1.

Realism -> State -> 1614. Sovereignty

->

1991 J. Nye hard power

soft
smart

state: main entity

deeply connected to federalism, because the oldest and the classic

account of European integration derives from federalism

for this school of thought, federalism, the main problem in IR is

international anarchy, because independence of states and nation brings
mistrust, mutual threats, rivalry and conflicts

federalists were concerned about defense in the first half of the 20th
century and considered that decentralization of sovereignty have been
the rude cause, they were therefore skeptical about traditional remedies
for interstate anarchy, such as diplomacy or the balance of power

they suggested a revolutionary solution to tackle the very essence of the

international system: the abolition of national independence and the
fusion of different political entities into one

Spinelly: "The national states have lost their property rights since they
cannot guarantee economic and political safety for their citizens."

Federalist got their inspiration in projects going back to the 18th century,
such as Kant's Perpetual peace or William Penn's project (religious
tolerance, 1568)

- Federalist believe that a union could bring Europe to solve conflicts

among all different groups through institution deus ex machna, since no
group could any longer enjoy the liberty to use military force, because the
autonomous use of force or even the idea of raising armies would
a
supranational form of government
could regulate states the same
way as states regulated the citizens, therefore the reasons for unification
according to them are political and have to do with the objective of

tackling international anarchy (= no dominant power) and the conflicts it

tends to produce

according to the classic distinction of high politics, which concerns issues

of political order and military mind and low politics concerning economic
and social question, federalist stick to high politics

- federalism typically sets up 2 tiers/parts of government, the parts and

the whole and distributes specific functions to each, however, the
federation must enjoy ultimate contract of the instruments of legitimate
violence, otherwise there is a risk that the parties fight each other or with
the central supranational power

to achievement of common defense and sec. policy is a classical aim of

the federalist project

mild critiques notice that this approach is rather normative than analytic
in nature, because it is too closely connected to political philosophy, it is
more a discussion why states should form a union together, rather than
an explanation of why would they eventually surrender their sovereignty,
such voluntary transfers are very rare in history..

first transfer of sovereignty: Switzerland

nonetheless, it remains true that the strongest arguments for federalism

is the need for an effective European policy

technocracy

the other classical approach of European integration derives from the

functionalist school, they believed that modern society was increasingly
dominated by matters of low politics, such as economic growth and
criticized federalist because of their neglect of such issues

the fundamental motive for integration would therefore not concern legal
relationship between political communities but would originate from the
inability of the nation states, provide essential services to their citizens,
which means to accomplish functions

so while federalism deals with groups, functionalism suppresses the

importance of individuals

according to functionalism political functions must be performed at the

most efficient level and it would logically lead the whole world unified

David Mittrany: he was the one who criticized European federalist for their
narrow geographical focus, "Between the conception of continental unions
and that of a universal league is a difference not merely of degree, but of
essence, the one perceived in the old way by definition of a territory, the
other by definition of functions and while the unions would define their
territory as means of differentiating between members and outsiders, a
league would select and define functions for the contrary purpose of
integrating with regard to the interest of all."

morality (social)/ ethic (right/wrong)

neo-functionalists became a significant factor in political science, in 1960s

uses mitronies, framework of analysis and its emphasis on low politics,
but agreed with federalist on the opportunity and feasibility of a
continental union eventually with its defense and foreign policy

the most prominent neo-functionalist, .Ernest Haas stated that integration

brings "loyalties, expectations and political activities towards a new
centre. These means possess or demand jurisdiction over the preexisting
national states. The end result of a process of political integration is a new
political community, superimposed over the preexisting ones."

they believed that the process of integration is indigenous, meaning that

the current level of integration determines by amplifying or facilitating
future levels

this is why we talk about ever-closer-union

- the mechanism behind unification is radically different from

, there is
and there will be no conscious and explicit attempt of introduce a new
federal constitution because according to Haas "a new central authority
may emerge as an unintended consequence of implemental earlier
steps."

neo-functionalist integration proceeds incrementally and spontaneously

- integration creates pressure to integrate next or akin areas for which the
original area is crucial and therefore cannot be controlled at a national
level, functional spin-over from one
to the next, which enlarges at a
supranational level but the dimension fir to deal with the issue.
spillovers intern can create political spin over, meaning that formal
control is necessarily transferred on a national level and that political
loyalties are shifted to the supranational level
F

NF

2.

the increasing difficulty in dealing with technical issues at national level

and the tendency of integration generate spill-overs can be exploited by
supranational agencies which could therefore promote strategy of
integration from above

for instance, immigration/integration (?) in coal and steel generated

conditions or wider customs union, which eventually generate a single
market, from the single market have emerged the demand for monetary
coordination and secondly a monetary union, which themselves generate
pressure for closer coordination economic policies

in consequence , integrating in a specific technical area can lead by series

of small and gradual steps, integration in a very wide are which is crucial
to national sovereignty

the process follows an ever increasing path in the sense that there is no
single moment (unlike the introduction of federalist constitution) which
can be identified as the point of no return, so while federalism is lineal,
the functionalist framework allows for non-linear integration mechanisms

- integration could happen in wider areas without institutional deepening,

and this is what we call spill-round or with inst. deepening, but without
involving other areas - build up; in extreme circumstances integration
could receive by reducing the inst. deepening because of national
resistance or by returning authority in an area in the national level - spill
back

in the neo-functionalist
politics and its traditional
important to federalist,
expected that political
integration

the failures back in the 60s of the European Defense Community and the
Fouchet plans of 1952-44, 61-61 could be ascribed to a failure to wait to/
from (?) natural spill-over

- however, there remains one possibility or integrating foreign policy even

before
of the process in other fields as demonstrated by the European
political Cooperation in the 1970s, ell before the main integration process
of the 1980-90s, which means that other states outside the integration
process can provide a stimulus for integration in various policy fields, a
process known as externalization, this is generated by non-members
pressuring to negotiate with a single partner rather than with all member
states, in this case the functional demand could lead to a decision on the
part of European states to pull the resources from maximizing efficiency,
facilitated by the fact that the foreign policy does not involve legislation
and usually implies low costs

the 2 classic approaches, federalism and functionalism/neo-functionalism

have been criticized mainly on 2 parts. On the one hand, there emphasis
was too Eurocentric, both theories were formulating in general terms, but
in fact they highlight exclusive features of the process of European
integration, which are not found in other parts of the world. Federalism
and neo-functionalism appear like specific local theories created to
explain events in Western Europe and not models of behaviors in
international politics

on the other hand, they employ teleological (everything has a purpose)

approach, taking full integration for granted and underestimating both the

framework, because of the emphasis on low

distaste of power politics, foreign policy which is
is relocated to secondary positions and it is
spill-overs will follow economic and social

potential resistance of a nation state and / or the possibility of forms of

integration which could stop short of a creation of a super state

for these reasons the theoretical debate in the 1970s shifted towards
accounts more suitable to the broader paradigm in IR theory, they gave
more importance than the classical theories to the role of sates in the
international system and utilized variables having a broader imperial base
of application

in particular, most of these accounts specify exterior causes of integration

finding out that each further step of integration must rest on actors'
interests, rather than on an inertial and teleological process leading to
some predefined super state

3.

these reasons induced the main schools of thought, R and L to come to

terms with European integration in general and with the role of the
European institutions in the world in particular

Realism was the dominant theory in the study on international politics and
was based of 3 main assumptions

1. the

state is the dominant actor, only the national state is capable of

acting as a coherent, unitary and rational unit

2. since

states recognize no authority above them, IR are in a state of

anarchy or lack of anarchy, which forces states to self-help

3. in

anarchy politics is dominated by military considerations and by the

fragility of trust and cooperation, war is therefore always a possibility

like federalism, R is concentrated on high politics and shares much of its

analysis on the conflictual consequences of anarchy, although it is not
optimistic of the ability of the states to develop sufficient trust to a
federation

Liberals had to abandon their utopia roots, responding either different

assumptions which allowed to move flexible and positive use of the world
politics

1. states are not the only actors in world politics, other types of actors are
important at supranational level (eg. European communities),
transnational level (multinational corporations, religious org) or some
national level (interest groups and political parties)

2. interstate

anarchy can be tain by a network of relations between

states, between states and other types of actors and between other
types of actors themselves

3. international

politics is not fully determined by distribution of military

power, of the issues namely of an economic nature can be crucial,
there is more room for choice than in the realist accounts, allowing
cooperation and the development of international institutions

liberals envisaged/conceives a more complex model of the international

politics, which could more easily account for the role of European inst. in
world politics, in particular liberals and neofunctionalists share
assumptions about the importance of low politics and the necessity of
interstate cooperation, although they also share realist skepticism about
the ultimate abandonment of national sovereignty, so it is therefore
possible to scatch the typology of main theories of European integration
according to 2 variables, so on the one hand the Realist and federalist
concentrate on high politics, L and neo-functionalist on L, on the other
hand while Federalist and neo-functionalists believe that the end result of
the integration will be a fully-fledged union, R and L argue that integration
could stop after the creation of a super state; Opinions (K. Deutsch)
consider that integration brings states into a security community, defined
as a group of states among which war is impossible and becomes
unthinkable; if integration generates a unified state leads to amalgamated
security community also called pluralistic, if it maintains the
independence of members (*)

Realists ,like Eurosceptic, are generally skeptical of the possibility of

international cooperation, they assume that the most basic motive driving
states is survival, states want to maintain their sovereignty, therefore R is
not well designed to explain the political integration of Europe, but the
very success of the European integration and the beginning of a European
foreign policy in the 1970s somehow forced R to give an explanation to

these phenomena, even the cost of adapting their main theories, in other
words the interest displayed by the European countries in the EU created
a problem for the R theory, yet not a problem for the federalists, K. Waltz
advanced a local solution to the question of European integration, for him
EU is nan exceptional event "Although the integration of nations is often
thought about, it seldom takes place, nations could mutually enrich
themselves by further dividing not just the labour that goes into the
production of goods, but also some of the other tasks they perform, such
as political management and military defense. Why does their integration
does not take place"

there are exception to this rule, as there is " the fact that some states
may persistently seek goals that they value more highly than survival,
they may for example prefer amulgation with other states."

however, even if integration took place, it could only change the

distribution of power among different units, but it could not alter the basic
characteristics of the international system

the fusion of several states into one does not change the relationship
between the new unit and those who did not participate in the union,
Waltz's attempt to conceptualize the EU may help to save the general
propositions of the neo-realist model, but it does not account for the
causes triggering integration, other R theories provided hypothesis in this
respect, which are consistent with a realist framework in general and in
particular with its emphasis on rational state strategies and the
constraints imposed on international system, in other word int. may seem
as a rational response to a specific systematic position (EU) and the
consequences of WWII

4. Neofunctionalism

logic and critique: it is one of the most prominent theories of European

integration as a core part wider debate between supranational and
national perspectives on European integration

it shares obvious ideas with functionalism's focus on low politics and

technical cooperation, yet it is less prescriptive as a theory than
functionalism and more concerned with understanding why and how
integration happens in practice

the logic of neo-functionalism: building on early development in European

integration in the late 1950s, NF developed a model to explain the
growing level of European integration and the role of supranational
bodies. Firstly, it argues that when countries agree to cooperate in a given
centre, thus cooperation creates incentives to cooperate in similar and/or
related areas

the full benefits from integrating sector A to sector B can be realized by

collateral cooperation in what we still call the spill-over effect

secondly, NF holds that economic integration almost always leads to an

increase in interaction between actors in the integrating region.
Consequently, substate actors begin to cooperate politically across
borders to lobby there political leaders. Interest groups begin to flourish at
a regional level and domestically interest groups lobby their government s
to further integration

thirdly, a supranational body design oversee integration begins to pursue

strategies to deepen integration in already integrated sectors and expand
it to other sectors

supranational bodies can achieve this by continuously promoting the

benefits of further integration and building / supporting regional and
domestic interest groups that will press for further integration

the spill-over concept is ultimately the most important part of the theory
of NF, it is a mechanism in the context of early European integration it
was argued that cooperation in core sectors such as coal and steel could
not be fully achieved without integrating other sectors such as transfer

the notion of spill-over itself rests on 2 levels: one is the expansive logic
that argues how integration in one sector determines integration in akin
sectors; the second logic refers to deepening integration in the same
sector. Example: customs union that would work more effectively if states
agree on exchange rate parity stimulates wider monetary cooperation

nationalist critique : failing of integration in other parts of world and

stagnating European integration in the 60s and 70ss challenged some of
the assumptions of NF. NF was criticized for assuming a degree of
automaticity in integration process and failing to account for increasing

protectionism and limitations for integration put up by member states at

times

the most prominent critique came from a group of scholars who advanced
a view of integration grounded in realist theory of IR, focusing on the
interaction between governments (intergovrnmentalism). This critique
rests on a number of arguments, firstly, intergovernmentalists dismissed
the attention placed on non-state actors. they argue for focusing on states
and their conceptions of the national interest as they are main actors IR.
States through their foreign offices are the ultimate authority on
integration and can resist it when they want it to. Secondly, member
states have coherent unified negotiating positions and are able to resist
efforts from interest groups, both on the domestic and a European level.
Thirdly, intergovernmentalist took issue with the notion of spill-over, for
them there was no automaticity as states made the decision to integrate
or not based on a calculation of their interests. Some of the
intergovenrmentalist scholars (Haas - The Uniting Europe) argued that NF
were too optimistic about European integration, those following his line
feel that nFstress too much on internal European factors and get to
analyze the broader context Europe is placed in and the way it affects
Europe's relations with third party actors as it might impact negatively on
the European integration

5. Intergovernmentalism:
- sovereignty, intergovernmentalism and supranationalism are essential
understanding the theorization of the EU
Sovereignity:

it is the defining power in the interstate system

it is composed of at least 3 distinct factors:

it entails the right in a legal or legitimate sense to be the

ultimate authority with a defined territorial space - de jure (by
virtual law) sovereignty

secondly, it entails the ability actually controlled what happens

within that defined territory - de facto- it involves 2 aspects:

population (politically active), government and force of coercion

(police, military)

thirdly, sovereignty entails recognition of a governments right

and ability to be the ultimate authority within a given space by
other states - external recognition

diminishing anyone of these factors reduces the extent to which a

government can be held to be sovereign

the interstate system comes into being because firstly there are
governments that need the first and second criteria above and secondly,
these states recognize each other

Pooling sovereignty:

it frequently asserted that joining the EU involves a lost or giving up of

sovereignty

first question is: have states lost sovereignty in the EU? ->undoubtedly
mechanisms exist whereby the EU can and does make rules that
overwrite member state legislation , so states have to give permission to
the EU, do this in the first place via treaties and in theory they lost and in
practice they can withdraw

pooling sovereignty mean that MS have decided to collectively make

decisions with each one, agreeing that the EU can make certain decisions
in certain policy areas

secondly, the concepts of de facto and de jure sovereignty can be in

tention (?), major international trends associated with globalization have
underlined the state's ability to control what happens within its territories.

- while states posses sovereignty pitting it in practice comes increasingly

difficult. By giving up some of the sovereignty they
and pooling it at the
EU level, the European states are able to collectively use
to increase
de facto control over what is happening in their countries

by doing so, they agree what to do in first place, they harmonize their
positions and agree to pool decision making at the EU level

Intetovernmentalism:

refers to arrangements, whereby nation-states in situations and

conditions they can control, cooperate with one another on methods of
common interest

states can accept or deny cooperation or set the level of it, normally this
is ensure through a veto by blocking proposals presented by any other
country, but such a context do not involve any loss of sovereignty, to put
it simply states cooperate when they want and they don't when they do
not wish to
Supernationalism:

- governance arrangements outcome

, where states decide delegate
responsibility for decision making to a body or decision making forum
placed above the nation state

in this case states lose the right to veto and agree to be bound by
majority decisions of cooperating states, therefore losing control of their
sovereignty, yet again the loss comes only with the consent of the MSs

in such a conjector (?), states will have to go along with a policy that
contravenes their specific preferences in a given moment

therefore, supranationalism takes interstate relations beyond cooperation

into integration and involves some loss of national sovereignty (Neil
Nugent)

supranationalism and intergovernmetntalism are different ends of a

continuum, most structure in the EU is perfectly intergovernmetnal or
supranational and different institutions
can be more or less
intergovernmental/supranational

the Commission for example normally tends to be the supranational

entity, sometimes follows the lead of the member states, especially in
external methods, while in other cases it is taking the lead ahead of
national capitals (?)

furthermore, while the EU became more supranational as time went by,

states still tried to reach consensus in supranational forums, even when
technically speaking they don't have to

the fact that supranatioalism entails a loss of sovereignty, raises the

question of why states would agree to enter in such governance
arrangements. There is no short answer, but we can posit 3 areas to look
at worthy to be retained:

1. the

benefits gained from pooling sovereignty (thought in terms of

efficiency and increased capacity to act

2. the cost involved by not pooling sovereignty

3. it

is considered ethically and normatively the right and most

thing to do

6. Liberal intrgovernmentalism:

it had acquired a status of baseline theory in the study of European

integration

it is seen as an essential first cut explanation against which other

theories are often conveyed/covered

by now, it achieved a
dominant status due to theoretical
soundness/safety, empirical power and utility as a foundation for
synthesis with over theories

there are several characteristics that have contributed to its standing as

a baseline theory:

1. it is grounded in social science theory, because it tries to modernize

integration by drawing on general political science theory. IN this is an
application of the rationalist institutionalism. on Although LI draws insights
from traditional school in European integration studies, especially NF and
intergovernmentalism, it seeks to ground these insights in a more consistent
and rigorous core of assumptions. This allows LI, in contrast to traditional
schools of European integration, to specify the motivation of the actor, of the

states, of the political elite and to even derive/create predictions of common

behaviour or dynamic effects from their interaction
2. LI is a ground theory, that tries to explain the broad evolution of regional
integration. From this point of view, it acts like a framework/synthesis and
not a narrow theory of a single political activity. Morovchick considered that
one cannot explain integration with just one pattern, therefore tries to link
together multiple theories and factors into a single, coherent approach
appropriate to explaining the integration over time.
3. LI is simple, its basic premises can be summarized in a few general
interconnected propositions which deliberately seek to simplify EU politics,
stressing the essential and excluding certain secondary activities. The
aspiration to implicit differentiates LI from other concepts like multi-level
governance, which is seen as a metaphor rather than a theory that
subsudes/ gathers nearly all possible political interrelationships found in the
EU. LI rests on 2 basic assumptions about politics: the first is that states are
actors. The EU, like other international institutions can be studied by treating
states as the vertical actors in a context of anarchy, this means that states
achieve their goals through intergovernmental negotiation and bargaining,
rather than through a centralized authority making and enforcing political
decisions. The European Community was "best seen as an international
regime for policy coordination", this assumption does not belong to R as a
theory, national security for instance is not a dominant motivation, states'
power is not based on coercive capabilities, state references and identities
are not uniform and interstates institutions are not insignificant. With these 4
sentences, Moravcsik rejects most of the Realism ideas on European
integration. on the contrary, he analyze a simple imperial fact about the
European institutions, MSs still remain the master of the treaty and continue
to enjoy decision making power and political legitimacy. The second
assumption of the LI is that states are rational, rationalism is an individualist
assumption, actors calculate the utility of alternative courses of action and
choose the one that maximizes or satisfies their utility under the
circumstances. Collective outcomes are explained as the result of
aggregated individual actions based of efficient persuade of these
preferences. Agreement to cooperate it to establish international institutions
is explained as a collective outcome of interdependent strategic rational
choices and intergovernmental negotiations. Example: decisions to
cooperate internationally can be explained in a 3 stage framework states
first define preferences, then bargain to sustention agreements and finally
create or adjust institutions to secure the outcomes in face of future
uncertainty. Moravcsik noted that in order to be useful in analyzing European
integration one should analyze the situation invoking the following questions:

What type of domestic preferences should be expected to matter most in

Europe?, Which bargaining dynamics should shape European agreements?,
What factors explain institutional desire?, all these LI adopts one specific
theory for each step: a liberal or social theory of national preference
formation, a bargaining theory on international theory of negotiations and a
functional theory of institutional choice. In his book the choice for Europe in
1998 Morvcsik addressed these questions by scrutinizing the evolution of the
EU from the 1950s to 1992. He asked whether what national preferences
were driven by general geopolitical ideas and interests or by issue specific,
generally economic interests
2. subsentied bargaining outcomes were shapes by the use of information,
by international entrepreneurs and informational cemterties(?) or by
intergovernmental bargaining on basis of asymmetrical interdependence
3. the choice of EU institutions reflect federalist ideology, the need for
technocratic management or an interest in securing credible MS
commitments
- the basic argument of choice is that " EU integration can be best
understood as a series of national choices made by national leader, these
choices responded to constraints and opportunities stemming from the
economic interests of powerful domestic constitulants, the relative power of
states stemming from asymmetrical interdependence and the role of
institutions in bolstering the credibility of interstate commitments"