European Union 's Foreign Policy

First, it is important to examine the readings regarding the European Union’s foreign policy. Here are some general explanations on the arguments from the following readings about the EU and its role in the 21st century. Kagan argues that the European Union will not “run” the 21st century. His reasoning is that although the EU is an economic power, it lacks

The Iraqi war for instance could show the positive aspect of the EU soft power that overcame the US in fighting terrorism. However, EU soft power if facing many challenges due to economic and military powers that transferred the EU into a neutral and weak security actor that cannot play an influential role in the conflicts. This weak presence of the EU soft power can be realised in the Afghanistan conflict and Ukraine crisis. Another reason for the weakness of EU’s soft power is the fact that the formation of the EU based more on economic reasons rather than political values. It is true that the EU through its communities as the European Political Cooperation ( EPC) has strengthen its foreign policy, but it was only after the Cold War and the setup of European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP) when the EU’s foreign policy has really become influential and a resource of its soft power. Although that the EU has been strongly presented in some international conflicts as the Ache/Indonesian conflict in 2005, it did not gain any political presence as a powerful actor. This weak presence of the EU soft power can be realised in the Afghanistan conflict and Ukraine crisis. During the Afghanistan conflict, EU faced the challenge of how to make changes and to appear as a powerful actor that can lead as the US.

The European Union’s core foundation began in the 1950’s, when the Treaty of Rome was signed. Decades earlier, right after the Second World War, a movement was created to unite the countries of Germany and France. The EU has, for some time, been a major player in world politics and with twenty-eight member states the EU has had its fair share of complications throughout the years. Foreign policy began to take place early on as the EU was seen as a political system that was making decisions on behalf 28 countries. In the 1970s Henry Kissinger, the United States Secretary of State for President Richard Nixon and President Gerald Ford, brought up the question of “If I want to call Europe, who do I call?” This began a long and stressful debate of who is the official that needs to be called when other foreign actors and institutions want to address a problem or simply ask a question to the European Union. After many years European leaders claimed to have answered Henry Kissinger’s question by creating the European Council President and a European Foreign Minister position. But is it as simple as that? Has this question really been resolved by just creating these positions? We can see that reorganizing the Union’s political structure has strengthened the EU, it has allowed them to show foreign leaders a more united front and show that they, too, have global interests.

A nation’s history and development drastically affect its current policy and ways of dealing with other nations. Because each nation has a unique history, it makes the complete sharing of methods of response very unlikely. European nations, however, have a unifying advantage to which the United States cannot relate—they share many common historical experiences. Despite the fact that Great Britain, France, and Germany, for example, have not always gotten along well, they have experienced similar phases in their development. This background provides a foundation upon which to build the structure of their international policies. To take one example, sovereignty has always been an issue of great importance in the international community. Perhaps as a result of previous experience, it is less of a struggle to convince European nations to sacrifice some of their sovereignty. As has been shown by the success of the European Union, European nations are more willing to submit themselves to the authority of a higher power than is the United States. This may be because totalitarian rule has been a recurring theme in European history. The United States, on the other hand, fought for its

The European economy, better known as the European Union, is certainly one of the world’s powerhouse economies, with its gross domestic product measuring at a total of 16.27 trillion in U.S. dollars in 2015 (CIA, n. pag.). This powerhouse economy still makes up about 20 percent of the world’s exports and imports, but Europe’s trading industry is not the only thing that makes the European economy special. The European Union does not include every European country, but it is made up of a great total of twenty-eight countries such as Great Britain, Italy, Romania, etc. (“The EU in brief” n. pag.). In this paper, I will be discussing the state of the European Union and its current policies. Countries outside of the European Union will also be deliberated. Finally, I will be comparing those policies to that of the United States.

The European Union was formed with many expectations. Despite closeness and similarities, the various nations of the European continent fought bitter wars for thousands of years within themselves. After the devastating World War II, finally everyone saw the light and decided to give a chance to a peaceful coexistence. However, the EU’s path has not been smooth. Many critical economic as well as political problems have emerged throughout the last decade, raising questions about its credibility.

The essay will draw heavily on the interpretation of the original documents of the EU, particularly the European Commission. In addition, quantitative interpretation of the Europe 2020 target levels and the current progress will be reviewed. Moreover, peer-reviewed articles and policy reviews by commentators will also be deliberated to provide for a critical evaluation of the adequacy of the Europe 2020 strategy. The essay will begin with an overview of the Lisbon Strategy, the predecessor of the Europe 2020 strategy. This section will particularly focus on the Open Method of Coordination (OMC) and the weaknesses of the Lisbon Strategy, highlighting the appropriateness for a new response in the light of the global financial crisis. The second part of the essay will explore the thematic nature of the Europe 2020 strategy, especially the individual targets set by the European Commission. Although the Strategy is more streamlined, the level of targets set is nevertheless too ambitious especially with the current situation in the global economic and financial market. The next section of the essay will consider the new governance structure envisaged in the Europe 2020 strategy, particularly the European Semester, which promotes greater policy-coordination and surveillance between member states in achieving the Europe 2020 goal (The European Semester). In addition, the essay will also briefly inspect the changes in the ownership of the strategy with

The latter approach was introduced by Ernst Bernard Haas- a German-American scientist. Both approaches capture at least some of the essence of the EU today, however it is also fair to say that they are out of date, and have less adequate explanations of the process of integration, than they had 50 years ago. In order to answer the question, it is important to mention the timeframe. The whole period of European integration has to be taken into account in order to show that the two dominant approaches had been topical at different phases, and in a sense, had shaped the future behavior. The essay will look at the two dominant schools of thought, try to explain the workings of them, consider criticisms and show that, by no doubt, intergovernmentalism and neo-functionalism capture the essence of the EU today to some extent, but real history of EU and some theoretical defects shows that none of those theories capture the actual essence of the European Union. The conclusion shows that at the moment,

The European Union (EU) is not a typical international organization. With a mixture of supranational and intergovernmental institutions, its unique structure has become a distinctive political system with some resembles a federation. With no path to trace, the EU must determine which direction it should follow suit. However, these difficult discussions foster constant dispute over how much further integration of member states should proceed. Support for the EU moving towards a federation faces opposition by euro-sceptics who believe further integration should be taken with caution. After the initial project of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) was launched by French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman. Six European

Historically, attempts at unifying Europe can be traced back as far as 1464 when, after the fall of Constantinople, King George of Podrebady suggested that a “league of Christian Nations” should be formed (Wen, 2013). However, it was only after 1945 that the process for European integration, a process “whereby sovereign states partially relinquish, or pool, national sovereignty to maximize their relative power and interest” began (Kenealy et al., 2015). The theorization European integration started within the political subfield of International Relations (Pollack, 2001). However, the European Union is a complex and unique international organization. Are International Relations (IR) theories able to account for the origin, development and future of European integration?

5. The article is helpful for my research as it discusses the EU in a different light and tries to study its decisions based theory and non-theory terms. 6. The limitation set by this article is that it concentrate mostly on the political aspect of the EU and in relation to policy making and does not explain theory in relation to other sectors like economy and defense. 7. In conclusion, it explains how EU is abandoning the old school theories of institutionalism in favor of a more generic model and believes this can be done in the EU as its institutionalized system provides fertile ground for development. 8. This article is not a foundation of my research but a rather important ideology in understanding EU institutions and actors.

The European Union was created by the idea and hope for unity and integrity. However, as it enlarges to 28 countries, many problems arise. The Union 's inability to find its place in the divided and dynamical modern world leads to it having more of a supportive role to greater powers as Russia and the US. The countries within it are severely divided and unable to reach a common strategy concerning major issues and if they not resolve this lack of coherence, the EU risks to be pushed in the sidelines and to lose its international reputation as a consolidated unity.

In the past years, the possible future of the European Union (EU) has been of increasing interest to social and political scientists as well as the public. Since 2008, the EU has experienced events such as the economic crisis and the 2014 European Parliament election, which have fostered intense debates around the legitimising basis of the EU (Zielonka, 2014). Furthermore, with the election of David Cameron in the 2015 United Kingdom general election even the possibility of the United Kingdom leaving the EU has been discussed. Although many social and political scientists do not believe such a scenario (REFERENCE), one could argue that there is an increasing need for the EU to redefine itself in order not to experience a genuine ‘downfall’. Consequently, an alternative theory of EU integration challenging the classical intergovernmental and neofunctional understandings of the EU has gained increasing support among political scientists.

European Union (EU) member states work together through common institutions to set policy and promote their interests. Over the past several years, EU members have progressively committed to balancing laws and adopting joint policies on an extensive and increasing

The establishment of the European Union (EU) solidified a united political, economic, and defensive front creating a Supranational Organization (Lucas, 1999, no page). With the assistance of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the United States, the EU has developed a comprehensive security strategy responsible for leading the coalition’s objectives for mutual solidarity, global stabilization, and defense. To address security threats both regionally and globally set forth by the European Security Strategy (ESS), considerations were developed which encompass both cultural domains of geography and development.