Introductory note – Introduction – Einführung 1 JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN INTEGRATION HISTORY REVUE D’HISTOIRE DE L’INTÉGRATION EUROPÉENNE ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR GESCHICHTE DER EUROPÄISCHEN INTEGRATION Number 1, Volume 1, 1995 The process of European Integration in a historical perspective Le processus de l’intégration européenne dans la perspective historique Die Europäische Integration in historischer Perspektive Gilbert Trausch, coordinator Introductory note – Introduction – Einführung ...................................................... 3 Alan S. MILWARD, Allegiance. The Past and the Future ..................................... 7 John GILLINGHAM, American Monnetism and the European Coal-Steel Community in the Fifties ................................................................... 21 Elena CALANDRI, The Western European Union Armaments Pool: France’s Quest for Security and European Cooperation in Transition. 1951-1955 ............................................................................................................ 37 Wolfram KAISER, The Bomb and Europe. Britain, France and the EEC Entry Negotiations (1961–1963) ................................................................. 65 Gérard BOSSUAT, Les hauts fonctionnaires français et le processus d’unité en Europe occidentale d’Alger à Rome (1943–1958) ............................. 87 Christian PENNERA, The Beginnings of the Court of Justice and its Role as a driving Force in European Integration ......................................................... 111 Marie-Thérèse BITSCH, La première institution supranationale: du nouveau sur l’histoire de la Haute Autorité de la Communauté européenne du charbon et de l’acier .................................................................. 129 Book reviews – Comptes rendus – Buchbesprechungen ................................... 143 Notices – Informations – Mitteilungen .............................................................. 149 Abstracts – Résumés – Zusammenfassungen .................................................... 155 Contributors – Auteurs – Autoren ...................................................................... 159 Dieses Dokument wurde erstellt mit FrameMaker 4.0.4. 2 Introductory note – Introduction – Einführung Editorial notice Articles for inclusion in this journal may be submitted at any time. The editorial board will then arrange for the article to be refereed. Articles should not be longer than 6000 words, footnotes inclu- ded. They may be in English, French or German. Articles submitted to the Journal should be original contributions and not be submitted to any other publication at the same time as to the Journal of European Integration History. Authors should retain a copy of their article. The publisher and editors cannot accept responsibility for loss of or damage to author’s typescripts or discs. The accuracy of, and views expressed in articles and reviews are the sole responsibility of the authors. Authors should ensure that typescripts conform with the journal style. Prospective contributors should obtain further guidelines from the Editorial Secretariat. Articles, reviews, communications relating to articles and books for review should be sent to the Editorial Secretariat. Citation The Journal of European Integration History may be cited as follows: JEIH, (Year)/(Number), (Page). ISSN 0947-9511 © 1995 NOMOS Verlagsgesellschaft, Baden-Baden and the Groupe de liaison des professeurs d’histoire contemporaine auprès de la Commission européenne. Printed in Germany. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the publishers. Introductory note – Introduction – Einführung 3 Introductory words Gilbert Trausch From the immediate postwar years up to the present controversies on the forthcom- ing intergovernmental conference (1996), now and then already called Maastricht II, the debates on Europe are moving within the frame of two extremes: a model of integration and a model of close intergovernmental collaboration. In between, there is room for a whole range of intermediate solutions, on which discussions actually are focussing, as most observers agree that the possibility to apply the rules of a federal State as well as the return to a mere collaboration are to be considered out of reach. The discussions are still marked by the vagueness that characterizes the termi- nology and the ambiguities caused by their translation from one language to ano- ther. Common words as ”federal” or ”integration” don’t have exactly the same meaning in French and in English. One may wonder, whether all those, who like Winston Churchill (1946) or Jean Monnet (1955), have used the phrase ”the United States of Europe”, always have been aware of the implications that this kind of expression involves in the matter of the organization of Europe. It is the concept of supranationality, that has been at the heart of the discussions of the last 50 years. From the start (1950), and again since Maastricht (1991), this has been the touchstone on which minds are parting. Well-defined in theory, the lines of cleavage are much less so in practice, especially in the statements of poli- ticians anxious to rally voters. The years covering the period from the Schuman Plan to the Treaties of Rome, considered the lucky age of European integration, are often opposed to the long period of stagnation that are the sixties and seventies. A European relaunching looms up in the second half of the 80ies, but given the events of 1989-1991, it may not last. Actually, in a deliberately provocative manner, one may think that the con- cept of a supranational Europe begins to decline in the days following Robert Schuman’s declaration on May 9th, 1950. As a matter of fact, as soon as the general principles elaborated by Jean Monnet are to be put in practice, vigorous national interests emerge, agreeing that transfers of sovereignty shall be reduced to the strict minimum. If nevertheless the Community hasn’t foundered and even could pro- gress, this is due to the same emerging national interests that, to different degrees, saw the possibility to profit from well-aimed transfers of sovereignty. Historians are discussing interminably the reasons that urged the different Sta- tes to join the Community and, once entered, to stay there. The discussions on the pre-eminence of the economic or the political factor have not always been very fruitful. If the European Community was constituted on an economic basis, this fact does absolutely not exclude the intervention, right from the beginning, of poli- tical factors. According to the good historic method, the reasons, even economic ones, underlying the European process, cannot be postulated, but are to be deter- mined at every stage of the European process, without prejudices. Economic cal- 4 Introductory note – Introduction – Einführung culations, the concern for modernization, the solution of the German problem, security, all gets tangled up in an apparently inextricable knot. It is up to the histo- rian, not to cut this Gordian knot, because this amounts to violating the historic rea- lity, but to undo it very patiently. Recent investigations show that, from the beginning, the European construction has been linked to the question of leadership, which is an important concern, in the French initiative of May 9 1950 as well as in Great-Britain’s first candidature. Beyond the so-called ”Realpolitik”, preoccupations with rank and prestige are involved, i.e. the – real or imaginary- position that a State assigns itself on the international scene. Now, leadership and integration are terms difficult to reconcile. If, in 1950, Jean Monnet believed that only a small integrated Europe could gua- rantee France a leading role, Charles de Gaulle and Harold Macmillan, on the con- trary, counted on a Europe of States in order to ensure their country the first place. Introductory note – Introduction – Einführung 5 Un mot d’introduction Gilbert Trausch Depuis les années de l’immédiat après-guerre jusqu’aux controverses d’aujourd’ hui sur l’imminente conférence intergouvernementale (1996) qu’on commence à appeler Maastricht II, les débats sur l’Europe se situent entre deux pôles: un modèle d’intégration et un modèle d’étroite collaboration intergouvernementale. Entre les deux, il y a place pour toute une gamme de solutions intermédiaires. C’est sur ces dernières que se concentrent les discussions, la plupart des observateurs s’accordant pour estimer hors de portée tant la possibilité d’appliquer les règles d’un Etat fédéral que le retour vers une simple collaboration. Les débats sont encore marqués par le flou qui pèse sur la terminologie et les ambiguïtés créées par leur traduction d’une langue à l’autre. Des mots courants tels que «fédéral» ou «intégration» n’ont pas tout à fait le même sens en français et en anglais. Est-ce que tous ceux qui, tels Winston Churchill (1946) ou Jean Monnet (1955), ont utilisé la formule «les Etats-Unis d’Europe» ont toujours été conscients des implications que ce genre de formule entraîne sur le plan de l’organisation de l’Europe? C’est la notion de supranationalité qui a été au coeur des débats du dernier demi-siècle. Elle était dès le départ (1950) et elle est redevenue avec Maastricht (1991) la pierre de touche sur laquelle les esprits se séparent. Les lignes de clivage, bien définies en théorie, le sont beaucoup moins dans