, but instead remained the exclusive basis of legitimacy, enabling the countries to retain their full-fledged sovereign rights. The notion of building an overall European Super State had little impact on most members of the population and political elites (Adler-Nissen & Gad, 2013, p.14). Although weakened by war, the political elites did receive foreign assistance. While some of them were ready to denounce their rights, this was not the main intention of the EU. Following the events of the World War II in which lives were lost and property destroyed, the Western European countries did not want a repeat of the same (European Union Studies, Association n.d., p.12). They saw the need to come together as an integrated regional block and improve their political and economic relations. The dollar had been affected and business was not doing well, hence the need to come together and help reconstruct the economy (Adler-Nissen, 2014, p.23). Political scholars such as Jean Monnet have accessed the situation and realized that the nations making up the European Union could not be stripped of their sovereignty. There had to be a unique mechanism that would enable states to preserve their sovereignty rights. If anything, European integration had many advantages to the participating countries. It gave them an opportunity to streamline and coordinate their economic activities as well as giving Brussels the power to execute most detested measures subsequently compensated for any losses (Adler-Nissen 2014, p6). Perhaps one could also argue that World War II left Europe evidently divided into two separate groups of states. Soviet unification with Russia was a unifying ideology that would appeal to the war-devastated people. This was deemed to bring forth friendly regimes. Moreover, integration held the promise offering security and significantly reducing instances of war. It meant a larger market that every nation longed for in the aftermath of the World War II. Moreover, integration and the subsequent unification served to act as a safeguard for food and shelter. Most countries in Western Europe had people who had lived in democratic regimes and therefore appreciated human rights and certain liberties such as the liberty of speech (Kirchner, 1992, p.67). There was need to resurrect the economy which had been considerably hurt by the Second World II. The weaker fragile regimes from East Europe were a major threat. They could only be neutralized by forming a formidable force, hence the need for European integration. The Soviet Union posed a considerable threat to the Western European Countries, prompting them to unify. To counter the Soviet Union Threat, the Western Europe states formed NATO, as an umbrella to deter Soviet Union (Kirchner, 1992, p.63). This umbrella served to unite the armies from the countries and form a formidable force against the Soviet enthusiasts in case they struck. However, the umbrella did not adequately safeguard against weaker democratic regimes from the turbulence of people living poverty. To deal with the threat, there was need to revamp the economies of these states by creating jobs and absorbing the unemployed. Thus, there was need to unify and help remove barriers to trade. The economies had been separated by high tariffs as well as other barriers, which greatly undermined foreign trade (Laible, 2008, p.16). Trade Liberalization The barriers allowed inefficient private and public companies to thrive in protected national markets, but excluded competition and foreign trade, and trade expansions. To stimulate growth of Western Europe economy, these barriers had to be removed. It was only possible to remove them through unification and integration (Ekengren, 2002, p.51). In itself, the trade liberalization stimulus was insufficient to instigate a European unification. There was thus need for a political decision to pursue the trade liberalization through multinational integration as opposed to intergovernmental collaboration. The easy way to liberalize trade in Europe would be by creating a free trade by intergovernmental cooperation (Laible, 2008, p.71). The Western European countries that helped fuel the trade of liberalization consisted mainly of the UK and the Scandinavian countries. Proponents of trade liberalization reckoned that trade liberalization would gather speed and surpass works that were initiated in 1947 by General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Laible, 2008, p.13). Trade liberalization meant total elimination of tariff barriers without conceding national sovereignty. Correspondingly, an intergovernmental cooperation devoid of legal compulsion could be followed between The USA and the Western European inside EOEC. The organization was instituted in 1950’s to manage USA’s Marshall Plan aim at reconstructing Europe. It was later transformed to Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (Laible 2008, p56). Some politicians, perhaps devastated by the wars amongst themselves, hoped to use trade liberalization to gain relevance. They wished to closely tie their economies and make civil war in Europe virtually impossible. They hoped to experiment a method that could combine economic integration with trade liberalization. The need to unify different West European economies implied economic integration. Although multinational integration was a risky and revolutionary enterprise, it held the promise of improving the economy, political relations, as well as reducing instances of war, without posing a threat to interfering with sovereignty (Ekengren, 2002, p.18). Multinational integration was a risky concept as conflicted with national sovereignty and nation-state. However, integration was the only hope for transforming enemies into partners. Integration meant that the partnerships formed were irrevocable (Bickerton, 2012, p.15). Simply put, integration was a bright idea that served to inspire business and political activities, as well as good relationships among the Allies. The integration marked an important era of European unification. Regardless of the sovereignty of states, European integration meant cooperation among specific economies in Western Europe. They would come together and harmonize their monetary and fiscal policies to boost bilateral trade among them. Through such interactions, they would also foster peace and political stability. It meant that there was no room for war or conflicts. Political integration would be a result of one policy implemented in one area being adopted in another area. For instance, integration in steel and coal leads to the creation of pressure in areas such as currency exchange rates of currency. European integration involved political spillover that can be used to explain the significance of sub-national and supranational actors during the integration process (Bickerton, 2012, p.13). It helps to create pressure that greatly helps in following other interest. Consequently, neo-colonialists can view European Integration as a self-sufficient process that can likely lead to creation of novel policy with Brussels. Perhaps intergovenmentalism theory best describes the rationale behind European Integration. It asserts that nation-state is almost functionless as a result of European integration. National governments of member states are the key factor in the European integration process. Thus, instead of weakening the sovereign states, the countries indeed became stronger. The EU was particularly instrumental in preserving sovereignty of member states (Bickerton, 2012, p.5). In fact, the European integration provided a platform for radical changes within the EU where members converged and shared goals and aspirations. National governments can play a critical role in the process of integration without losing their sovereignty. European Integration Theories Perhaps the process of European integration can be best captured by intergovernmental theory. It asserts that national governments play an important role in integration. It incorporates a liberal preference’s model, which suggests that national governments have strong ideas of their preferences and pursue them when they bargain with member states (Bickerton, 2012, p.15). This could be the reason why Western European countries preferred integration at the expense of their sovereignty. The bargaining supremacy of member states was significant in the process of integration. It defines how to seal deals. Institutionalism underlines the significance of institutions in the European integration process. Although developed in the 1980’s and 19990’s, new institutionalism was used to elucidate European integration. The theory has three basic assumptions: Firstly, it shows how choices and preferences of players in the integration process vary due to alterations in the institutional rules. An instance of institutional rule constraining an actor’s behavior is the normal legislative procedure, which determines who European players, can follow their favored policy results (Laible, 2008, p.26). Secondly, institutions or nations taking part in European integrations can be viewed differently, concentrating more on general rules and extensive norms where these shape the preferences and identities of players in the integration course of action. Sociological institutionalists focus specifically on the institutions’ players as well as socialization of citizens within the states. Perhaps most significant are the patterns of persuasion and communication that take place during policy making and in the quest for integration. Historically, integration has effects on member states over time. It can also dictate how such member states can go ahead and restrain the actions of the member states who designed them. Path dependency is a key feature of institutionalism. Here, decisions made about the member states in the past have a significant impact on future outcomes and vice versa (Laible, 2008, p.14). In the EU, for example, path dependence can be used to state that the West European countries that who contemplated about European integration were fully aware of the consequences of their decisions at any point in time. It can therefore be argued, that the need for an integrated Europe superseded the need uphold sovereignty of each member state. Finally, the Multi-level Governance theory of European integration asserts that policy making and incorporation in the EU. It is marked by diffusion of authority across various tenets of political governance. Conclusion The paper has looked at the need for European integration and why this need superseded sovereignty of the various states making up European integration. The European Union is used as the most distinctive, and perhaps, most successful union in history. In a span of 50 years, or so, sovereignty and authority has shifted from national European national governments, not to supranational levels with European Union, but also to sub national ranks such as local authorities and regional assemblies. Policy-making is even and fairly constant. Perhaps the main reasons for European integration include peaceful co-existence among members states, improved bilateral states, a more unified way of doing business, need for political stability, and most importantly aversion of further wars. Even since the creation of integrated bodies such as EU, Europe has enjoyed considerable peace. Trade has improved and member states have co-operated mutually without worries of losing part of their sovereignty. If anything, the EU, for instance has well stipulated and articulated laws that define members rights, provisions and sovereignty rights. Such bodies only act as an umbrella and a unifying factor. Reference List Adler-Nissen, R, 2014, Opting out of the European Union: Diplomacy, sovereignty and European integration. Adler-Nissen, R., & Gad, U. P, 2013, European integration and postcolonial sovereignty games: The EU overseas countries and territories. New York: Routledge. Bickerton, C. J., 2012, European integration: From nation-states to member states. Ekengren, M., 2002, The time of European governance. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Eriksen, E. O., & Fossum, J. E., 2000, Democracy in the European Union: Integration through deliberation? London: Rutledge. European Union Studies Association, n.d., The state of the European Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kirchner, E. J., 1992, Decision-making in the European Community: The council presidency and European integration. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Laible, J., 2008, Separatism and sovereignty in the new Europe: Party politics and the meanings of statehood in a supranational context. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Smith, N., 2005, The European Union. Bronx, NY: H.W. Wilson Co. Read More