Theory and history of European integration
Lecture 1
European integration is used as a catch-all term for cooperation between
European countries, usually but not exclusively referring to EU member states.
More integration within Europe implies greater shared decision-making, shared
laws and shared legal and political systems. It is based on majority decision
making, so not on veto rights.
It is impossible to understand the contemporary politics of EU member states
without understanding the process of European integration. So this entails the
Europeanization of politics, policy and polity: political system, system itself.
For instance, Omtzigt thinks the Dutch pension arrangements should be
Dutch only, and not arranged by the EU.
We study European (dis)integration as a dependent variable, it is something we
say something about, and various factors (independent variables) influence it,
like the international and socio-economic context. We have processes of:
- Widening: Started with 6 member states in 1951, nowadays we have 27
member states.
- Deepening: is about the competences that are transferred to the EU. It is
argued that 80% of national legislation has an EU basis. However, the
number of rules and laws that are directly translated from the EU to the
nation contexts is not 80%, but what is decided by the national
parliaments is influenced by the EU laws for about 80%.
There are lots of actors;
- the EU institutions have contributed to the widening; the European
commission, European council, European parliament and council of the
European Union.
- Also national governments have played a role, as well as political parties
and societal actors.
However it is not only about actors, then we would be blind to factors and
contexts, and what is going on in the major states of the world. Also economic,
financial developments influence policies of the EU.
We look at how the EU institutions come about and how they influence the EU. So
we are not focused on how the EU influences their institutions.
History of European integration
Starts with Julius Caesar (also founded Nijmegen). We will start with the German
problem: the problem within Germany, this problem was discussed by Churchill,
Stalin and Ruessfeld. Shumann (minister of foreign affairs) and Jean Monnet
(high-ranked official) are considered among the founding people of the European
process.
Why do we focus on history?
1
,If we want to understand the EU as an integration process, we have to know how
and what we are looking at. If history doesn't repeat itself, it rhymes; so you do
recognize certain patterns that help us understand. You can’t understand what
lays ahead, if you don’t understand the past.
The EU as we know it was not created as intended in 1951
We focus on the treaties and crisis:
1. Paris (1951)
2. Rome (1957)
3. Single European act (1986)
4. Maastricht (1992)
5. Amsterdam (1997)
6. Nice (2001)
7. Lisbon (2007)
We focus on this because the treaties are usually about the distribution of power
(integrating or cutting limits), which are setting the stage for the years to come.
Most of them are about who decides about what; if this is clear, you can start
further deepening or widening. When there is a crisis, that is the moment where
the things that are decided upon do not seem to function well. Or crises appear
because we start to contest the rules because the core actors have different
visions. So we focus on treaties because they are:
1. Outcomes of political processes
2. Codification of power relations
3. Determinants of future power relations
They offer an image of the context in which they’ve come about.
Theories of European integration
Theories are used to connect the independent and dependent variables. Scientific
theories are analytical frameworks for:
Description
Explanation
Prediction
Evaluation (normative)
We cannot see the influences, but the theory connects the independent and
dependent variable. A theory is there to be tested, they try to provide an
explanation of the variable.
Robert’s 2 level game helps us better understand certain outcomes on the
international level by including what is happening on the domestic level (what is
happening within the states, national politics). Which theory you could use
depends on your research question. Theories can also be used for prediction, but
this is very hard in a changing world.
Questions for this course could be:
Who are the actors driving European integration
what are the mechanisms of European (dis)integration actors.
How should we judge the process of European integration?
Lecture 2: The German problem and the Treaties of Paris (1815-1951)
The German problem has to do with the situation where Europe was in ruins, and
misery and war experience had been more profound and spread out than ever.
2
,There was a traumatic experience, so how is it possible they were able to build an
integration in 1951?
The European Union was not the 1st attempt of European integration: Julius
Caesar tried to cover as much of Europe as possible under his control (roman
empire). Another one was done by Napoleon: the French empire spread from the
core French part to the Netherlands and quite a substantial part of Europe, but he
failed to keep it this way.
He was defeated in waterloo in 1815 by a coalition of Prussia, Austria,
Russia and Great Britain
So previously, moves for European unity took the form of attempts by one
nation to dominate Europe through conquest.
It was not enough to defeat him, so in 1814-1815 in the congress of
Vienna, they decided how to reorganize Europe in such a way that France
could be contained. So they restored the borders of the states; the balance
of power had to be restored.
What is the balance of power?
How does it function in the 19th century?
Between Napoleon and the first world war, they tried to create a situation
in which there would be no states strong enough to conquer the others
without the others being able to contain this, so as to stabilize the
situation.
When there was a threat of this happening, the others would together
constitute a counter weight. So it wasn’t between a fixed state A and state
B, but it was flexible. So if there was one state trying to conquer another,
the others would put their forces together to contain this.
However the rule of Britain made this a bit difficult. GB was considered the
holder of the balance. After the congress, GB was acting as the holder of
the balance, it was the most powerful holding state. So they would throw
its weight into the situation to contain it. There would never be an ally to a
certain country, it would always join the weaker state.
If you have a stable situation and if states are prevented from trying to
expand their territory, it was balanced.
But after this, there still were a lot of conflicts. This doesn’t mean the balance of
power does not work. It could mean the power of balance is restored. The idea is
not that there is no conflict anymore, but the idea is that the conflict is contained
to avoid a continental war. So in that idea, the balance of power worked. So the
aim is not to prevent conflict, but to prevent conflict from spreading in such a
way that a state becomes so powerful it cannot be contained anymore.
So after napoleon, states were restored and the UK was the holding power. But
then in 1870-1871 came the rise of the German problem. It started under the
power of Kaiser Wilhelm, with the Franco-Prussian war. This war ended in a
defeat for France. Germany, under Wilhelm I and Bismarck (commander of the
forces), managed to unify different parts of German-speaking territories into a
German empire. So Germany became the leading power in Europe.
3
, The next war was the first world war, in which chemical weapons and gas were
used for the first time. Another characteristic of WWI are the trenches, especially
in the north of France. They dug trenches, if you have to go over the top, it was
over for you. That was the last time France was humiliated by the German
military power. So the last time that, on French territory, the German soldiers
were successful was during Franco-Prussian and WWI war.
Pro-integration groups emerged after the first world war, but was more
focused on peaceful co-existence rather than integration. This failed with
the resurgence of nationalism and the second world war.
The league of nations came, where members had to respect sovereignty
and territorial integrity of other states, and not use force to resolve
disputes, but this failed.
After the second world war, Europe began economic and political reconstruction,
where the idea of European Unity and federalism was supported. Change was
needed (this mood benefited parties of the left), this also fed a strong sentiment
to move away from nationalism. The European Union of Federalists (EUF,
1946) was formed in support of creating a federal constitution for Europe. The
president was Churchill who stated that Britain, the US and the SU would not be
part of it, but would support and be partners of the new Europe. It was mainly
centred around a partnership between France and Germany.
SO the British were not interested in being part of a supranational
organization that would compromise their national sovereignty.
This was the basis for creating the Council of Europe (not part of the EU);
an intergovernmental organization to act as a political anchor and human
rights watchdog, and to provide know-how in areas like human rights, local
democracy, education, culture and environment. But still, national
sovereignty was not something nations were willing to give up, hindering
federal Europe.
So 3 Franco-German wars in a row in a few years (also WW2). So France could not
contain Germany without foreign support. Therefore, the US, GB, or Soviet Union
had come to the rescue.
Their answer to the German problem:
How to restore the balance of power without them having to intervene
time and time again? They were tired of the price they had to pay for
issues on the European problem
Answer:
1. ‘temporary’ partitioning of Germany
2. Non-European holders of the balance of power
3. Spheres of influence
Yalta conference (1945): They decided (Stalin, Churchill and Ruessfeld)
to split up Germany. The balance was restored. They split it in 4 spheres
of influence. The 4th one, the French got under control. You had a British
zone, Russian zone, American zone and French zone.
French wanted the territory because had Germany next door, so wanted to
have control of that area. The idea was that this would be temporary; to
have a way to control Germany and help it rebuild. So to stabilize the
country again in a way it wouldn’t form a danger again.
Berlin was also divided in 4 zones.
4
