.png){kind=icon}
1. How would you weigh up the prominence of economic over political factors in explaining the formation of the EU?
To formulate an answer to this question, consider returning to the historical context that marks the formation of the EU itself (p. 19-22). As you will remember from reading chapter 5, the EU is largely the product of post-WWII European state leaders who sought to deter future possibilities of war among European states. Both political and economic elements were crucial in this endeavor. The former is perhaps most prominently and lastingly highlighted in governance conditionalities that continue to set the basis for membership within the EU. Such conditionalities are specifically structured around modes of democratic governance, including the rule of law and …. Two central components of a liberal institutionalist view are thus highlighted here. The first pertains to the attendant Democratic Peace Theory in revealing the conviction among European state leaders that a common commitment to democratic government structures among EU member states is likely to contain conflict among them. The second is located in liberal institutionalist convictions that the power of shared political norms fosters lasting relations of allyship among states, thus constraining conflict among them.
Yet, economic aspects were equally important in the formation of the EU in the aftermath of the second world war. Such economic analyses too can be approached in two steps. Viewed historically, the shared fear among many European state leaders that singular countries, such as Germany, could once again turn their industries – particularly that of coal and steel – into a war machine, led them to unite such industries in an attempt to create greater distribution of control over such material acquisitions, thus maintaining relative balance over available material capabilities among European powers. This incentivized the initial name and purpose of the European Union as the ‘European Coal and Steel Community’. Viewed theoretically, we might return here to the Kantian Triangle (p. 16-18) as a core component of liberal institutionalist views. As you will remember, the Kantian Triangle is constituted by a feedback loop among its three cornerstones, democracy, economic interdependence and international institutions. Economic exchange, initiated though certainly not restricted to coal and steel, quickly gained traction within the EU and led to the expansion of an open market economy within it. This level of economic interchange soon required organizations empowered to make rules that encouraged and protected it, thus invoking the establishment of the EU as one closely tied to an interplay between economic and political factors.
2. Why does the EU seem incapable of adopting a common foreign and security policy?
One of the most important elements of the EU is its status as an intergovernmental body (p. 6, 21). This means that its member states retain important elements of their traditional state sovereignty. Some of the most critical areas in which they do so, is that concerning sovereign decisions over member states’ means of violence and the deployment of military forces. Further, most member states are members of other military pacts, most notably that of NATO. Both elements have deterred possibilities for the implementation of a common security policy, with effective means for its implementation, though other factors, such as disagreement over the nature of the EU by member states and EU leaders alike, as well as differing international interests beyond the borders of the EU have certainly played equal roles.