Candidate number: 27785 States remain the principal actors in European integration and this should remain the case”. Discuss Nowadays, more and more European citizens are not satisfied with the European Union and the anti-European political parties are increasingly acquiring votes. There have been many debates and studies about the division of powers among the European institutions and about the influence and impact these institutions and the national parliaments have on the process of European integration. Especially the democratic crisis and the low level of popular legitimacy in the EU (Hix, 2008) result in increasing debates about whether the current structure of the EU is satisfactory. An important aspect in these debates about the structure and the decision-making process in the EU, is whether the power of the states in European integration is sufficient. Sharpf (1999) distinguishes between positive and negative integration and the role of the EU institutions and parliaments in these integration processes. This paper will build on this distinction between positive and negative integration in order to analyse whether states are still the principle actors in European integrations. It argues that states do not remain the principal actors in European integration, especially in negative integration. The agenda-setting power of the Commission and the decision-making power of the Court of Justice on cases should not be underestimated, they have an important impact on both positive and negative integration. This essay is structured in the following way. First, short definitions of positive integration and negative integration will be given. Following this, the role of the states in both positive and negative integration will be c... ... middle of paper ... ...ion will slow down when the states become more involved, but in the long term it will become more successful, as political parties are indirectly forced to include European topics in the national debates. The supranational bodies do have an important role in providing solid information to its citizens and states. Member states should be given more principles that they can assess the proposal of the Commission. Now they can only assess the principle of subsidiarity, whereas the principles of proportionality and of conferral are evenly important. Furthermore, national courts should be able to assess whether a decision of the ECJ that resulted into a competence creep was made objectively. Even though the ECJ has primacy over national law, the ECJ is characterised as a driver of negative integration and it is therefore doubtful whether it is completely objective.
The 19th century set the stage for different policies that lead to the extending of America’s power, which is defined as imperialism. Imperialism started for different reasons like the Americans wanting the U.S. to expand or explore the unknown land, or even some feared existing resources in U.S. might eventually dry up. The reason imperialism started doesn’t really matter, but more of what it caused. Imperialism lead to Cuban assistance, the addition of Hawaii and Alaska to America, and Yellow Journalism.
For this reason, the Commission is referred as the “guardian of the Treaties” or “watchdog” of the EU. Moreover, the decisions made by the Parliament and the Council must be made on the basis of the proposals given by the Commission.
"We cannot sit huddled within our own borders and avow ourselves merely an assemblage of well-to-do hucksters who care nothing for what happens beyond. Such a policy would defeat even its own end; for as the nations grow to have ever wider and wider interests, and are brought into closer and closer contact, if we are to hold our own in the struggle for naval and commercial supremacy, we must build up our Dower without our own borders." 1899, Theodore roosevelt his book, The Strenuous Life.
Although there were numerous movements in promoting the unity of the European, but it seems to have failed. Robertson indicates the unity principle’s outcome is less than what is desired. Thereby, as Murat notes, the court will invariably grant a leeway to the state in deciding the cases namely, the ‘Margin of appreciation’. This maxim owes it genesis from a French term ‘marge d’ appreciation’ that deemed as a doctrine which gives way to a state’s discretion in their governance.
A Democratic Deficit in the EU The question over the legitimacy of the EU has been a nearly continuous debate and many commentators appear to agree that the EU suffers from a severe ‘democratic deficit’. There are many reasons why this perception is so widespread. As a multinational body it lacks the grounding in common history and culture upon which most individual polities can draw.
The European Union (EU) is fundamentally democratic and is evident through its institutions, however, the current democratic electoral structure is of great concern. The EU is a new type of political system, often referred to as a sui generis, implying its uniqueness as there exists and a non comparable political body. The EU can neither regarded as a ‘state’ nor as an ‘international institution’ as it combines supranational as well as intergovernmental characteristics (Hix, 1999, p7). In this regard it has developed its own understandings of what democracy is. It is evident that the development of and spread of democracy is a central concept and foundation to all politics within the EU, and remains focuses on makings its governing institutions “more transparent and democracy”. The recent Eurozone crisis, it’s associated anti-crisis measures and the recent enlargement of EU have however re-invigorated debate about the EUs democratic legitimacy. At the heart of the debate are discussions not about whether the EU is an all-encompassing democratic institution but rather what are ‘democratic deficits’ or the democratic shortcomings that exist within this powerful economic and political union. Underpinning these divisions as Schmitter argues, are different understandings of what democracy is in the modern context and more specifically in the unique context of the EU. This essay will argue that the EU presents a unique type of political system that is fundamentally democratic, however, there are democratic shortcomings within its procedural and institutional structure.
The European Union (EU), since the initial foundation in 1952 as the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) and throughout periods of development, has been considered one of the most advanced forms of regional integration. It, based on numerous treaties and resolutions, has strived to promote values such as peace, cooperation or democracy, and in 2012 was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for having “contributed to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe” (Nobel Media AB, 2012). Despite its struggle for promoting democracy, the EU itself has long experienced scholarly criticisms that it suffers the democratic deficit, from which its democratic legitimacy is undermined by observable problems in political accountability and participation. As the importance of legitimacy in a democratically representative institution is hardly debatable, the criticism of whether and why the EU lacks democracy has been given a considerable gravity in academia.
To understand the power struggle relating to foreign policymaking, it is crucial to understand what foreign policy entails. The Foreign Policy Agenda of the U.S. Department of State declares the goals of foreign policy as "to build and sustain a more democratic, secure, and prosperous world for the benefit of the American people and the international community." While this definition is quite vague, the actual tools of foreign policy include Diplomacy, foreign aid, and military force.
The Presidency rotates among the Member States every six months and is used as a mechanism through which Member States can advance specific priorities. The UK will next hold the Presidency in the second half of 2005. [2] The European Council's far reaching and dramatic decisions have helped propel their meetings into the public spotlight where they have become the focal point for media coverage of the EU, which increases their power [3] During the political, economic and institutional weakening of the European Community (EC) in the 1960s and 1970s the ECJ persisted and struggled on to create an extensive and powerful mass of case law that continued the process for deeper integration. The outcome of this was extremely positive.
One of the most controversial debates in the history of European Union (EU) is if there is a democratic deficit in the EU. On the one hand, many scholars argued that the democratic deficit exists in the EU. On the other hand, there are other scholars who claimed that there is not a democratic deficit in the EU. In this essay, the writer will support the argument that the democratic deficit in the EU exists and will propose how this deficit can be reduced. In the first part of this paper the arguments, which support the existence of the democratic deficit, will be discussed. After that, this essay will present the claims that there is no democratic deficit in the EU. Finally, as the argument of this essay is that there is a democratic deficit in the EU, is to present some ways, which can reduce the democratic deficit in the EU.
Uvalic, M. (2002, July). Regional Cooperation and the Enlargement of the European Union: Lessons Learned? International Political Science Review, 23(3), 319-333.
The European Union stands on the threshold of unparalleled change over the coming years. The next waves of enlargement will be unprecedented in nature and continental in scale. This process has gained so much political momentum that it is now irreversible.
Despite the international system being anarchical, it is not in a state of total chaos due to a number of significant factors such as those above. It is obvious that the current international system is highly influenced by many significant factors and some are more prominent than others. With the continued existence of international anarchy it is up to the States and the International Organisations to continue to make the decisions that are in their own best interest and to maintain order and an ever-improving way of life.
The enlargement of the European Union (EU) in 2004 and 2007 has been termed as the largest single expansion of the EU with a total of 12 new member states – bringing the number of members to 27 – and more than 77 million citizens joining the Commission (Murphy 2006, Neueder 2003, Ross 2011). A majority of the new member states in this enlargement are from the eastern part of the continent and were countries that had just emerged from communist economies (EC 2009, Ross 2011), although overall, the enlargement also saw new member states from very different economic, social and political compared to that of the old member states (EC 2009, Ross 2011). This enlargement was also a historical significance in European history, for it saw the reunification of Europe since the Cold War in a world of increasing globalization (EC 2009, Mulle et al. 2013, Ross 2011). For that, overall, this enlargement is considered by many to have been a great success for the EU and its citizens but it is not without its problems and challenges (EC 2009, Mulle et al. 2013, Ross 2011). This essay will thus examine the impact of the 2004/2007 enlargements from two perspectives: firstly, the impact of the enlargements on the EU as a whole, and thereafter, how the enlargements have affected the new member states that were acceded during the 2004/2007 periods. Included in the essay will be the extent of their integration into the EU and how being a part of the Commission has contributed to their development as nation states. Following that, this essay will then evaluate the overall success of the enlargement process and whether the EU or the new member states have both benefited from the accessions or whether the enlargement has only proven advantageous to one th...
Liberalism assumes that the war and can be policed by the institutional reforms that empower the international organizations and law.