Thesis (453.4Kb)
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
ABSTRACT Understanding the European Union Through Comparison to Sovereign States Rebecca Hunziker Director: Ivy Hamerly, Ph.D. The European Union qualifies as a new type of intergovernmental organization, a supranational organization, because its member states have integrated to a much greater degree than any other intergovernmental organization that came before it. This new level of categorization causes many people to believe that the European Union is so unique that it has no peers with which to make meaningful comparisons. In this paper, I will argue that although the European Union exists somewhere between a traditional intergovernmental organization and a state, it does share many characteristics with sovereign states and these shared characteristics make meaningful comparison possible. Further, I will argue that by comparing the European Union to sovereign states we can better understand the European Union’s formation, have greater insight into the problems the European Union faces, and attempt to comprehend the future of the European Union with more clarity. APPROVED BY DIRECTOR OF HONORS THESIS: ________________________________________________ Dr. Ivy Hamerly, Department of Political Science APPROVED BY THE HONORS PROGRAM: ___________________________________________ Dr. Elizabeth Corey, Director DATE:_________________________ UNDERSTANDING THE EUROPEAN UNION THROUGH COMPARISON TO SOVEREIGN STATES A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Baylor University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Honors Program By Rebecca Hunziker Waco, Texas May 2017 ! TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter One: The Difference Between a State and an International Organization 1 Chapter Two: Germany 21 Chapter Three: The Netherlands 53 Chapter Four: Using States to Better Understand the Problems Facing the European Union 78 Chapter Five: What is the Future of the European Union? 126 Appendix 177 Bibliography 184 ! ""! ! CHAPTER ONE The Difference Between a State and an Intergovernmental Organization Introduction When Gordon Brown, the British Prime Minister, was late to the signing of the Lisbon Treaty in 2007, people were furious. His absence “was widely perceived as a snub to Britain’s neighbors,” European Union (EU) supporters were “outraged,” and Andrew Duff, a pro-European Liberal Democrat member of the European Parliament, went as far as to call the situation “a complete and absolute scandal” (Castle and Bowley 2007). Why was the presence, or lack thereof, of the British Prime Minister at a treaty signing so controversial, you may ask? Although Brown was said to have had a “scheduling clash,” people were irritated by the perceived snub because the treaty to be signed was of the utmost importance to the continued development of EU integration (Castle and Bowley 2007). The Lisbon Treaty, which replaced the European Union’s failed effort to establish a European constitution, aimed to resolve “institutional matters,” “alter the way decisions are made in the union,” establish a presidential position to “represent Europe on the world stage,” and to generally move the European Union forward toward greater unity (Castle and Bowley 2007). Although treaties are ratified on a very frequent basis around the world, this particular treaty is of particular importance because, although it replaced a failed EU constitution, it enables the further integration of the European Union, arguably with the transfer of some sovereignty from states to the intergovernmental organization (IGO) and, further, imbues the IGO with trappings of statehood. So, the signing and ratification ! #! ! of the Lisbon Treaty effectively created a constitution that includes sovereign powers, but for an ostensible IGO. The European Union is an interesting case study of an intergovernmental organization because its economic and political integration has greatly exceeded the integration and cohesion of any organization that can be considered consistent with today’s idea of an IGO. In fact, based on current definitions and widely shared opinions about the characteristics of intergovernmental organizations and those of states, it appears that the European Union meets the criteria for both, although it self- identifies as, and is thus considered to be, an IGO. Since the European Union is a major political force in the international community today, it is important to not only understand its formation, but also to understand how the way it formed and has continued to evolve might impact its future. What is an Intergovernmental Organization? Although there is no authoritative definition of what constitutes an intergovernmental organization, there is wide consensus of characteristics critical to its operation. Intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) are usually regarded as independent organizations whose members are sovereign states and which hold regular meetings, have a headquarters and permanent staff, and are governed by rules. In an early attempt to determine the number of global intergovernmental organizations at any point in time, Wallace and Singer classified an IGO as an organization that consisted of at least “two qualified members of the international system,” held regular plenary meetings, had both a permanent secretariat and headquarters, and was independent from other IGOs (Wallace and Singer 1970, 245-248). A later, separate effort came to the conclusion that “IGOs are those associations established by governments or their representatives that are sufficiently ! $! ! institutionalized to require regular meetings, rules governing decision making, a permanent staff, and a headquarters” (Shanks, Jacobson, and Kaplan 1996, 593). Finally, in a much more recent study, Pevehouse, Nordstrom, and Warnke (2003, 2005), as quoted in Diehl, asserted that an IGO is an organization with the following characteristics: “(1) is a formal entity; (2) has [three or more] [sovereign] states as members; and (3) possesses a permanent secretariat or other indication of institutionalization such as headquarters and/or permanent staff” (Volgy, et al. 2010, 15). As can be seen from the criteria discussed above, there is general agreement that intergovernmental organizations have characteristics of enduring, formal institutions with the added caveat that the members are sovereign states. From an operational standpoint, IGOs can be defined as “entities created with sufficient organizational structure and autonomy to provide formal, ongoing, multilateral processes of decision making between states, along with the capacity to execute the collective will of their members (states)” (Volgy, et al. 2010, 15). Intergovernmental organizations should be able to demonstrate independence in their operations and execution of the member states’ collective will, stability of operations through an established bureaucracy, and institutionalized oversight and decision-making processes. The concept of intergovernmental organization, generally, has probably been around since the first forms of government were born through the use of alliances, agreements, and cooperation between governments. “Most contemporary scholars, however, point to the Congress of Vienna (1815–1822) as the earliest modern precedent to today’s IGO” because it served as a “forum for international collaboration on European security and commerce” (Pease 2012, 15-16). Since the formation of the Congress of Vienna, ! %! ! intergovernmental organizations have had an increased presence on the international stage and have also enjoyed growing influence in the decision-making processes of states. The intergovernmental organizations that exist today are both complex and diverse in function. Liberals argue that “international organizations provide an arena in which states can interact, develop shared norms, and cooperate to solve problems” because they emphasize coordination, sharing of information, behavioral norms, and a transparency that would not otherwise be available (Diehl and Frederking 2010, 5). Realists, who only view states as primary actors, provide a much less optimistic explanation of the role of intergovernmental organizations: IGOs are not very powerful in and of themselves, but they can be used by states as tools to help secure national interests. Constructivists, somewhere in-between the two, focus on the “potential for international organizations to socialize policymakers and states to embrace certain norms, identities, and beliefs” (Diehl and Frederking 2010, 5-6). IGOs draw their authority from all these functions. They enjoy authority from “moral standing (being the representative of the international community),” authority through the tasks that are delegated to them, “rational-legal authority” from the way they are founded by states, and authority from the specialized “expertise” they have regarding certain topics (Reinalda 2013, 18). Once states come together and pursue common goals, IGOs have the ability to foster cooperation and work toward deeper integration of diverse states. IGOs are capable of encouraging these types of activities because they provide “a concrete and stable organizational structure and a supportive administrative apparatus” that “increase the efficiency of collective activities and enhance the organization’s ability to affect the ! &! ! understandings, environment, and interests” of multiple states (Abbott and Snidal 2010, 28-29). For their member states, intergovernmental organizations facilitate mediation, negotiation, dispute resolution, implementation of standards, the reshaping of norms, and discussions