After the end of World War Two, and into the beginning of the Cold War, several Western European states formed a new, supranational community. This community was called the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) and was originally composed of France, West Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg. (Britannica) While the creation of the ECSC had its stated economic benefit of creating a huge, common market for a variety of coal and steel products, it also calmed a politically and militarily turbulent Western Europe. The creation and international ratification of the institution of the ECSC dissuaded armed conflict between any of the member states for fear of disrupting the healthy, multilateral economic benefits.
The ECSC continued successfully from 1951 to 1957, when, in 1957, the member states of the ECSC signed and ratified another treaty called the Treaty of Rome. This treaty established a new economic union, the European Economic Community (EEC), that superseded the ECSC (BBC). The EEC allowed for an expansion of the benefits of the ECSC by opening up the community to a large number of products, while also creating uniform trade tariffs for all outside trade and the complete abolishment of trade tariffs between all member states. This made the flow of good between member states enormously easier as well as making the global market healthier through simpler trade policies.
The EEC continued to thrive until 1993, when it was replaced by its successor, the European Union (EU). In 1993 the original members of the ECSC drafted and ratified the Maastricht Treaty, which created the European Union (NPR). The EU was originally based upon three pillars: European Community unification (a collection of pre-existing social, and economic institutions among several European member states, these included institutions like the ECSC), common international foreign and security policy, and domestic police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters (CVCE). The three pillars took the core of the ECSC and the EEC and expanded them, in a giant leap, to include common domestic and foreign policies. In addition, in 2002, the EU consolidated 12 of the 15 member states’ currencies into one currency, the Euro.
The system of the three foundation pillars of the EU ended in 2009, the Treaty of Lisbon abolished the pillar system and simplified the EU into a legal personality. In other words, the EU had become more state-like. With legal personality the EU could be a party to international treaties and other agreements. Following the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon, the EU gained entrance into the World Trade Organization (WTO). The abolition of the three pillars was welcomed by scholars around the world, who had long seen and knew of the absurdity of one pillar represented all of the concrete institutions while the other two represented abstract policy.
Under the Treaty of Lisbon, EU governance was restructured into three super categories that show how authority is divided between the EU and the member-states: Exclusive Competence, Shared Competence and Supporting Competence:
The Exclusive Competence of the EU is the Union’s exclusive right to govern a predetermined group of things. These include “the customs unions, the establishing of the competition rules necessary for the functioning of the internal market, monetary policy for the Member States whose currency is the euro, the conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy, [and] common commercial policy.”
Shared Competence is broken into three different sections. The first section is policies and regulations that member states cannot independently establish policy upon because the EU already has common policy. These include “the internal market, social policy, for the aspects defined in this Treaty, economic, social and territorial cohesion, agriculture and fisheries, excluding the conservation of marine biological resources, environment, consumer protection, transport, trans-European networks, energy, the area of freedom, security and justice, common safety concerns in public health matters, [and] for the aspects defined in this Treaty.” The second section is restricted areas of policy that the EU cannot act on. These include “research, technological development and space, development cooperation, [and] humanitarian aid.” The third and final section is that the EU can create supplemental policy that affects individual member states so long as the policy does not already exist or conflict with existing policy. This applies to “coordination of economic, employment and social policies, common foreign, [and] security and defense policies”
Supporting Competence refers to the EU’s ability to act in support of a member states’ action. This category includes “the protection and improvement of human health, industry, culture, tourism, education, youth, sport and vocational training, civil protection (disaster prevention), [and] administrative cooperation.” (Wikisource)
The EU and its evolution is the perfect illustration of liberalism. The seemingly innocent and minor creation of an international body to regulate and streamline to production and trade of coal and steel both domestically between the member states and internationally led to the peaceful economic and political integration of the EU. The ECSC was built upon a common interest: to make money, and the ECSC brought the member states together in order to do that in the most efficient way. By eliminating internal tariffs, trade between local states became simpler and cheaper, and had the added benefit of stabilizing the region, and by creating a common tariff for international trade the member states formed a huge, common free market.
The simple notion of several states coordinating rules and creating conditions in which cooperation is ration is the core of liberalism. In the years that followed the creation of the ECSC, the scope of coordination that had been established grew to include other products beside coal and steel, and eventually grew so that all member states pool their economies. By entering into the ECSC or the EEC or the EU, each member state was asked to forfeit some of their sovereignty and in return the member state received an economic benefit, and then, as time moved on, a social benefit (with the inclusion of social institutions in the creation of the EEC), and then policy benefits, including the coordination of foreign policy. By acting together in international relations, the countries of the EU have a more influential voice.
Liberalism is the notion that states can work in a plurality, and that the existence of that plurality results in a world that is better than if that plurality did not exist. What the progression of creating and combining institutions, from the ECSC to the EU, showed member states and the world, was that the process of coordinating government, and consequently resources, is possible and makes member states more successful. The existence of the EU is better for the member states than its non-existence.
Despite the apparent positives of the liberal EU system, there are those in opposition. There are member states that refuse to adopt the Euro or other policy adopted or drafted by the EU. There are nations who could seek entry into the EU, but have not, and there are nations who have tried to seek entrance and have been denied. Questions still remain about whether the EU is actually a blanket positive and why the EU, if it is truly liberal, would not accept all European nations, with the expectation that the EU would want more partners in the interest of a greater group power.
"European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC)." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica, 2011. Web. 30 Sep. 2011. <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/196004/European-Coal-and-Steel-Community>.
"BBC News - EU Glossary: Jargon S-Z." BBC - Homepage. Web. 30 Sept. 2011. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11769554>.
"A Brief History Of The EU : NPR." NPR : National Public Radio : News & Analysis, World, US, Music & Arts : NPR. Web. 30 Sept. 2011. <http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128389419>.
"The Three Pillars of the European Union." Accueil - Cvce.eu. Ed. CVCE. CVCE. Web. 30 Sept. 2011. <http://www.cvce.eu/c/portal/layout?p_l_id=13617>.
"Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union/Part One: Principles - Wikisource." Wikisource, the Free Library. Web. 30 Sept. 2011. <http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Consolidated_version_of_the_Treaty_on_the_Functioning_of_the_European_Union/Part_One:_Principles>.
(NOTE: the Wikisource is a reformatted, unedited version of the official EU document, found at: "Consolidated Versions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union - Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union - Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union - Protocols - Annexes - Declarations Annexed to the Final Act of the Intergovernmental Conference Which Adopted the Treaty of Lisbon - Tables of Equivalences." Publications Office of the European Union. Web. <http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2008:115:0001:01:EN:HTML>.)
Ethan, what you bring to the table is captivating. It makes me hopeful about the future that institutions like the E.U. can arise and bring general stability and peace to an entire continent. Your explanation of the E.U. epitomizes liberalism—the ability of countries to progress and live in peace because of democratic ideology and a higher governing body. What I think is key in your argument is this term “ideology.” The European states were able to band together and form this peaceful collaborative because of similar global views and institutions. Without the presence of radical governments, the transition from the ECSC to the E.U. went relatively smoothly (a demonstration of liberal pacificism at work).
ReplyDeleteDo you think that this type of governing body could ever come to be in the Middle East? According to liberal theory, I would argue that it could not. Each country in the Middle East has such differing ideologies and institutions that a liberal peace would be a struggle to come by. In the case of the Middle East, realist theory connects to the dynamics between the states better than liberalism.
While the E.U is a big step forward for Europe it is still far from "perfect". As seen the the debt crisis in Greece, Spain and Portugal the E.U may be as strong as its weakest link. Since the debt crisis the value of the euro has decreased and if the E.U does not bailout Greece; then confidence in it's system will be shaken to its core. This is partly due to the citizens of the richer countries( say Germany) hesitancy and unwillingness to bail them out. It's weakness can also be seen in Libya where the E.U in the early/middle stages of the conflict had actually run out of ammunition due to a lack of coordination between the militaries of the european countries. So while the E.U has been recognized as an success of liberalism one must realize that it has been only be around 20 years and may eventually collapse due to lack of trust and cooperation between the countries.
ReplyDeleteHannah, to answer first question: no, I do night think that a Middle Eastern Union is possible, according to liberalism. Liberalism shows that the EU was formed through a desire to increase power by pooling economic resources at first. I don't see an economic driver in the Middle East would be of enough interest to set aside all other disputes in the pursuit of money. Now if a hypothetical rare, and extremely useful resources was discovered in, say Iran, and another resource was discovered in Israel that was useful for making the Iranian resource more valuable and useful, the potential for an economic Union would then exists. But as it stands now, the ideological and historical rifts between the states in question, as well as geopolitics in the region, and the absence of an economic benefit of a Union, the creation an economic union is seemingly unforeseeable.
ReplyDeleteTony, I agree that the last year or two has truly been the most trying for the member states of the EU (speaking more toward the economic). But possibly more important is the way in which the EU will come out of the crisis, intact or not. How the EU fairs this crisis will have a dramatic effect on the viability of liberalism of a way to explain the world's rules.
ReplyDeleteOn the subject of military action, the question facing the EU is more challenging. The EU, by creation, is an economic union and liberalism is best at addressing the economics of the union. The addition of military action complicates an economic union. In my opinion, the EU need to operate like NAFTA and if some or all of the member states decide they want to as fighting force they should form some sort of NATO-esque force for strictly European states.