The European Union (EU), as a supranational organization, has increased its stock of importance within the international realm through increased integration. Sector after sector has been targeted in attempts to create a more perfect union where all European member states are represented equally. That quest for deeper integration ultimately brought the founders of the EU at the threshold of defense and foreign policy. No one knows for sure the collective direction of the EU, only to say that the goals of the organization tends towards creating a federal state. That would mean that the EU would be the voice over all pertinent matters including foreign and security policy. It also happens to be that those two areas are held in high regard by …show more content…
By suggesting that the safety of European Community would be bolstered only in the cooperation of the European states in the rebuilding of Germany, these gentlemen put forth the theoretical beginnings to what the European Union is today. The idea was that the individual nations within the European Community would relinquish a portion of their state’s sovereignty in a massive effort to avoid the chance of another tragic war on the continent. More than any other continent on earth, the European continent had experienced, what seemed like, constant war between relatively close states. Because of this, it is definitely understandable the need for some significant peace time on the continent, and the utilization of this fragile moment in European history as a time to create a new, more interconnected community. Monnet, while wanting eventually, this collection of European states under a central authority, realized the time restraints:
“Jean Monnet had understood that any attempt to introduce a comprehensive institutional structure in one go would bring a huge outcry from the different countries and was doomed to failure. It was too early yet to envisage wholesale transfers of sovereignty. The war was too recent an experience in people 's minds and national feelings were still running very high (Schuman, 1950).”
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysGet Access
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.
One prominent point that came from this document was the idea of self-determination. This ideology encouraged people to form their own nation where they could choose rulers and live amongst others who share the same culture. This idea of belonging to one 's own nation piqued the interest of the millions of people living in the various, heavily diverse countries of Europe. It also increased the feeling of nationalism across the board which spurred the need for self-determination even more. However, creating these new individual nation-states came with a difficult challenge due to these diverse populations commingling in different countries. 20th century European governments, fresh out of war, now had the task of meeting every group 's desire to be established as a nation, while simultaneously creating peaceful environments. As we know now, that task was realistically impossible.
Indeed, the ideological foundations that gave birth to the EU were based on ensuring development and maintaining international stability, i.e., the containment of communist expansion in post World War II Europe (Hunt 1989). The Maastricht Treaty which gave birth to the EU in 1992 included considerations for joint policies in regard to military defense and citizenship.
To some extent it is correct to state that the First World War started more by accident than by design. However, it can be argued that many nations within Europe had planned for war and some even pushed for war. Despite this, those nations never wished for a full scale World War'. They were hoping for a war on a much smaller scale, for example, the earlier Balkan wars of 1912 and 1913. In this essay I will discuss both sides of the argument; an accidental war and the planned war. I will then conclude the essay with which side of the argument I believe holds the strongest position.
This investigation will explore the extent to which implausible peace settlement propositions during World War I led to the Armistice and eventually engendered German animosity and hostility. This investigation will examine the circumstances of the First World War that drove the Allies to push for an armistice as opposed to an unconditional surrender. It will analyze the tactics of negotiation of the Allies in order to end the war and examine German anger when expectations were not met. Overall, this investigation will examine how this well-intentioned urgency for peace negatively impacted the future of Europe in terms of its failure to fulfill the promises made by the Allies.
This article is based on the scholarship of Thomas Maddux in the Encyclopedia of Foreign Policy (2002), and Thomas Lindenberger in Europe Since 1914: Encyclopedia of the Age of War and Reconstruction (2006).
“Diplomacy would rely more on naked power than on shared values” (Kissinger, 1994 page 94). In world history we can reflect on two treaties that had the intention to achieve the same goal of stability; however they had diverse approaches. Henry Kissinger and other proponents of The Congress of Vienna argue that the great period of peace in Europe, between all great powers, was successful in creating longevity in peace due to the realist theories encompassed in The Congress of Vienna. Further, many realists also believe that The Treaty of Versailles produced “the precise opposite of what they had set out to do” because, unlike The Congress of Vienna, it was composed of liberalist, constructivist and ideological principles (Kissinger, 1994, page 245). I agree with Kissinger’s argument and further argue that The Treaty of Versailles, which failed to include legal obligations and concrete mechanisms, was a primary cause of World War II. Even though there are numerous explanations for why the Congress of Vienna produced greater stability than the Treaty of Versailles, in this essay I will compare two major reasons. The first is that the Congress of Vienna focused on restoring the balance of power, while the Treaty of Versailles wanted to enforce collective security. The second reason is evident through comparing the outcomes of both treaties; while the Congress of Vienna produced the Concert of Europe, the Treaty of Versailles produced the infamously unsuccessful League of
That said, the Thirty Years war can thus be considered as the starting point of the Modern era, as it represents a cornerstone in the history of international relations and in the way states deal with the resolution of crisis. Beyond the remodelling of Europe, the Westphalia treaties erected the seek of a status quo as a paradigm between powers. Further, these treaties have also erected the European sovereign Nation-State as a key principle of international relations, preventing in theory from any hegemony in Europe. In this way, the notion of a European balance of power announces the reign of coalitions “against the most powerful to prevent him to triumph and dominate Europe.” Thus, the Thirty Years war is a political milestone, since it symbolizes the advent of the Modern era and the primacy of politics upon religion. However, the impacts of this war are not limited to political considerations.
It is important to note that most of today’s European borders are as a result of the war, one example being the Polish-German border. It can be seen that despite the changes that took place after the Cold War in Europe, such as the break-up of the Soviet Union and the disintegration of Yugoslavia, the majority of Europe’s borders originated as a direct consequence of the Second World War. This demonstrates some of the political impact that the Second World War had had, not only on the borders of Europe which were determined during this period but also the shift in power and significant changes made to colonies, as a result of the war. The demise of the European Great Power System and the destruction caused by the war led the Western European nation to explore and then embark on the process of European integration. Behind the protection provided by the armed forces of the United States deployed in Europe to curtail a possible Soviet invasion, the foundations of the European Union could be
The argument of Mearsheimer supports the United States, claiming that the international institutions have minimal effect on the behavior of the states (Mearsheimer, 1994, p.7). On the other hand, Keohane and Martin readdress the institutionalism that Mearsheimer criticized, that the institutions – here, the international institutions, such as NATO and European Union – are the mechanism for the stability to be maintained through the cooperation of the states (Keohane & Martin, 1995). After World War I, European powers believed what is called “collective security” and created the League of Nations, to prevent the future war (Kagan, 2004, p.13). Kagan claims that the weaker states – in this case, Europe – tend to focus on the economic, soft power than the military power and on the international institutions than the power of single nation-state (p.37). As history demonstrated, European countries established different institutions for resolving the issues of the Continent, such as the Concert of Europe, NATO, and European Union.
On the 18th of November 1918, the guns fell silent, the Great War was ended as an Armistice was signed with Germany. Two months later in January 1919, delegates from all over the world came to Paris to conclude the peace settlement that would end the war. Six months of intense discussions and debates ended up on the signing of Treaty of Versailles. Three major figures dominated the peace making, with the less noticeable presence of a forth one, that are namely: the American president Wilson, the French Prime Minister Clemenceau, and the British Prime Minister Lloyd Georges and the passive Italy personified by the Prime Minister Orlando. Those peacemakers are seen by many (scholars, historians, politics…) as injudicious and dogmatic. They were also perceived as vindictive with respect to the fate they have reserved to Germany. But on the other hand many historians and scholars revisited the series of events that took place at Paris in 1919 and challenge the view that this peace was a truncated one. These authors argue that the Peace conference was a real attempt to reshape the international system with an innovative concept breaking with the old balance of power that presided over Europe’s destiny for over a century. The peacemakers faced dilemmas that still hold a grip on the world today (the ethnic-nationalism issue). Albeit the Peace of Versailles showed many flaws and imprecision regarding the actions to take within the framework of the collective security, it
The Peace of Westphalia in 1648, which ended the Thirty Year’s War, is considered a monumental event in International Relations because many theorize that the peace of 1648 marked the creation of a sovereignty-based international system. Astonishingly, in Sovereignty, International Relations, and the Westphalian Myth, Andreas Osiander disagrees with the premises that the Thirty Year’s War was the Habsburgs failed attempt at establishing a hegemony, and that the Peace of Westphalia recognized that states right to sovereignty (252, 261). Instead, Orsiander claims that the Peace of Westphalia perfected “A system of mutual relations among autonomous political units…not based on sovereignty (270). In examining Osiander’s argument, I will particularly focus on the propaganda he claims perpetuates the Westphalian myth, and the settlement of the peace that Osiander touches on as evidence for his argument.
After the tragedies of World War II, European leaders have made striving efforts to prevent such a catastrophic event from occurring on their continent again. The best solution seemed to be highly mechanized cooperation among the highest European powers to assure that future conflict, and perhaps war, could not arise between them. If all the states ran themselves in a manner cooperating with their neighbors, conflict could be avoided. To prevent other nations from not cooperating, treaties and institutions would have to be designed for each area of international interest such as trade, communications, security, and so forth. As the century progressed, more organizations, institutions and associations were
The Treaty of Versailles has long been heralded as the most published topic of the Modern Era. With this voluminous amount of literature, there comes many different views and disputes. One such dispute is commonly found in determining the true purpose of the Treaty of Versailles.
One of the main objectives of the European Union (EU) is the establishment of the internal market, which shall consist of “area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is ensured. The internal market is based upon a customs union achieved through the abolition of the imposition of customs duties and charges having an equivalent effect and the prohibition of discriminatory taxes on intra-EU imports. The internal market is enhanced by the provisions on free movement of workers, freedom of establishment, free movement of services, and free movement of capital. Whereas Articles 28 to 30 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) provide for the establishment of an EU common external tariff and the elimination of customs duties, Articles 34 and 35 of the TFEU (with exceptions under Article 36) go further, and prohibit quantitative restrictions and measures having equivalent effect. Taken together, Articles 28 to 32 and 34 to 36 serve to ensure the free movement of goods within the EU and to facilitate the operation of the internal market.