The European Union ( Eu )

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.

Prior to the First World War, Europe was the world center of industry and capital. Massive death, destruction, and resentment after World War I left most countries unable to recover to a normal existence and damaged the world economy. The economic collapse and the political instability caused by World War I eventually led to the rise of fascism in Europe. Forceful dictators in Italy, Germany, and Japan took advantage of these problems to seize power by territorial expansion. These events caused a major repositioning of world power and influence. This paper traces a variety of significant factors and forces that contributed to the outbreak of World War II.

The Best War Ever, written by Michael C. C. Adams, is a book focusing on the balanced history of the experience from America’s view during World War II. It neither glorifies nor vilifies the U.S. participation but discusses the real horrors of the war by using glorifying aspects that could have been deceptive or even misleading. World War II defined and transformed the rest of our lives. Americans viewed World War II as the “Good War” or “The Best War Ever”. After the end of the war, Americans had a positive outlook after overcoming the past years. German fascism and the Japanese were defeated but were also encouraged to resume roles of our world responsibility in our image of democracy. It is generally agreed that World War II was a necessary war.

Changes were happening all over Europe between World War I and World War II, and the book Europe in the Era of Two World Wars highlights a lot of them. Volker Berghahn, the author, discusses how violence escalated all across Europe during this time frame. The book digs into the desires and upsets of countries like Germany, Britain, France, and Russia, during war times more than others I have read do. Economies of each country and the escalading violence are the main focuses of the book. In the following review of Berghahn’s work, Europe in the Era of Two World Wars, I will highlight why the author is qualified to write the book, and survey the strengths and weakness of the information he provided.

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 Democratic peace thesis, whose basic concepts were studied by Kant in the 1700s, is the theory that suggests that democracies have been pacific in their relations with one other and are unlikely to go to war with another democracy. “Democracies rarely fight each other (an empirical statement) because (b) they have other means of resolving conflicts between them and therefore do not need to fight each other (a prudential statement),and (c) they perceive that democracies should not fight each other (a normative statement about principles of right behavior), which reinforces the empirical state¬ment. By this reasoning the more democracies there are in the world, the fewer potential adversaries we and other democracies will have and the wider the zone of peace.” russet

During the turn of the twentieth century and the unsettlement of imperialism in Europe and the rest of the world, human kind was exceeding its potential extremely rapidly with the benefits of the Industrial Revolution. However, with change often comes instability. As the world was evolving at an extreme pace, many theories, weapons, philosophies, and political systems emerged. The world had discovered for itself an insatiable thirst for more. This is the philosophy that drove the early twentieth century. This nationalistic and competitive perspective was the reason for the worlds, precisely Europe’s, success. The super nations: France, Britain, Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia, were developing at prodigious rates, each trying to obtain more than their rivals. This greedy desire and the forgetfulness of what war really meant sent all these powerful nations to collide in what is considered the “Great War.”

From the late 19th century to 1945 two ideologies and platforms contrasted one another. On one hand you have isolationism, Lassie Faire and a lack of global perspective. On the other hand you have international cooperation and what has been termed “war economies”. The failure of one seems to have cultivated the other as a response. Ultra nationalism, racial imperialism and antisocialism brought about great atrocities and failures both politically and morally. In response we have, not once, but twice, seen the rise of international cooperation to counter Nationalistic expansion. The contrast of a war economy versus an absolute free economy is seen on both sides of the political spectrums. It would be both belligerents that would

The United States and the Soviet Union emerged from World War II as the "superpowers" with vastly different systems. The superpowers also had two different ambitions for the future. These differences created a climate of icy tension that plunged the two countries into bitter rivalry. In this essay I will be discussing what Joseph Stalin of the Soviet Union and Harry Truman of the United States wanted for post war Europe. Firstly, I will look at what the leaders wanted economically. Next, ideologically and politically. Then, finally religiously.

In the dawn of the twentieth century, while political turmoil spurred tension amongst European nations, a single bullet incited one of the bloodiest, most gruesome wars to ever happen in human history. The assassination of Franz Ferdinand, the Austrian Archduke, by the hands of a Bosnian Serb propelled a conflict of gigantic proportions, pitting country against country and dividing the continent into two rival factions. However, the mayhem that ensued was for nothing. It is evident that the war was unnecessary, for its roots were pointlessly trivial, it could have been avoided, and yet it left a shattered world behind, damaging the world in a way that would take decades to repair.

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,

These two volumes by Dunbabin are a part of a larger series that is titled “The postwar world”, which is edited by A. J. Nicholls and Martin Alex and explores many different post-1945 issues. Dunbabin's history of relations between nations since 1945 has been a setup for the rest of the series because it talks about almost every problem, at least in

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

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.

Willy Brandt once remarked:” Western Europe has only 20 or 30 more years of democracy left in it; after that it will slide under the surrounding sea of dictatorship” (Crozier, Huntington, Watanuki, 1973, 2). It would seem that democratic governments have become increasingly unable of facing “the challenges of the modern world”. Specifically, democratic European governments have become increasingly incapable to adequately represent the interests of the governed, while economic growth has also produced forces within nations that could potentially lead to the potential “regression”(Crozier, 1973, 49-50) of European states from democracy into tyranny (Crozier, 1973, 49-50).