The European Union, Being Inter Governmentalism And Neo Functionalism

Analyzing this source, we should fully embrace the perspective it is portrayed because internationalism allows people to work in less developed countries around the globe offering security, economic stability and many other factors with the rest of the world thus making nations more interconnected with one another. The source states that combining global corporations with a strong effort, we can hope to solve many complex issues that threaten a nation-states safety as well as the well-being of all people. International cooperation To address global issues, would require a need of a strong majority of nation-states that are willing to protect civilians, bring economic stability and as well benefiting the countries both ways. This source is showing that though Conflicts and issues, they can be resolved more effectively with the help of nation-states; to accomplish this we would require nation-states to expand the scope of their interests to include the well being of all people. The source is adapting the ideology of internationalism allows us to help less developed countries with crucial issues as well has benefited by having the country providing aid grow and prosper. A factor that plays a role in international cooperations is foreign policy, foreign policy is best defined as a set of political goals that seek to show how a particular country will interact with other countries of the world. These foreign policies are mainly designed to help protect a country's national

The EU was created in the midst of a war in attempts to unite Europe under a common government. After 43 years of rebuilding foreign affairs, have their attempts made a positive impact on the modern Europe? Many argue that the EU takes a toll on country's sovereignty. They lack in allowing countries to be apart of the union, without masking the unique culture and diversity of that country. Despite the advantages of being apart of the EU, the disadvantages highly outweigh them in the areas of economic, independence and cultural identity.

     In the event of an integrated Europe, constructivists recognize that to completely avoid conflict, each state will have to succumb to a “European identity” and all individual identities will have to become merely “cultural gems” within the European system. This, they argue, can be achieved with the success of several steps including economic, judicial, and security integration . The first step has already been attempted with the establishment of the Euro, the common European currency, which has been outperformed by its monetary competitors. A great amount of trust will have to be secured between states before a common court or army can be established, and most likely with as little success as the common currency. So, even by these simplified guidelines the outlook for the creation of a new “European

IGOs are voluntary associations of sovereign states established to pursue many objectives for which states want to cooperate through sort of formal structure and to which states are unable to realize by themselves (Miller, 1994). There are hundreds of IGOs in today's world which are significant in their respective fields. They are created by treaties and negotiations which mainly reflect preferences of stronger states. Especially stronger states create IGOs because they need them to protect their interests. By and large, decisions made by IGOs are the product of negotiations among the governmental representatives assigned to them. In general, it is not idealism, but the need of states which tend them to cooperate with other states in the context of IGOs. Therefore, they are part of the Westphalia state system in which IGOs are instruments of nation-states (Miller, 1994: 67). Regarding to the function and the purpose of IGOs, the influence of state as an actor in international relation still remains strong but in a different way, IGOs replace the original ideas of individual states but to identify states which have the same normative behavior and same ambitions to form a cooperate with each other so as to achieve the same goal. Even said so, powerful states are less constrained by the principle of IGOs than those who are relatively weak (Ataman, 2000: 152-167). This suggests that state is the key element in

The European Union 's success owes much to the unusual way in which it works. Unusual because the EU is not a federation like the United States; nor is it simply an organisation for cooperation between governments, like the United Nations. It is, in

The increasing weight of the Union since its creation in 1951 has elevated the community to the international stage as an indubitable power and encouraged the debate about the characterization of the EU, fostered by the involvement from European political science scholars. Scholars have came up with a "sui generis" definition of the EU in the sense that it neither is an intergovernmental organization nor a federal state.4 Still, the novelty of the Union does not bound itself to the definition of the nature of European institutional set-up. Indeed, the discussion between scholars goes further towards the characterization of the European power.

In the event of an integrated Europe, constructivists recognize that to completely avoid conflict, each state will have to succumb to a "European identity" and all individual identities will have to become merely "cultural gems" within the European system. This, they argue, can be achieved with the success of several steps including economic, judicial, and security integration . The first step has already been attempted with the establishment of the Euro, the common European currency, which has been outperformed by its

The possibility of change and cooperation within the international system is a topic that has been hotly debated amongst different professional theorists and political scientists for centuries. Many have talked about the need for peace, meanwhile trying to formulate solutions to help prevent wars and conflicts but most have concluded that there are definite deterrents that preclude cooperation between states. Neorealists argue that due to the absence of an overriding sovereign authority in the international system, cooperation between states is exceptionally difficult to achieve. Constructivists assert that ideas and norms of individual states matter because they shape the identity of the actors and therefore the structure of the international system, in turn allowing for some kind of change and possible cooperation. This essay will analyze different obstacles that can impede states’ ability to cooperate while outlining the underlying assumptions of each theory by first evaluating neorealists’ pessimistic view of change and by secondly illustrating a different perspective offered by constructivists.

It might at first seem that Tony Blair gave unconditional support to European integration including political integration. Yet he was not content with the current pace of the European integration, which benefits the EU’s founding members rather than Britain. He stated in the same speech that the reason of the EU Constitution’s rejection in France and the Netherlands was the mismatch between the political and economic sides of European

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.

This essay will analyse the theoretical approach on the importance of the 2004 enlargement of the EU and propose an alternative view on why is enlargement important to the EU survival and development. The first chapter will give a broad outlook of the Eastern Enlargement in 2004, the Treaties and institutional change made to allow for the biggest enlargement up to date. The second part of the essay depicts the main views on importance and effects of the Eastern Enlargement. Finally, the last chapter will it will argument the incentives of politicians in both legislative bodies to push for further integration. The aim of this essay will be to produce a different

It is apparent that the states within the EU have a lot in common. In terms of political, social and economic goals, all states are heading in a similar direction. Furthermore the number of common policies is ever increasing, with a common civil service, a common European Security and Defence Policy and a supreme court, EU unification is very apparent. However each EU country is primarily interested in maintaining

In consequence, recent events, such as the economic crisis and the latest EU elections, have fostered heated debates about the legitimising basis of the EU, and whether the so-called democratic deficit indicates an upcoming EU downfall (Zielonka, 2014). In this case, the concept of integration within the EU becomes highly relevant, as is generates questions such as: ‘What binds the European citizens together?’ and ‘What constitutes the EU and what ought it to look like?’. Here, there seem to be fundamental disagreements based upon different theoretical as well as practical approaches to these questions. One crucial point, when approaching questions about EU integration (let it be cultural, geographical, political or social), is whether the analysis might be classified as being normative or descriptive in nature. The latter kind of analysis, where the classical intergovernmentalist (see Moravcik, 1998) and neofunctionalist traditions (see Wallace, 1990) have been opinion-forming for a long time, deals primarily with identification of the de facto characteristics of EU integration. Consequently, as these traditions are bounded by epistemological traditions, where the social and political sciences continuously pursue increased empirical ‘objectivity’, there is a lack of normative theorising – theorisations, which encourages the use of a subjectivist approach to empirical research. The

Oxon: Routledge. 153-155.It is disputed that the divided sovereignty between national states throughout Europe actually decreases the efficiency of decision making as it can take over a year for a policy to be passed. ‘Transnational level’ is integration between ‘supernational’ and ‘national’ levels where officials of both institutions can discuss potential changes or new policies. This allows representatives of the national state to express their policies that are most accommodating to their specific country. Members of parliament can suggest policies but the implementation of these consequently relies on the best interests of the European Union. This therefore restricts the national state’s sovereignty and limits them potentially to what they wish to achieve individually as a country. Essentially it can be looked upon as a state being tied into multinational bonds that bring with it alternative objectives.

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.