SUMMARY THEORY AND HISTORY OF EUROPEAN INTEGRATION
HC1 – Introduction to the course
Major trends in European Integration
Enlargement: from 6 to 28 member states (discussionable since Brexit)
No completion: EU as a treaty-based international organization without ‘competence-
competence’
Deepening: 80% of national legislation is based on EU regulations
Explanatory factors of European integration
First of all, Europe is a very small continent. Also, other processes in the world influence the
continents and the dynamics of European integration. European integration is decided by three types
of factors: contexts (international and socio-economic), institutions and actors.
Besides these external factors, there is the role of the European institutions themselves. Up front in
this is the European Commission, which can be questioned to be either the engine or the stamling
block of the European integration. Besides the European institutions, there also are national
governments, political parties and societal groups influencing the European integration process.
History
Paris treaties (1951) Treaty of Rome (1957) Single European Act (1986) Treaty of Maastricht
1992) Treaty of Amsterdam (1999) Treaty of Nice (2001) Lisbon Treaty (2009)
Theoretical perspectives on European Integration
There are four main functions of theorizing the European integration. Firstly they serve a theory-
based description. Secondly, they can serve for a theory-based analysis, and thirdly, theories are
used for theory-based normative assessments. Theories almost always form a normative judgement
about what’s happening and about the normative desirability of European integration. This for
example uses a framework of input-legitimacy, throughput-legitimacy or output-legitimacy.
Six theories are explained in this course:
Neofunctionalism
Liberal intergovernmentalism
Governance approaches (combines the former two)
Institutionalist approaches
Social constructivism
Critical political economy
HC2 and HC3 – Tackling the German question – the Treaties of Paris (1871-1954)
Historical background
Right after the Second world war, there were upcoming sounds from people from the resistance of
doing things differently, for example by working together in Europe. Nonetheless, in most countries
the old elites got back on their seats so no real immediate changes were made. Among many there
was a big feeling that the history would repeat itself and another war would be just a matter of time.
The above connects with the so-called ‘German problem’: the problem of a loss of the European
balance of power. Balance of power is about the absence of a worldwide power which keeps control
1
,of the world order. For this reason, countries more or the less have to keep themselves in check. A
hegemon is a country that gets this big that a big overweight of power occurs. Normally throughout
history, other countries team up to get the balance right. Balances of power exist to protect the
world from major wars. The German problem came from a threat of the disabling of this balance,
Germany being way to mighty. After Napoleon destroyed the balance of power in Europe, the
European powers restored it on the congress of Vienna in 1815. But slowly it went wrong, Germany
getting more and more mighty, and three wars in a row took place.
The German partition
From the French perspective, the question was what could be done to prevent a fourth war with
Germany. They asked themselves how to solve the German problem. After the second world war, the
German territory was divided into four influence zones.
This solution above was meant to be only a temporary solution. But because of the growing tensions
between the east and the west of Europe, the German partition between (the capitalism-oriented)
BRD and (the communist-oriented) DDR became permanent. Konrad Adenauer was chosen as the
first chancellor of the BRD.
So, the solution of the German problem was twofold. Firstly, there was the (unintentionally created)
partition. Secondly, non-European holders of the balance were introduced, being the US on the one
side and the Soviet Union on the other.
International political environment
After the second world war, a restoration of most Western-European nation-states as sovereign
democracies took place. This meant sovereignty for these countries. Internal sovereignty means that
a government has a violence monopoly in its country. External sovereignty means that other
countries do not meddle with internal affairs in a certain country, and that other states recognize the
state.
At the same time, this is the political environment in which the Cold War started. Also, the Truman
doctrine was set up by the US. The Truman doctrine was the containment strategy for communism
and to stop it from spreading, and part of it was also the Marshall-plan.
International socio-economic context
After the world wars a big economic recovery in Europe took place thanks to the Marshall plan. There
was a predominance of heavy industries of coal and steel. Mutual import and export made that the
economies had a high level of interdependency.
The size of the coal and steel industry, the mutual interdependency and the German problem
together made that the European Coal and Steel Community was founded.
Robert Schuman and Jean Monet have been very important to the founding of the ECSC. Jean
Monnet came up with a plan, that came up as the Schuman plan (but it came from Monnet). He
knew that if France wanted its economy to build up again, Germany’s economy had to be built up
also. He wanted to come up with a way in which this could be accomplished, without having to be
afraid for the problem of unbalancing the power. Monet asked himself how another war in Europe
could be prevented, how the European economy could be restored and how the rise of communism
could be stopped. European integration was his answer to these questions. The Schuman-Plan was
presented in May 1950.
His idea was to found a supranational organization which would have control over the coal and steel
sectors, and this eventually came to be the ECSC. This supranational character was novel at the time,
2
,and bypassed the ‘balance of power’-thinking. The idea had a technocratic part that would decide
about coal & steel affairs, in an organization with supranational authority. The ECSC was the direct
material origin of the European integration.
The different governments reasons for agreeing to ECSC
France
o The French government agreed with the plans because of the sight of economic
recovery. Coal supply would be ensured. Also, it was important to France that
German economic recovery would take place without threat.
Germany (Adenauer)
o Reconciliation with France
o ‘Gleichbereichtigung’: Equal rights. Germany wanted to be treated the same as the
other Western-European countries
o ‘Westbindung’: Western-Germany (Adenauer) wanted to get anchored into western
Europe.
o There was a window of opportunity because of the personal beliefs and
‘richtlinienkompetenz’ of Adenauer, which could bypass the social-democrats in the
so-called ‘kanzlerdemokratie’.
US
o Economically, the US wanted to put pressure on Germany for decartelisation of its
heavy industries
o Politically, the US saw Western Germany as potential ally, because this would give a
sort of security guarantee between the western and the eastern world.
UK (Ernest Bevin)
o The UK disagreed with the plan. There was no real political or economic dependence
on the continent commonwealth
o The labour party government did not want to give up control over recently
nationalized industries
Benelux
o Initially, the Benelux disagreed because of the (supposed) supranational character of
the ECSC.
There was the problem of a so-called ‘weak security-dilemma’ between France and Germany. They
both knew that the option of a peaceful trust with small armies would be the best option, but the
dilemma hided in the fact that France first wanted the decartelization to take place before the ECSC
was put in place to have certainty, and for Germany it was exactly the other way around. The key
problem in this is the lack of trust (unsureness if the other will obey the rules). At the end, however,
they overcame this issue thanks to the security guarantee of the US.
On the 20th of April 1951, the Treaty of Paris was signed, establishing the European Coal & Steel
Community.
Content of the Treaty
Some different things were arranged in the treaty. Firstly, the decartelisation of the German coal &
steel industry was arranged, and a transition towards a customs union for coal and steel was put in
place. Also, equalisation funds were created for countries as Belgium and Italy, as to help the weaker
partners. Finally a gradual harmonisation of working condition took place, because otherwise it
would be a race to the bottom between different countries and producers.
3
, The institutions that were created for the ECSC were the following. Firstly, the High Authority,
headed by Jean Monnet himself, was the heading board of the organization. A council of Ministers
was created because some countries, among which the Netherlands, insisted on having a veto say in
the whole thing. Because of this, the organization in its final form became much less supranational
and effective than hoped beforehand. Also, an Assembly was created, in which national parliament
members would come together regularly to discuss European Coal and Steel affairs. Also, from the
very beginning, there was a court to create checks and balances, and to decide in the case of
disputes.
European Defence Community
The Pleven plan introduced the idea for a European army, including German divisions (but no
independent army, unlike others). US wanted to have a west-German army. One reason for this was
the fear of the Soviet Union. Also, the war in Korea was a reason for this. Before there had been lacks
of a common foreign and defence policy. France however was afraid for a German army, so the idea
for an European army (the Pleven plan) came to be. Plans for the creation of the European Defence
Community (EDC) were made.
But after all, the EDC came out to be an idea born in France and died in France, because when the
plan got worked out further, the fear came to be that it wouldn’t bring France what it was looking
for; the fear of German ascendency would remain, also in a common army. But still, the US wanted
Germany to rearm. The French were pretty pitiful about what had happened but after not so long the
Paris Accords were signed and the West European Union was created. The West European Union was
the formal defence union. It was created to enable West-German rearmament.
HC4 – The rescue of the Nation-State – the Treaties of Rome (1955-1970)
Intergovernmentalism – supranationalism
The contradiction between intergovernmentalism and supranationalism is about institutional design.
Who takes decisions, when are decisions binding and who is in charge of implementation and
compliance is the point of discussion in this.
Who takes decisions?
o Intergovernmentalism: representatives of member states
o Supranationalism: the international organization
When are decisions binding?
o Intergovernmentalism: unanimity
o Supranationalism: majority
Who is in charge of implementation and compliance?
o Intergovernmentalism: member states themselves
o Supranationalism: often member states themselves but the IO controls compliance
In a supranational procedure, decisions are taken by another institution than states or by Qualified
Majority Vote. In an intergovernmental procedure states decide themselves if they approve
decisions. Signing of international treaties is always intergovernmental, because national laws have
to be made to ratify the treaties.
The European Commission can take member states to court when they don’t obey to EU rules.
Member states can also do this with each other but this almost never happens because mostly a
country is afraid of a backfire of accusations for their own disobediences.
4
