Eu Enlargement And Its Impact On The World Of The Cold War

The European Union (EU) is a unique economic and political partnership between 28 different countries. It consists of about half a billion citizens, and its combined economy represents about 20 percent of the world’s total economy (Briney, 2015). Today The European Union works as a single market, with free movement of people, goods and services from one country to another. There is a standard system of laws to be followed, and since 1999 many countries share a single currency called the Euro (Europa.eu, 2015). This essay will explore the background history of the European Union and the benefits and drawbacks of the European Union.

Since 1950 European Union (EU) was created it has promoted peace, prosperity and values among the member nations and its neighbouring countries. EU’s influential tools, has helped transform many European states into functioning democracies and prosperous countries. EU’s membership has grown from 6 to 28 countries (Enlargement, 2014), satisfying a historic vow to integrate the continent bringing in most states of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) by peaceful ideals.EU has anticipated the enlargement as an extraordinary opportunity to endorse political strength and economic success in Europe. EU’s extension policy is open to any European state that fulfils the EU’s political and financial criteria for membership; still the political process of inclusion of new state requires a unanimous agreement from all the existing 28 member states. Europe is considered to be more flourishing and safer place due to the promotion of democracy, anti-corruption policy and the single market policy.

When identifying the presence of a democratic deficit in the European Union, it is important to consider a range of factors, including international treaties and the effect they had on its structured governmental framework. One of the first official agreements established by the European Union (formerly

The Cold War between two rival super powers – the young United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics – was an inevitable one. The relationship between the former war allies had begun to dissolve during the Second World War and eventually came to blows in 1947.

Part of the exceptional nature of the EU stems from the notion that nothing like it has ever been attempted successfully before. The European Union is an international institution with a single market and shared currency. It strives to maintain singular goals and make its way towards being an “ever closer union”. Today, the European Union has expanded to include twenty-eight member countries with an influence that reaches every continent. This institution has had an impressive history, but it has reached a point of concern. The golden years which held high hopes of a united supranational Union are long over. The EU faces destructive problems today, which could ultimately end their impressive era of cooperation. The Union has come

From a macro scope it is evident the EU is strong promoter democracy and has deeply embedded democratic features, however, as Peterson and Shackleton point out that “understanding politics always begins with understanding institutions not at least the EU”. Taking this advice the essay will seek to examine the two main legislative bodies within the EU,

Secondly, NATO enlargement was not necessarily Russia’s containment by the United States. Some experts indicate that there was no consensus on the issue in American political landscape. At the same time, many countries in East Europe, especially the Baltic ones, expressed their willingness to enter the EU and NATO because they feared imperialistic comeback of Russia. Though this “the chicken or the egg” argument (Russia behaves aggressively because of NATO enlargement, or NATO expanded to prevent Russia from striking back) still corresponds with realist logic of insecurity, it largely disapproves that the Ukraine crisis is great powers clash.

Rosato’s claim that member-states no longer need the Union also provides valuable insight, however, it is clear in Webber’s article that many countries, including Germany, still wish to remain in the European Union for the time being. This suggests that some countries do in fact need the European Union. Furthermore, Webber’s ability to connect the rise of nationalism and Germany to the fate of the Union provides a helpful prediction. With regards to this point, Webber declares that “with its political leaders also being subject to growing ‘Euro-sceptical’ domestic political pressures, it is uncertain whether it will be willing, let alone be able, to sustain the burdens of hegemonic leadership indefinitely” (Webber, 2014, p. 352). Webber’s argument regarding the rise of nationalists seems to affect Germany now as well, and given the European Union’s reliance on Germany this does not bode well for the future. Although Rosato and Webber have a multitude of parallels in their respective articles, Webber’s explanation of Germany’s potential disinterest in the European Union is the more plausible explanation for future

Thomassen (2006: 1) notes that the legitimacy of political institutions can be assessed either with normative theories or with substantive evaluation in relation to participants. While the theoretical approaches can be considered largely relevant to the requirements for founding democracy, the latter shows a considerable resemblance to an analytical approach which divides legitimacy into components of input, output, and throughput, each representing citizens’ demand and initiatives, process of negotiation and revision of legislations, and policies created through the process (Thomassen, 2006: 2-9; Schmidt, 2010). What can be noted from this division of components is that the lack of democracy in any of three components may undermine the legitimacy of the entire system, and that ensuring legitimacy requires the involvement of citizens (Miklós, 2011: 5). In this essay, the issue democratic deficit will thereby be addressed based on such description of the democratic legitimacy which is to be understood with regards to whether the EU institutions and policies appropriately represent citizens and whether its political procedures involve citizens (Peterson, 2005: 1511-1513).

Legitimacy in the European Union”, JCMS, 40/4, 603-24. ] This concept of a “democratic deficit” first emerged in the draft treaty for the European Union which as we know led to the establishment of the Single European Act of 1986 whose main purpose was to “rectify the democratic deficit in the community decision making process”[ Zweifel, T, “Who without Sin Cast the First Stone: the EU”, p812-40, Democratic Deficit in Comparison.” 2002. Journal of European Public Policy]; already it is apparent the enormous debate around the European Union and a democratic deficit stretching as far back to 1986. Following the numerous unsuccessful attempts to harmonize the change in the Union’s structure, the democratic deficit argument really began to gain power and rumours of its collapse became more dominant than ever. This debate has deepened drastically over the past two or so decades, with scholarly commentators as well as members of the European public all in agreement that the European Union is in fact

The Eastern Enlargement was, and remains, a point of dispute when arguing the costs and benefits. It provided numerous opportunities for the EU, but with them came challenges, some of which could be argued were too much and too soon for the EU. This chapter will engage the major costs and benefits in the way they were presented by dominant theories of EU enlargement and integration. Furthermore, it will challenge the theories by putting them side by side with the observed changes that followed the Enlargement. To provide a clearer picture this will be done under two broad headings; economic and political.

NATO starts the year 2000 with the issue of concern. The European Allies' defense capability, stabilization efforts in the Balkans, and relations with Russia are at the top of a highly charged agenda.

The European Union (EU) is not a typical international organization. The mix of intergovernmental and supranational institutions makes the EU a unique, distinctive political, and economic system. As Europe has spiraled from one crisis to the next, difficult discussions haves arisen about how much more power should be delegated to Brussels. Even though the EU advocates for “ever closer union”, through increased integration, states are becoming hesitant to relinquish power to the EU. This is due to the fact that state sovereignty has become threatened; it is being compromised by a combination of the lack of effective democratic institutions and the loss of states have lost control of law-making to legislation power to EU institutions. Euroenthuthiasts argue that state sovereignty is enhanced, not threatened, by reallocating power to EU institutions. However, Eurosceptics dispute that too much control has seceded to the EU making is a threat to state sovereignty. My position aligns with Eurosceptics, for the EU has weakened state sovereignty do to increased centralization of power in EU institutions that lack legitimacy. The European Project has obtained a copious amount of jurisdiction from states and eroded a basic fundamental freedom of the modern state- sovereignty. Since the EU has with goals to deepen and widen integration it’s clear that forfeiting state sovereignty will only intensify. My essay will start with a brief history of the European Union and a short

Recently, the World Bank characterized the EU as a “Convergence machine” based on successive enlargements that leads to significant upward convergence in wealth between poorer and richer member states (Gill, Raiser 2012). We should therefore not be astonished that EU membership remains attractive to nearly all non-EU states within Europe. On the one hand, it is difficult to deny that EU enlargement promises benefits for everyone involved. For example, it brings most notably economic benefits but also political and social benefits. On the other hand, the EU’s ‘take-it-or-leave-it’ approach unnecessarily chases member states (hereinafter PMs) with accepting either the costs of being an outsider, or the costs of modifying their norms and values to fulfill with the EU. Of course, such external pressure is not regretful in all cases such as when minorities are being mistreated. However, PMs

The European Union (EU) was established in order to prevent the horrors of modern warfare, experienced by most of Europe during the World Wars of the 20th century, from ever ensuing again, by aiming to create an environment of trust with the countries of Europe cooperating in areas such as commerce, research and trade (Adams, 2001). The EU has evolved into an economic, trade, political and monetary alliance between twenty-eight European Member States. While not all Member States are in monetary union (i.e. share the currency of the euro), those that are form the ‘Euro-zone’ (Dinan, 2006). The EU can pass a number of types of legislation, with a regulation, act, or law, being the most powerful. Its ‘tricameral’ (European Union, 2007)