Category: European Union

Over the last 15 years, Europe has witnessed many changes. Since the establishment of the European Union in 1957, the countries of the region have tried to cooperate on various subjects such as economy, commerce, and security matters. After the fall of communism in the late 1980s and early 1990s, more countries have been entering the Union, giving the idea that peace and prosperity have, eventually, been accomplished. But by the end of the 2000s, clouds gathered again over Europe, threatening the foundations that had been established through the years. Wars in other world regions have caused a major problem to the already densely populated Europe, the issue of immigration. This issue was not treated as carefully as it should have been during the first years, making today’s solutions even more complex and difficult. This paper will focus on how the immigration issue has become a security matter in Europe and its causes, providing some more specific examples regarding the most ‘affected’ country of the region, Greece, since the refugee crisis of 2015.

Historical Background

In order to examine the causes of the securitization of the immigration issue in Europe, it would be vital to understand the reasons behind this huge population movement towards the region. The issue started at the beginning of 2011 with the ‘Arab Spring’. This period had a huge and immediate impact on the Arab countries as they had long been ruled by authoritarian regimes. “Beginning in December 2010, anti-government protests rocked Tunisia. By early 2011 they had spread into what became known as the Arab Spring—a wave of protests, uprisings, and unrest that spread across Arabic-speaking countries in North Africa and the Middle East. Pro-democratic protests, which spread rapidly due to social media, ended up toppling the governments of Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and Yemen” (Blakemore, 2019). Starting in Tunisia and rapidly moving into other Arab countries, in just a few months, the uprising had achieved to overthrow most of the long-ruling regimes, but in some cases “the uprisings also led to armed conflict in some countries, including civil war in Syria, Iraq, Libya, and Yemen” (Blakemore, 2019). “The ‘Arab Spring’ of 2011 raised hopes of democratization in the Middle East, but many of the gains of the revolutionary movements have since been reversed” (Khan, 2015).

The above-mentioned uprising didn’t just affect the nations that it took place in, it was the beginning of the immigration crisis that would ‘shake’ Europe in the coming years. After the ‘Arab Spring’, a large number of people from Arab and African countries started to move toward Europe, seeking a better future. This movement was so massive and rapid that already densely populated European countries ‘felt’ the consequences of the issue very quickly. Also, the EU countries were unprepared and unable to host so many people, making the governments take rough measures. “European politicians believe they can discourage migrants from crossing the Mediterranean simply by reducing rescue operations. But refugees say that the scale of unrest in the Middle East, including in the countries in which they initially sought sanctuary, leaves them with no option but to take their chances at sea” (Kingsley, 2015). It is worth mentioning that “more than 45,000 migrants risked their lives crossing the Mediterranean to reach Italy and Malta just in 2013” (Kingsley, 2015). More statistics will be shown further into the essay, as well as, the effects of the immigration issue for the EU countries and especially Greece. Furthermore, the causes of the securitization of the issue of immigration will be analyzed.

Statistics

Not long after the ‘Arab Spring’, the immigration issue started in Europe. In 2015, the first large human wave of migrants reached and tried to enter Europe. Greece, Italy, and Spain were the first countries the migrants reached, causing them serious problems, as they were not prepared to host so many people. The issue almost immediately started to concern the EU, as such a rapid and enormous population rise would have some serious consequences not only to the communities of the countries but also to the whole EU structures and policies. To better understand the scale of the issue, some statistics must be shown.

According to the United Nations Refugee Agency, “more than 1 million refugees and migrants arrived in Greece in 2015 and early 2016. The influx began increasing again in the second half of 2017 when the government began taking over full responsibility for Greece’s refugee response. In May 2018, the number of refugees and migrants in Greece stood at more than 60,000, including about 14,000 on the islands” (Greece, 2018). The immigrant flows trying to reach Europe continue to grow annually. “At present Spain, Italy, and Greece take most of the strain owing to their geographical position on the Mediterranean Sea and the fact that, under EU law, asylum seekers must lodge their applications in the first EU country they enter” (Henley, 2018). For Greece, especially, the issue has been rapidly getting out of hand during the last few years. Statistical data from the Hellenic Asylum Service show that only in 2019, 77,285 people applied for asylum in the entire country. According to the same source, just in the first month of 2020, in the islands of Lesvos, Samos, and Chios, which are just a few miles from the Turkish shores, 5.683 people applied for asylum. This fact provides a very good picture of the situation for the huge numbers of people trying to reach Greece but wanting to move to other EU countries. In 2019 over 120,000 migrants seeking asylum in the EU had to be distributed among member state countries. Most of them are distributed in Germany, France, and Spain. Despite these policies some member-state countries still believe that the immigration issue is not treated as it should, causing major disagreements between some countries and causing different securitization policies.

Securitization of Europe

Terrorism

Since the first major migration period to Europe in 2015, a large number of migrants have reached Europe. This rapid and overwhelming number of people has caught the EU and the member state governments unprepared when also this collision of different cultures living in such a small place has caused many issues. These issues had, as a result, the adoption of a securitization policy from the EU. The concept of securitization is a theoretical approach by the Copenhagen School that argues “that in international relations something becomes a security issue when it is presented as posing an existential threat to some object – a threat that needs to be dealt with immediately and with extraordinary measures. The main argument of securitization theory is that in international relations an issue becomes a security issue not because something constitutes an objective threat to the state (or another referent object), but rather because an actor has defined something as an existential threat to some object’s survival” (Diskaya, 2013).

“It is impossible to ignore the impact of international terrorism in the development of migration-security nexus” (Estevens, 2018). Since the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the United States, security policies have become stricter. Many terrorist groups, like Al-Qaeda and ISIS, took the chance and planned more terrorist attacks. London and other European countries’ capitals became a target, forcing the EU to act and change its security policies. “Following the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, the EU established a list of persons, groups, and entities involved in terrorist acts and subject to restrictive measures” (‘EU Fight against Terrorism’, 2020). Since, the immigration issue presupposes people seeking asylum and, in most cases, to have lost their identity documents, authorities treat everyone as a potential threat.

In 2015, attacks in Paris and Brussels showed the importance of the securitization policy. The terrorist ‘mastermind’ behind the attacks had entered Europe as a refugee and through Greece managed to reach Western Europe and plan the attacks. After all these incidents that took place over the last 15-20 years, it is obvious why terrorism has played an important, if not the most important, role in the securitization of Europe. In Greece especially, since 2012, authorities have conducted daily patrols in the areas where most of the refugees are situated. Even further, it is more likely to see a ‘random’ body search and identification check happening to an immigrant than any other citizen in the country. “Terrorism shapes public opinion on migration, which justifies the need for a better understanding of terrorism and religion. Failing this, one may assume that any Muslim may be a potential terrorist, which might give rise to Islamophobia inside Europe” (Estevens, 2018).

Xenophobia-Crime Fears

The massive human waves reaching Europe during the last years had a major impact on the way of life of European people. Especially in countries like Greece and Italy, where thousands of undocumented migrants arrive every day, xenophobia or racist abuse is a common phenomenon. Conservative and far-right parties are spreading their ideology projecting crimes that happened by immigrants. In Greece, the neo-Nazi party of ‘Golden Dawn’ found a fertile ground to rise because of the immigration issue and managed to enter the parliament in three of the last four national elections, in 2012 and twice in 2015, when simultaneously managed to elect members in the European Parliament. Unfortunately, Greece is not the only country to have seen the rise of right-wing parties due to the immigration issue. In France similarly, “Marine Le Pen and the party she leads, France’s xenophobic and fiercely anti-EU National Front (FN), have never been so close to power” (Reguly, 2017). For the FN, the enemies are foreigners and Islam, when according to Le Pen, “Behind mass immigration, there is terrorism” (Reguly, 2017).

Phenomena like the above-mentioned are common in European societies nowadays. Ordinary people are starting to see immigrants as a threat mainly because a significant number are getting involved in crimes or because they create ‘ghettos’ in many cities. The Copenhagen School approach explains this situation better. “The approach also partially deepened the meaning of security by arguing that issues can be considered matters of security even if they are not threatening states” (Popper, 2008). In Athens, Greece, a large part of the city center is filled with immigrants. “Algerians, Moroccans, and Afghans are battling the Somalians and the Nigerians to prevail in the drugs and prostitute businesses in tourist areas like Monastiraki, the Acropolis and Thiseio” (Popotas, 2020). All these incidents make citizens of these areas fear immigrants since some of them are involved in illegal actions, seeing them as the reason crime rates rise. For those reasons, among many, the Hellenic government, which cannot be described as conservative or far-right, is forced to take ‘defensive’ measures not because the ‘actor’, as the Copenhagen School defines immigrants, has caused any significant or an issue that didn’t already exist, but because local societies demand precaution measures to be taken. “Government and local authorities in the northern Aegean are running into a collision course, with the government giving the green light to the construction of new closed accommodation centers, similar to the open one in Moria, Lesvos, while locals are opposed to their construction demanding the decongestion of the islands and removal of the migrants” (Fanarioti, 2020).

Political-Diplomatic Reasons

The immigration issue has not only been concerning European societies but also, as mentioned above, EU politicians. Even the most liberal governments of the region tend to face it as a problem. Even more, although most countries have agreed to accept a certain number of immigrants on their soil, they all agree that the numbers reaching Europe are more than countries can host.

On the opposite side, there are countries, especially Turkey, that use the immigration crisis to achieve their political and diplomatic goals. Turkey exploits the fact that it is the last non-European country that most immigrants have to pass to get to Europe, and ‘blackmails’ the EU that if certain demands are not met, it will allow a huge number of immigrants to enter Europe. “Currently, Turkey has actively prevented Syrian refugees from attempting the perilous journey to Greece in exchange for billions of euros from the EU. Erdogan has accused Brussels of failing to deliver on the deal, saying Turkey still expects the promised €6 billion ($6.6 billion)” (‘Europe ‘Will Feel’ New Refugee Wave, Warns Turkey’s Erdogan’, 2019). Furthermore, Turkey uses the immigration issue for its diplomatic visions. “Turkey’s president has vowed to send millions of refugees to Europe if countries do not back his proposals for them to be settled in a ‘safe zone’ in Syria. He warned he would ‘open the gates’ for asylum seekers if European countries failed to support Ankara’s plans to resettle them in Syria’s northeast. If Turkey’s plans for the return [of the refugees] … is not supported, we will have no choice but to open our borders. We would open the borders, they can go to Europe” (Baynes, 2019), knowing that the EU isn’t able to accept more people nor has the infrastructure needed to host them until a better solution is found.

This conflict of interest could be interpreted by the critical application of the securitization theory. According to the critical application, every state’s policy is dominated by its interests or the interests of the elites. In this situation, the interests of Turkey and the EU are different, while Turkey threatens the European way of life by threatening to ‘flood’ it with immigrants. The EU elites cannot accept this happening and, for this, try to securitize the region against this threat. “State or international elites utilize the security policy as an instrument to maintain order, preserve current power structures, or to pursue personal or political interests” (Charrett, 2009), briefly describing the current situation between Turkey and the EU.

Conclusions

The immigration issue has oscillated in Europe during the last few years. The EU has come up with certain policies to cope with it. Until today, there hasn’t been a straightforward solution, resulting in the securitization of Europe. Greece, as the ‘border country’ of the EU, had to face many problems regarding the issue and to balance internal complaints with complaints coming from immigrants. The country has seen many measures to be taken, especially for the prevention of terrorism, but, on the contrary, has done little to prevent xenophobia and racial abuse of immigrants. Being a member of the EU doesn’t allow the country to take many initiatives to find a solution, practically leaving the country exposed to the political decisions of the rest of the EU and constantly having to host more immigrants. Until this point, the securitization of Europe has done few things to solve the issue and even fewer to help host countries like Greece.

Try to imagine what historians will recall about the European Union in 100 years regarding its future – does it still exist? Were all the common goals achieved? Did a war ever threaten the safety of the member states? The first goal ever set by EU was to achieve peace among its member states after the second world war, which coincides with the hopes of its founders when it was established in 1993. Since that time, all member states have existed in somewhat harmony and no major conflict has ever erupted since then. This important goal has been sustained. The prospect of war in this current climate seems quite slim. Over half a century of integration has created a profound interconnectedness between the political, economic, and social fates of member states. At the same time, however, the fortunes of member states have started to diverge dramatically (OUPblog.com, Vries).

This essay will introduce and discuss the origins of the European Union and the goals established at the time of its creation. It will also delve into the current state of the European union and the possible threats it faces in this current climate. It will then touch on the prospects of the European Union and the challenges to be faced in the future. This essay will also mention the effects of Brexit and the Handling of the Covid-19 virus since it started to affect European countries last March. Britain leaving the EU and the Covid-19 Pandemic in a similar timeframe have both put tremendous strain on Europe and the rest of the world. We will also look at the effects of these happening at the same time and the increasing pressure on the European Union regarding equal distribution of Vaccines, and how all these combined externalities will affect the future of the European Union.

The true impact of this pandemic is difficult to access as we are still very much living in it. Despite all these unprecedented events it still is unclear what the future holds for the European Union. In this essay we will look at the future of the EU, being a state with liberty, democracy, and solidarity.

Origins of the European Union.

The European integration process was established in the 1950s as a direct result of the negative events experiences by the six original founding member states in the aftermath of the Second world war. The prospect of another war at this time was apparent and threatening to the European people, hence why the European Union was founded, there was a growing realisation that only peace and teamwork across each member state could make a strong and united Europe come true (EU politics, Cini). In 1951 the Treaty of Paris was signed which kickstarted the beginning of the (ECSC) the European Coal and Steel Community, the function of which was to provide a trading bloc for coal and steel products across Europe. Following this, The Treaty of Rome was signed in 1957 which began the new European Economic Community (EEC), its founding members became known as the European Communities. After 36 years the European Union as we know it today was finally erected by the signing of the Maastricht Treaty in 1993). The Maastricht Treaty paved the way for the creation of a single European currency: the euro. It also established the European Central Bank (ECB) and the European System of Central Banks and describes their objectives. The main objective for the ECB is to maintain price stability (ECB, 2019).

One of the striking things about the various initiatives and proposals that have been on the table since 1950 is the subject of European Unification (Lodge, J and Spinelli, 1991). Since the first enlargement of the European Community in 1973 northward, which saw the inclusion of the United Kingdom, Ireland and Denmark, more and more countries were clamouring to join the European union and have a taste of feeling united. When the EC recommended that another 10 countries join the union in 2004, it pushed the European Union towards a new level as it become involved in a larger Eastern European market, which in turn helped the EU compete in a larger global economy. We have seen a lot of change and development across the Union over time but some of the problems faced by the founding fathers still plague our leaders today. This Union was to ensure stability across European countries safter the shattering events of the War, to guarantee peace for the future of the EU citizens. Despite this, some people believe that the EU goals have shifted dramatically and are not the same as the original goals of the 1950s. It appears that European integration is less prevalent in this current modern society. There is a reduced sense of togetherness as a Society. Recent surveys taken in different European countries show that some people feel that they are just a citizen of their sole country rather than a citizen of a bigger community- the EU (EU barometer, 2020). This in turn could be damaging to prospects of the EU and could lead to countries leaving since their people feel unattached from the union’s goals and future development plans.

Over recent years, there have been multiple public calls for the European Union to take up a bigger role in areas such as Security and justice, Migration regulation and reception of asylum seekers fleeing from conflict, as well as crime and corruption at our borders. It seems that there are a multitude of issues stemming from our borders and the influx of migrants is becoming too much for them to handle. Immigration was a large factor in why Britain decided to leave the EU and could be a factor in why other countries could potentially leave in the future. There were also calls for improvements in areas of economic and social cohesion and an increase in greater employment opportunities for the public. The original goals made by the EU have shifted since the organisation was first established, but the goals set out when the Treaty of Maastricht was signed were designed to unify Europe in more ways than just economically, 1. To strengthen the democratic governing of participating nations 2. To improve the efficiency of the nation’s 3. To establish economic and financial unification 4. To develop the ‘community social dimension.’5. To establish a security policy for involved nations, and to better protect the future of these member states.

Current Climate of the EU.

Covid-19

A lot has happened in the past decade regarding the European Union, between Brexit, the refugee crisis, and the outbreak of the Covid-19 Pandemic. When the pandemic hit Europe, its economy had decelerated largely, and unemployment had reached its lowest level for years, while inflation remained below 2%. All these events were however accelerated massively by an enormous economic shock as the economies of the member states went into lockdown (social Europe, 2021). Europe is in a particularly difficult stretch in this current climate and depending on what unfolds in this year will directly affect the next few years as well as the economy, quality of life and welfare of the EU’s citizens.

“The European Union is rich, scientifically advanced and endowed with excellent health-care and welfare systems and a political consensus tilted strongly towards looking after its citizens. Yet during the pandemic it has stumbled” (The Economist, 2021). How has Europe fallen so badly behind other countries such as America, and the UK who are indefinitely ahead of the EU in terms of patching up the problems of Covid-19. Covid-19 has swept through Europe’s member states in multiple waves since March 2019. Each new increase in infection brings another round of economic issues not to mention lack of services and jobs to keep the economy ticking over. Europe is facing a huge economic downturn when countries slowly exit lockdown as vaccines ramp up in the coming months. This economic hit could take years to reform. Many experts have also described the downturn as the worst crisis since the great depression (Vatican News, 2020).

The European union is amid attempting to equip its member states with vaccines that will immunise their population from covid-19 so the world can reopen and get back to normal life again. The Advanced Purchase Agreement with BioNTech-Pfizer provides for the initial purchase of 200 million doses on behalf of all EU Member States, plus an option to purchase up to a further 100 million doses. On 15 December 2020, the Commission decided to purchase these 100 million additional doses and will distribute these evenly in the coming months (Europa.eu, 2021). Despite Europe’s immense manpower and political leadership, the teamwork around the handling of the Vaccine distribution has been extremely poor and disappointing. A measly 14% of the European Union’s population has been vaccinated compared to more than half the British population and over 38% of Americans. At this moment in time, it seems that the future of the EU is not as promising or bright as it could be all due to the way the EU is handling Coronavirus in this current state. It will have disastrous economic affects in the future. Not to mention the job loss and lack of spending around the member states which will wipe out small businesses and floor our economy.

Brexit

For the first time in the history of the European Union’s crisis record, Brexit raises extreme public existential questions about the future of the EU. Before, crisis like this have always been interpreted as exceptionally difficult but not impossible challenges, which can be kept under control in the given framework of the Union. And this framework was the continuous deepening of the integration process, the ‘ever closer union’ as stipulated in the preamble of the treaties (Wahl, P, 2016). The European union’s influence on member states is very consistent across all countries but perhaps the shock of Britain voting to leave the EU will encourage other member state leaders to treat the decision of whether to remain in the EU or not a bit more delicately (GFB.com, 2021). For example, a country like France which is very similar to the UK and just as influential in the European Union also has many pf Eurosceptic politicians that could gain traction as Brexit develops. French politician and leader of Frances far right front National party, Marine Le Pen has increased her campaigns for a French referendum on EU membership. Perhaps more member states will have referendums in the future and the European Union could collapse on itself. There have been some calls among the public for a “Frexit” of their own. The Gilet Jaune (Yellow vests) have called for release from the economic prison of the Eurozone. According to the Journal, France was the country with the highest support of a Brexit result, showing that there is also an existing appetite among the French public for a possible referendum (The Journal, 2016). As well as this, the current French stance on immigration and the great Burkini and Hijab debates will no doubt come into debate if France were to go to referendum. However, shocking the Brexit referendum outcome might have been, it is somewhat not surprising. Since 1973 the British public have been the most Eurosceptic electorate in the European Union (B. Hobolt, 2016). The have always slightly doubted the increasing powers and expansion of the EU, and this can be seen by their insistence on retaining the British Pound as their currency to further aid their economy. It is apparent that since the Danes rejected the Maastricht treaty in 1992, referendums held by the European parliament have always had extremely defining consequences. It is plain to see that the Brexit referendum is one of the most significant in the history of the EU. It is probable the unprecedented political and economic outcomes from this exit will likely have considerable effects on the future of the European union. It will undoubtedly harm the EU’s internal equilibrium. Brexit will harm the EU’s cohesion, confidence, and international reputation. The biggest consequence of all, therefore, is that Brexit will undermine the liberal political and economic order for which Britain stands by and could affect the Eurozone banking significantly (Financial Times, 2016). It is another fine example of British exceptionalism and their deep-rooted traditions. A quote by French ex-president Charles de Gaulle states ‘England is in effect insular, she has in all her doings, very marked and very original habits and traditions’.

Future of the European Union

The European Union is an integration of different member states that intertwines different political systems, institutions, and economic styles. Currently the European union holds 27 member states with a combined population of 500 million people, but the oldest continent worldwide. The Eurozone has been revolutionary and eases trade between eurozone countries. However, this single currency market has led the member states to depend heavily on the European union for the success of their economies. Many of the leaders in the European Union have different agendas and goals for their individual countries and it is apparent that Europe needs to focus heavily on working together more often for common goals that will benefit all member states equally.

Euroscepticism could be a very defining factor in having the potential to break up the European Union as we know it today, after what happened in the UK, we should take this deep-rooted phenomenon more seriously. It is important to be able to recognise this as it is vital to realise that support for the Union remains high in bailout-battered member states that have experiences high levels of economic crisis such as Ireland or Spain (OUPblog, 2018). On the other hand, Euroscepticism continues to be common in countries that have hugely benefitted from the eurozone and single market and survived the global financial crisis quite well, the Netherlands and Germany being s prime example.

However, the EU has larger issues now that just differing agendas for each member states leadership. The European continent is the worlds oldest continent and faces a demographic crisis soon. The median age is 45 across the continent and the labour force is set to decline by 50 million people in 2035 (Walt, 2020). Emigration is a common occurrence especially in the East nowadays, young people going elsewhere in search of job opportunities and economic stability. Countries such as Bulgaria and Croatia have lost large percentages of their population in the last decade and this will continue for the next 50 years. With the impending lack of a young labour force economic growth will slow down which leads to less economic opportunities. A senile population also can cause strain on a healthcare system.

As well as this, a surplus older population and less young people tend to have more traditionalist views and more religious which can lead to countrywide rejection of the European Union’s liberal ideas which can damage the EU’s vision for the future. The EU has had many crises since its birth but considering these issues, the union has bonded together and managed to stay a string and stable force in the global political scene.

Conclusion

Since the formation of the EU in 1993 the European Union has dealt with issues that are common problems for other leaderships around the world. The European model changed forever with rapid expansion to the East changing the model and structure of the European Union forever. In this globalized world The European Union should continue to develop its financial, political technological and military capacities to ensure its ability to adapt to global threats and have an input in the development of our world.

The European Council adopted the European Union Counter-Terrorism Strategy (EU CTS) in 2005 as a response to challenges to international security in the increasingly opened European space. It includes four strands of work: preventing people from being turned into terrorists, protecting citizens and infrastructure, pursuing and prosecuting terrorists, and responding effectively to terrorist attacks (EU CTS, 2005, p. 3). The Strategy provides for a common framework of counter-terrorism measures for all member states. This paper provides research and analysis of the EU CTS, evaluates its performance about the terrorist attacks that occurred after its adoption, and makes specific recommendations to improve its effectiveness.

Research and Analysis

The EU CTS is primarily aimed at combating international terrorism both within and outside the EU borders. The international nature of terrorism requires the consolidation of the efforts of all member states. Researchers note that the “EU counter-terrorism can be perceived as a form of multi-level governance in which the EU is one player amidst several others” (Den Boer & Wiegand, 2015, p. 377). The Strategy consists of 41 items and is divided into six sections, including an introduction, four sections on the strands of work mentioned above, and the democratic accountability part.

The set of preventive measures of the Strategy is mainly directed at the prevention of terroristic radicalization and recruitment. The key priorities in this area are the criminalization of incitement and recruitment, the monitoring of problematic behavior in the media and the Internet, and the implementation of appropriate social and intercultural policies (EU CTS, 2005, p. 9). Most of these are measures that each member state applies independently within its legal framework. Their policies vary due to certain socio-cultural and migration reasons.

Researchers note that “the radicalization of European Muslims is seen as a concern and international terrorism is perceived as being linked to a wide range of other threats” in the UK, France, and the Netherlands (Londras & Doody, 2015, p. 127). At the same time, that is not as common for Scandinavian countries and many Eastern European countries (Londras & Doody, 2015, p. 127). Accordingly, the actions to prevent radicalization and recruitment differ in these countries, depending on the degree of urgency of the problem.

Besides, the Strategy includes several measures aimed at protecting against terrorism. They focus primarily on migration and visa policy issues, as well as on improving security arrangements in critical transport and infrastructure facilities (EU CTS, 2005, p. 11). Leonard states that key EU border control measures include, but are not limited to

1. strengthening external border controls,
2. enhancing capacities for identifying terrorists at borders,
3. improving identity document security” (2015, p. 312).

Thus, the European Council attempts to incorporate these measures into the open border policy and the EU citizens’ freedom of movement. These protective measures are primarily based on the assumption that the terrorist threat comes from outside European borders. Nevertheless, this thesis is rather unconfirmed, and “it is impossible to precisely assess the effectiveness of any specific border control measure in combating terrorism” (Leonard, 2015, p. 327). Therefore, the Strategy encourages to make the best use of research activity in this area (EU CTS, 2005, p. 11). As a consequence, measures to pursue terrorists across borders acquire special significance.

The range of measures devoted to the pursuit of terrorism is extensive enough. It includes the strengthening of national anti-terrorist arrangements, the consolidation of police and judicial efforts through Europol and Eurojust, and the tackling of weapon distribution and illicit financing of terrorism (EU CTS, 2005, p. 14). Joining efforts in this area implies the creation of a unified regulatory framework. According to Den Boer and Wiegand, “the counter-terrorism professionals in the Member States gradually begin to work according to standard protocols and working procedures” (2015, p. 382).

Despite this, the national authorities of Member States still have a more significant role to play in the active pursuit of terrorists. Researchers note that the “EU’s influence on the way counter-terrorism action is conducted on the ground by member states remains extremely limited,” and “operational action is by and large a national responsibility” (Argomaniz, Bures, & Kaunert, 2015, p. 202). Thus, the EU CTS is just one of the first steps towards the consolidation of European efforts in this respect.

The fourth section describes the countermeasures taken in response to the terrorist attack. These include the revision of legislation on the protection of civilians, the development of risk assessment, and the improvement of approaches to assisting victims of terrorism and their families (EU CTS, 2005, p. 16). The Strategy emphasizes that the possibility of terrorist acts cannot be reduced to zero (EU CTS, 2005, p. 15). This group of actions is directed at minimizing the consequences of these attacks, as well as at compensating those who suffered from them.

A large number of publications were devoted to the EU CTS in 2015. At that time, exactly ten years had passed since its adoption. Moreover, that year, there was a major and extremely resonant terrorist act in the offices of the French magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris. According to Den Boer and Wiegand, “gradually, increased attention has been devoted to the ‘root causes’ of terrorism and radicalization” (2015, p. 381). In addition to revising the approach to counter-terrorism measures, the Strategy has been criticized by researchers who have reviewed its effectiveness since the case.

Application and Performance

It should be noted that the EU CTS itself is a reaction to the rise of terrorist activity at the very beginning of the 21st century. Researchers note that “as a reaction to the terrorist attacks in New York, Madrid, and London, the European Union has become increasingly active in the field of counter-terrorism” (Argomaniz et al., 2015, p. 196). These attacks occurred in 2001, 2004, and 2005, respectively, and the Strategy accumulates experience from these events. Nevertheless, its counter-terrorism measures were unable to prevent subsequent shooting in Charlie Hebdo and were also subject to a certain amount of criticism.

The terrorist act in Charlie Hebdo was one of the most notorious and dramatic events that questioned the effectiveness of the EU’s counter-terrorism policy. According to Didier and Guild, these events were followed by the debates about “radicalization and counter-terrorism policies for national and European authorities to deploy in order to best respond to these and future terrorist attacks” (2015, p. 1).

One of the reasons terrorists have succeeded in carrying out the attack is the regulations on freedom of movement for EU citizens. Both terrorists involved in the shooting were French-Algerian Muslims and French citizens. Researchers state that the “EU freedom of movement rules” prohibited “systematic checks and surveillance of EU citizens on the move, which is precisely what” EU regulations, introduced after the Paris terrorist attack, have established (Didier & Guild, 2015, p. 2). The Strategy had not previously provided for such opportunities, and potential terrorists who were EU citizens could benefit from such freedoms.

Moreover, the fact that the terrorists were EU citizens challenges the assumption that the most significant terrorist threat comes from outside European borders. Leonard, when discussing this thesis, states that “border control measures have only played a limited role in the EU’s counter-terrorism policy” (2015, p. 327). This means, among other things, that investigative and intelligence activities make a more significant contribution to the effectiveness of counter-terrorism measures. The provisions of the Strategy indicated that most operational activities are national prerogative, as noted earlier. Thus, it does not create a specific organizational entity that would consolidate the efforts of member countries and have enhanced authorities in this area.

Moreover, democratic principles of European law impose certain restrictions on activities to pursue terrorists. It bears mentioning that only “the EU counter-terrorism responses to the Paris events” provided for the possibility of using “large-scale (blanket) surveillance and data retention instruments” (Didier & Guild, 2015, p. 2). The EU CTS did not include any regulations that could be considered civil rights violations, and therefore, its instruments are rather limited. What it involves is a balance between the right to privacy and the effectiveness of counter-terrorism measures.

It should be noted that the terrorists were rather rapidly detected by the French law enforcement authorities and eliminated two days after the attack. The EU CTS states that member states “have the lead role in providing the emergency response to a terrorist incident on their territory” (2005, p. 15). At the same time, “the EU collectively has the capability to respond in solidarity to an extreme emergency which could constitute a serious risk to the Union as a whole” (EU CTS, 2005, p. 15). These Strategy guidelines have been fully implemented by the Joint Statement of January 11, an input of the EU Counter-Terrorism Coordinator, and the Riga Joint Statement. Afterward, several EU counter-terrorism measures have been revised and supplemented.

Possible Areas for Improvement

It should be noted that many improvements have been made during the review and revising of the EU CTS framework. According to Didier and Guild, the counter-terrorism proposals concerned “fostering exchange of intelligence-led information and use of large-scale databases allowing for systematic surveillance of EU citizen and resident movement in the Schengen territory” (2015, p. 2). Although this measure affects, to some extent, the privacy rights of citizens, it should be considered very reasonable and effective given the circumstances of the Paris terrorist attack. The priority, in this case, is given to security, which is consistent with the contextual realities.

The main recommendation that could be made for strengthening the Strategy concerns the consolidation and unification of member states’ forces through the establishment of supranational structures. Operational actions related to countering the terrorist threat could be much more effective if the central powers for their implementation were given to a European regional entity.

Given the principle of state sovereignty in the EU, the possibility of such an initiative being implemented is rather low, as it would require the transfer of a large number of national executive functions. Nevertheless, the need for a unified executive functioning in the areas of terrorist pursuit, combating illicit arms supply, and financing is evident. That can be achieved through other forms of law enforcement cooperation among member states.

It should also be noted that some measures may not be considered worthwhile to implement. There is an opinion that “security measures at borders, ports, and airports” may “produce transportation costs that may distort economic activity, while not being a particularly effective security means at the same time” (Londras & Doody, 2015, p. 130). Such arrangements are intended to ensure the primary security of all infrastructure facilities but are not targeted. Preventive policies aimed at preventing radicalization and recruitment may prove to be more reasonable. It can be stressed that such a policy is being pursued by both the EU and the UN, as well as by various states in particular.

Nonetheless, researchers are still unaware of the psychological reasons for young people’s desire to support terrorists. The research of psychological factors contributing to the desire to participate in terrorist activities can have a far greater impact than any other preventive measure. It is worth emphasizing that this will be in line with the tendency of the research of root causes of terrorism and radicalization.

Conclusion

The EU CTS includes several measures aimed at preventing recruitment and radicalization, protecting civilians and infrastructure facilities, securing borders, pursuing terrorists, and responding to terrorist attacks. These regulations are particularly effective concerning the external terrorist threat, but they cannot always prevent the risk emanating from within the EU. Several weaknesses in the Strategy were identified as a result of the terrorist attack in the offices of Charlie Hebdo magazine in Paris.

The EU has made several adjustments to its counter-terrorism policy as a result of this event, mainly concerning the systematic surveillance of EU citizens and resident movement in the Schengen territory. Though, other possible improvements to the Strategy have also been proposed about the consolidation of member states’ efforts and the analysis of the root causes of radicalization and recruitment.

References

Argomaniz, J., Bures, O., & Kaunert, C. (2015). A decade of EU counter-terrorism and intelligence: A critical assessment. Intelligence and National Security, 30 (2-3), 191-206.

Council of the European Union. (2005). The European Union Counter-Terrorism Strategy, November 30, 2005. Brussels, Belgium: Council of the European Union.

De Londras, F., & Doody, J. (Eds.). (2015). The impact, legitimacy and effectiveness of EU counter-Terrorism. London, England: Routledge.

Den Boer, M., & Wiegand, I. (2015). From convergence to deep integration: Evaluating the impact of EU counter-terrorism strategies on domestic arenas. Intelligence and National Security, 30 (2-3), 377-401.

Didier, B., & Guild, E. (2015). The EU counter-terrorism policy responses to the attacks in Paris. Towards an EU security and liberty agenda. Brussels, Belgium: CEPS.

Leonard, S. (2015). Border controls as a dimension of the European Union’s counter-terrorism policy: A critical assessment. Intelligence and National Security, 30 (2-3), 306-332.

Introduction

Every aspect of life is governed by terms and conditions which are usually set by the Stakeholders concerned, written down or stipulated as policies, rules and regulations. All these rules, regulations, terms and conditions are encompassed in a law (Adams 2006). Therefore a law can be defined as all the principles and rules which are legal, adopted and utilized by organizations to govern their activities as well as providing the way forward for solving any conflict or disputes arising in the process of executing their duties. The European Union is composed majorly of countries which are geographically located in the continent of Europe, although there are some other countries outside the continent which are also affiliated to the union. Among those countries outside European Union but are involved in the body include Russia, Turkey, Israel among others (Gardiner 2006).

Commercialization football

Commercialization is a term which stands for transformation of a certain act towards the business aspect. Most of the countries worldwide are transforming the traditional aspect of sports for leisure to the modernized business sports, where football has not been spared (Adams 2006).

The modern football in the European Union has been highly professionalized and like any other commercial organizations, the sports departments have to be guided and regulated by sports policies which are entailed in the main sports law of the European Union (McArdle 2000).

Various countries in the union have different bodies in their mother countries which governs their professional football activities and events. For example in England we have bodies like the English premier league, the football association. Countries like Germany have in place Bundesliga, in Spain there is la liga. Almost every country this union has one or more football body which governs their domestic professional football activities at home. In the umbrella body of European professional football, other organs like the UEFA champion’s league and the Euro cup are involved in governing football tournaments in the continent. All these bodies have in place policies which regulate the events so as to make the football activities to run or operate smoothly. This commercialization move has had a great impact on professional football in countries and states who are non-EU members as well. This is through adoption of the European union’s modernized and commercialized football, the exchange or trade between players of the different states (McArdle 2000).

The European law versus professional sports

Gardiner & Cagier 2000 argued that professional football in the European union was a sport which needed to be governed by legal regulations as the entire sports industry was experiencing changes as a result of commercialization of football which was bringing in a lot of challenges and legal issues. Debates were on the increase on whether the professionalization of football was meeting the set guidelines and policies regulating the commercial activities in the European Union block and its commercial football activities with non-member states (Blanpain & Inston 1996). The compatibility of the laws governing the modernized business football in the block, with other laws by football bodies outside the EU block was an issue of debate (Gardiner 2006). Its law on commercial football had to be in line with laws other football governing bodies outside the block like the International Football Federation among other bodies affiliated to professional football.

Gardiner 2006 continued arguing that another major issue which arose in this debate was whether the commercialized professional football in the block was addressing the issue of employment to citizens within the European union, and to what extend was it prioritizing the employment of its citizens of its member to those from states outside the European union block. Another issue of concern was whether the professional football sport in the European Union addressed the socio-cultural issues arising as a result of the sports in their policies. The big question on this issue was on commerce versus culture; how the ever increasing and growing professional sport was affecting the cultures and communities social wellbeing of the Europeans and the non-Europeans investing in the commercial sports industry (Gardiner 2006). The impact of this professionalization on individual players who are non-citizens of the EU is evident, as it still has some effects on their country’s commercial football activities.

The legal issues on immigration was also an issue arising in the debates, and the concern was whether the European union’s legal policies and laws of the professional football bodies on immigration were in compatibility with the established laws on immigration. This was an issue the laws were to address, as this commercialization would mean an influx of non-Europeans aiming to earn a living in the European commercialized football as well as investors wanting to invest in the established commercial football clubs (Gardiner & Cagier 2000).

Gardiner & Cagier 2000 went further to note that this commercialization of football, could lead to undesirable intervention of the European law. Increase in commercialization of professional football could impact negatively on the professional sports industry, as it would be difficult to differentiate and incorporate together rules that are economic and those which are on the ‘sporting side’. For example the discrimination which can arise as result of the nationality of a sportsman when it comes to matters like selection of a sportsman in the international team could have negative impacts economically on the individual’s employment as well as the country’s economic gain from the non-national in the professional football industry (McArdle 2000)..

The issue of professional sports bodies within the European Union block to independently regulate their football affairs without much interference from the union’s commercial laws. Gardiner & Cagier 2000, argued that the possibility of these professional bodies being granted the freedom to regulate their affairs by the European Union where extremely low. If these professional bodies were to be given the chance to regulate themselves, probability was high that illegal and controversial matters would be swindled to evade subjection to law therefore their independence from the European Union law was highly unlikely.

Commercialized football sport encounters problems and challenges in complying with laws of the European Union, especially the competition law as noted by Foster who argued that the European Commission in article 81(3) in page sixty, should embrace on its powers and authority to make sure that revenues were redistributed increasingly to the clubs and leagues which were perceived to be weaker. This would be used as a provision of exemptions of those weak clubs in that article.

The European law has affected the commercialization of football in non-member either positively or negatively as discussed below (Gardiner & Cagier 2000).

Positive impacts of the law on non-EU members states

On the positive front, the European law which favors the both citizens and non-citizens of the EU community equally, is consequently beneficial to the non-EU member states. Laws which have positive impacts to all players are more likely to be adopted by non-EU member states.

The EU professional sports policy has adopted relevant means on re-regulating the commercial sporting activities to suit the welfare of both professional players from EU states as well as the non-EU member states. In the context of the European continent, the court of justice of Europe had succinct ruling on sporting organizations such as clubs and federations. It ruled out that these organizations can not act in a way as to breach the legal provisions stipulated in the EU sports law in regard to both countries in the block and those which are non-members. This re-regulation of the commercialized sport has been the force driving the block to achieve and foster an international understanding between the member states and non-member states (Pearson n.d).

Parrish 2003 conducted an extensive study on the regulation of the European sports law on commercial sporting activities and concluded that its main aim was to provide a free European sports market to both countries affiliated to the union as well as those which are not. The regulation was also meant to cultivate a positive impact on socio-cultural aspect of the professionalized sport. Parrish 2003 also confirmed that the internalization of the legal norms and practices regulating the sport resulted to minimal interferences from other external legal intercessions and government policies on the regulation of the sport.

This internal regulation of sports bodies in the EU has had an impact on the business football outside the EU block in several ways; for instance in the American and African continents, professional football has taken into the footsteps of Europe. Professional football clubs have emerged to the level of European clubs, in order to compete effectively and internationally (Parrish 2003). A good example is the Los Angeles Galaxy football club in United States of America, which has risen to the height to have transfer agreements with first class clubs in Europe like the Italy’s Ac Milan football club. In this case, an international player (David Beckham) was transferred on loan between the two clubs in an agreement. One club being on the EU block while the being outside the block, had the agreement easily effected as the clubs had their own internal decision-making organs, which were not having the intervention of larger bodies like the EU of FIFA. This flexibility on international professional club transfers has had a great impact on promoting the development of professional football in countries outside the EU block. Gardiner 2006 noted that many clubs out of EU are benefiting largely as a result of these intercontinental transfers therefore igniting the craving for countries all over the globe to imitate, adopting and initiating commercialized football just as it is in Europe.

The post-Bosman ruling had some impacts on the football transfer system. In the year 2000, the European Union claimed was concerned that football bodies were not adhering to the international system of football transfers on the issue of movement freedom, involving EU countries and non-EU states. Under the Amsterdam treaty, the stakeholders in the union’s sports law arrived to a conclusion that football players could terminate their contracts of employment as they wished and the amount to be paid for compensation was not to be huge (Pearson n.d).

The effect of this ruling on the aspect of the systems legality on foreign players was welcomed by their countries of originality. The ruling in this case of Bosman as made by the court of justice of Europe in 1995, made decisions to abolish the ‘quota systems’ in the European union(Blanpain & Inston 1996). It was also supposed to regulate all the activities of the organizations involved in governing football activities in the member states. Activities of bodies like UEFA competitions were also bound in the ruling even though it had its base in Switzerland, which was a non-EU member in Europe (Pearson n.d).

Abolishment of these illegal transfer systems as well the illegal quota systems which existed prior to the case, led to the proffesionalization of the football sport in Europe, which consequently spread to other countries all over the world, which initiated the move of commercializing their football activities (McArdle 2000).

The integration of the commercial sports model of Europe with other continent’s models, the perspective of the modernized football for business is greatly taking root in non-EU member states. Before such integration moves were initiated in the sports arena in Europe, there was an increasing worry on the increasingly unchecked commercialization as well as high rise in legal intervention from sports governing bodies. All these were posing a grave danger to the cohesion evidenced between the European countries and others outside Europe (Gardiner & Cariger 2000). The American sports model on the other hand was receiving an international rejection; hence there was a concern in Europe to re-establish its sports model in order to the future developments and the sovereignty of the sport globally (Gardiner & Cariger 2000).

Later there were observations in Europe, that attempts were being made on integrating both the European and the American commercial sports systems. For instance a clause in the recent UEFA plan was aimed at abolishing the system of promotion and demotion of clubs playing in the tournaments governed by UEFA. The move to adopt the American style of franchise system in sports, whereby countries could utilize club-relocating was supported globally as the move would make Europe and other countries outside Europe to utilize the opportunity of untapped sports market all over the world. The proposed ‘Atlantic League’ if incorporated could expand the sporting activities of European football clubs even outside the continent. This move could be highly beneficial to other countries outside the EU block in terms of employment and development of the commercialized football (Gardiner & Cariger 2000).

McArdle 2000 seconded by Gardiner & Carriger, all noticed that the professional football sport worldwide, was aimed at ‘profit maximization’, a system which was adopted in the European sports model from the economic model of north America. This system is proving to be economically desirable even to countries outside Europe hence shaping and promoting development of commercial football globally (Blanpain & Inston 1996).

The issue of drugs and doping has been thoroughly addressed by the European Union law on sports. The law has termed drug use on sports as cheating which goes with harsh penalties to the professional involved in the act. This phenomenon has been assimilated in many other countries outside the EU region so as to be able to conduct actions like football transfers between countries. This is a great boost to the development of commercial football in all countries globally (Gardiner & Cagier 2000).

The new tendency of the European Union law on abolishment of the discriminating quota system was a great relief for football players of non-EU originality and their countries of originality. Parrish 2003, after the ruling of Bosman’s case, observed that the European Union sports unit law illegalized any acts of football transfers which had a negative impact on a player or which was contradicting international set policies on the transfers. After the ruling of Bosman case, the benefit was to be not only for players originating from the region but also to all professional football players all over the world. The restrictions on the length of player’s contract in the European clubs were now over, and this meant that players could now prolong or sign for longer contracts in the clubs. The ruling in this case would guarantee players better wages, better terms in their contracts among other benefits. Automatically, their countries of origin would indirectly benefit if its professional players were benefiting abroad. Their incomes would complement their countries income from abroad and this would impact positively on the countries’ concern on commercial football sport (Pearson n.d).

Negative impacts of the law on non-EU member states

A number of negative impacts have been inflicted on football sportsmen from outside the European Union block. Among the most outstanding impact is that one on discrimination in terms of sportsman’s race and/or nationality in employment, access to other resources and violation of their rights(Griffith 1997). Even though this has got a little direct impact on business football, negative impacts are realized on the long run. The quota systems in the European Union is a major concern for professional football players from non-member in the block. Pearson on the Bosman case points out clearly that limits were still imposed on players of non-EU originality (Blanpain & Inston 1996). Prior to the Bosman’s case, the limitations of these quota systems were such that players from outside the EU block were to be limited in participating in certain matches. Parrish 2003 cited the UEFA champion league tournament as an example, whereby not more than three foreign players could play in a specific match. Even though after the case, the quotas were made flexible somehow, some countries have the quotas still operation for foreigners, but secretly or indirectly. This has had negative impacts on the foreign players as well as the professional sports industry in Europe. After the case was ruled out, conclusion was arrived at, that any quota system which discriminating against foreigners playing in a certain club as now illegal (Parrish 2003).

Illegal football transfers also have had a negative effect on the progress and development of commercial football sport in EU as well as in states outside the EU region. Gardiner & Cagier 2000 in their investigations of the cases of ‘Karpin V and Balog T’, established that the European Union commission on professional sports negotiated with the International Football Federation (FIFA) which resulted to the sale of rights of the UEFA champions league to the European Union(Blanpain & Inston 1996). This meant that the latter could not exercise their affairs independently, but with influence from the European Union, whose laws could suit the citizen while violating the rights of sportsmen from countries who are non-members of the EU (Bowyer 2002). This would adversely affect the mutual cooperation between the states in the EU block with those outside the block. The trading agreement between the countries would be hampered as UEFA champions league would have no mandate to safeguard the rights of sportsmen non-EU members therefore laws such as heavy taxation among others were most likely to occur. The consultations between FIFA, European commission and other football authorities were said to be practiced with a lot illegalities in the transfer system and this resulted to the implementation of new regulations by FIFA which were released in Brazil’s Buenos Aires, shortly before circular 769 which was full of controversy as it could give professional footballers freedom to move from any professional football club.

Bowyer 2002 criticized this transfer system arguing that it was full of irregularities and that Europe’s clubs in conjunction with other governing authorities such as the European commission were adamant and reluctant in modifying this transfer system which gave the clubs the power and authority to buy football players and selling them just like worthless ‘pieces of meat’. This system of football transfers was highly detrimental especially to footballers of non-EU origin (Griffith 1997).

Conclusion

In the commercial football industry, laws must be present to govern and regulate all the activities involved so as to create and maintain a balance between the ‘business’ and the ‘sports’ aspects. The European Union law on sports in article 39 entails all football rules which should govern the practices of the sport.

Even though the European Union has got a little role to play in sports, its commercial laws on any commercial body where the modernized professional football takes position in, take effect in regulating this commercialized sport. Its sports unit is only involved in collaborating institutions concerned with sports, as well as football federations. The case of Bosman brought out issues like the E.U’s common market which had got some rights of movement which prohibited professional football players and are citizens of the EU on nationality quotas basis, which is a main blow, not only to sportsmen of non-EU countries, but also citizens of European community. The move by European Union to declare quotas illegal revived the soveighnity of the sport, as it abolished restrictions on foreign players, even though some restriction were still held on footballers from outside the European union block (Pearson n.d).

A need for reforms is then evident to fully professionalize the sport. Therefore the European Union law in its policies and rules on sports has played a great significance in both developing and down turning the progress of commercial football in countries which are out of the EU block.

References

Adams, A 2006, Law for Business Students, Pearson/Longman, London.

Blanpain, R & Inston, R 1996 The Bosman Case, Sweet & Maxwell, London.

Bowyer, L 2002, soccernet England, ESPN.com, Web.

Foster, K 2000 Can Sport Be Regulated by Europe, Cambridge, London.

Gardiner, S & Caiger A, 2000, Professional Sport in the EU: Regulation and Re-Regulation, Asser Press, The Hague.

Gardiner, S 2006 Sports Law, Oxford: Cavendish.

Griffith, D 1997, Law and the Business of Sport, Butterworths, London.

McArdle, D 2000, From Boot Money to Bosman: Football, Society and the Law, Oxford: Cavendish

Parrish R, 2003, Sports Law and Policy in the European Union, Manchester University Press, Manchester City.

Pearson, G ,Factsheet, University of Liverpool FIG, Web.

Introduction

When the European Union (EU) was founded in the 1950s, it consisted of six countries. It is both an economic and political union currently with 28 member states. The six states that founded the EU included Italy, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Belgium, France and West Germany. The European Union formulated trade laws that applied to all the member states.

The passport controls were abolished in several states. This was mainly to eliminate the restriction of movement among those states. It also facilitated the free movement of capital, services and products. Other changes that came about after the founding of the union include the enactment of legislation in justice and home affairs, and the maintenance of common laws that govern issues of trade and other factors that facilitate regional development.

The European Union developed an interest in global security and other external relations. It has been involved in several missions around the world. Currently, the EU plays a major role in the international system.^[1] This paper aims at bringing an understanding of the European Union’s position as an actor in international political economy.

EU as an Actor in International Political Economy

The capacity of the EU as an actor in the international system started during its inception and gradually expanded over time. With time, it introduced foreign policy initiatives in many states of the world. In order to achieve this, it used various foreign policy tools. They emphasised on building the economy and diplomacy.^[2] They have also been involved in military activities with the aim of enforcing and keeping peace. However, this position was previously not included in the Treaty of Rome.

Even the observers had not anticipated that the EU would be involved in such activities as it took a global approach. Many predicted that the EU would not be able to succeed in its endeavours especially in the Middle East. Many observers were also quick to conclude that it would never be able to organize its own military operations. However, some were optimistic that the EU would successfully secure a portion of the world and enjoy the fruits of its labour.

With time, it was evident that the pessimists were incorrect to think that the EU was incapable of succeeding in its endeavours. Despite the fact that it had its fair share of failures and setbacks, it has experienced institutional growth.^[3] The result of foreign policy has positively impacted on a number of global problems. One of the changes includes the change in the terminology used to refer to external relations. The term ‘European Foreign Policy’ came about to describe all the activities of the EU in the global scene.

Another political interest was seen in the development of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP).^[4] Together with this, it developed the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP).

The EU, the U.S. and NATO

Several experts have predicted that as the EU grows stronger, it may overpower the influence of the U.S. However, it has been argued that the European Union has the United States’ best interests at heart. Since the Cold War ended, changes occurred in the transatlantic relationship. The focus was on the partnership between Europe and the U.S. towards managing the various global issues. This partnership has been instrumental in tackling some of the common threats and issues today.

Therefore, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) maintains its dominant position and role of managing transatlantic security affairs. The U.S. was ready to support the EU in developing its security policies. However, they were not to overpower NATO.^[5] This is particularly because it is where the U.S. has a strong voice when it comes to security issues in Europe.

The European Union as Promoter of Democracy and Human Rights

The EU was involved in international politics since it showed its interest in promoting human rights and democracy.^[6] This role started off in the 60s as the European Court of Justice affirmed that it had respect for the fundamental human rights.

One of the developments in this regard may be seen in the way EU adopted the European Initiative for Development and Human Rights in 1999. The Charter of Fundamental Rights was also adopted three years later. In the drafting of the constitutional treaty, that charter was included and in addition to that, a declaration of the acquisition of the European Convention on Human Rights by the European Union.

The Luxembourg European Council declaration in 1991 was one of the ways the European Union showed that it was committed to its new role of promoting human rights and democracy in the global scene. The European Union’s commitment was also consolidated when it announced its commitment to promoting democracy and human rights in third world countries.

Foreign and Security Policy

The member states unanimously consented to adopt the Common Foreign and Security Policy. This policy provided a platform for the adoption of common principles to guide the security and political issues of the states.^[7] The states were to commit to a similar diplomatic approach and perform joint activities.

In order to improve security, the members of the Union have explored various ways of increasing their military capabilities. However, this venture has faced several challenges since there has been limited success. Another important component is the state’s civilian capability. Most of the CSDP missions have involved civilian operations, which have been successful. Such operations include rule of law and the training of police force.^[8]

CSDP Missions in Europe, Africa and Asia

The EU’s involvement in military and civilian operations is more of a political undertaking than an economic one. Several CSDP missions have been launched all over the world. Some of these operations have been concluded in recent years while some are still ongoing.^[9]

Missions in Europe

The states that have been of concern are mainly the former Soviet Union and former Yugoslavia. There are several reasons why EU initiated missions in Europe. One of the reasons is the fact that the EU needed to ‘take care of its own backyard’. There were several failures that were associated with the Balkan Wars.

Another reason for engagement was in order to create a good image in order to attract potential members. It was obvious that other countries could only sign for membership if Europe itself was whole, free and peaceful. Another reason was so as to safeguard its own interests. They feared that the issues of instability could spill over into the Union.

Missions in Africa

Africa has been a major target when it comes to security issues. Some of the major reasons for targeting Africa included its geographical proximity and the possibility of issues spilling over to the EU due to instability. The historical ties with the continent due to colonialism was also a motivating factor. There were humanitarian concerns that drove the need to get involved. The EU has maintained a great political interest in Africa and this has given it the responsibility of intervening in case problematic issues arise.

Missions in Asia

Several operations have been launched in these regions. Three areas in this region have been of great concern and have attracted European involvement. These areas include Afghanistan, Iraq and the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Many European states have been engaged deeply in the case of Afghanistan.

However, this has mainly been through NATO. As for the Israel-Palestinian conflict, the EU has engaged actively in political consensus. However, it has been unable to engage politically in the case of Iraq but has opted to be involved at a small-scale level.

Enlargement and Neighbourhood Policy

Following several accession negotiations, the EU managed to increase the number of its members to twenty-seven.^[10] This recruitment process occurred in 2004 and 2007. The countries that were involved had to pass through a long and demanding process. The countries had to meet certain technical, legal and political requirements.

Other factors that were observed included the laws of the land, human rights issues and democracy. After successfully completing the process, Croatia finally completed and became the 28^th member of the European Union. The EU is continuously seeking to expand its territory and the current candidates include Turkey, Macedonia, Iceland, Montenegro and Serbia. These five states are the official membership candidates.

The European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) was introduced to facilitate future growth of the EU. This policy caused the development of deeper economic and political ties with states that had not been considered potential candidates for membership. With this initiative, several countries agreed to bilateral action plans.

This way, the EU would be able to recommend certain economic and political reforms to be adopted by the countries. Countries that would adopt the recommended reforms by the EU would be able to benefit from economic ties and fair trade policies. They would also benefit from technical assistance and humanitarian aid.

Development Assistance and Humanitarian Aid

The European Union is the largest aid donor. It accounts for more that 40% of humanitarian aid and over 50% of development assistance. Its member states and other affiliated states agree to the underlying principles.

In case of any crisis involving natural disaster or armed conflict, the EU would provide emergency assistance. The body that manages this activity is the European Commission’s Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection Directorate-general (DG ECHO). Other policies were launched to help deal with issues such as governance, education, health and poverty.^[11]

Summary of European Union’s role in the Global Scene

A summary of the political roles played by EU around the world are outlined below.

Peace building

The European Union has played a major role in building peace among several countries. This has mainly been through the provision of economic and political support. Some of the examples were seen in the case of the Yugoslav Wars in the Western Balkans and the conflict that arose between Kosovo and Serbia. The EU facilitated the ‘Belgrade-Pristina’ dialogue in this case.

The European Union worked hand-in-hand with Russia, the United Nations and the U.S. To achieve this, they work towards resolving the disputes between Arabs and Israeli.^[12]

Human rights

The EU has ensured that the human rights are respected globally. It has done this by ensuring that they are made central to EU’s external relations. It has ensured this is the case by holding political dialogues with third world countries. It has also developed policies to facilitate this venture.

Building global security

The EU has worked to improve global security. This has been seen in its involvement in civilian and military missions around the world. This is done mainly under the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). Some of the objectives include the enhancement of security on the borders and the training of the local police. By June 2012, twenty-five operations had been carried out under the CSDP.^[13] They involved the use of civilian and military instruments in Asia, Africa and Europe. Some of the operations within the three continents included the following;

1. European Union Military Operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
2. European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo.
3. European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia.
4. European Union Security Sector Reform Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
5. European Union Somalia Training Mission.
6. European Union Naval Force Somalia.
7. European Union Capacity Building in Niger (EUCAP – Sahel Niger).
8. European Union Police Mission to Afghanistan.
9. European Union Military Operation in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

The Union has also been involved in negotiating the Kyoto Protocol. This was deemed necessary following the concerns about global climate change. With its low-carbon agenda, it has remained very instrumental in pushing towards change for the better. The political role may also be seen in the way it focuses on formulating laws concerning climate change.

Trade

The EU created trade ties resulting in a large trading bloc. Common trade laws are applicable to its members. While trading with international partners, free and fair trade is promoted.

Conclusion

After it was founded in 1958, the European Union (EU) has enlarged its territory to include 28 member states. The EU has been well known for its involvement in the economical wellbeing of its member states. This is mainly through the provision of humanitarian aid and development assistance. Its involvement in facilitating easy trade may be seen in the way it facilitated the free movement of capital, services and goods.

However, the EU has also taken part in influencing the political atmosphere around the world. This may be seen in the way it has been involved in various activities such as the promotion of democracy and human rights. It has also been involved in the shaping of the foreign and security policy. The EU has also been involved in various military and civilian missions across the globe. It continues to enlarge its territory as it develops enlargement and neighbourhood policies.

Bibliography

Allen, David, and Alfred Pijpers. European foreign policy-making and the Arab-Israeli conflict. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1984.

Debié, Franck. “The EU as a continent wide political entity: External normative actor and internal normative power.” IERI Working Papers 11(2013): 1-9.

“European Union External Action: About CSDP – Overview.” EUROPA. 2013. Web.

Ginsberg, Roy. “Conceptualizing the European Union as an International Actor: Narrowing the Theoretical Capacity-Expectations Gap.” Journal of Common Market Studies 2(1999): 1-29.

Ginsberg, Roy. The European Union in International Politics: Baptism by Fire. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2001.

Hill, Christopher, and Michael Smith. International Relations and the European Union (2^nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.

Langenhove, Luk, and Léonie Maes. “The Role of the EU in Peace and Security: Human Security, Peace, Regional Integration.” United Nations University. 2012. Web.

Meunier, Sophie, and Kathleen McNamara. Making History: European Integration and Institutional Change at Fifty. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.

“EU Common Foreign and Security Policy.” Government Offices of Sweden. 2009. Web.

Mix, Derek. “The European Union: Foreign and Security Policy.” Congressional Research Service 7(2013): 1-25.

Nugent, Neill. The Government and Politics of the European Union (6th ed.). New York: Duke University Press, 2006.

Footnotes

1. Sophie Meunier and Kathleen McNamara, Making History: European Integration and Institutional Change at Fifty, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007).
2. Roy Ginsberg, “Conceptualizing the European Union as an International Actor: Narrowing the Theoretical Capacity-Expectations Gap,” Journal of Common Market Studies 2(1999): 16.
3. Meunier and McNamara, Making History: European Integration and Institutional Change at Fifty.
4. Derek Mix, “The European Union: Foreign and Security Policy,” Congressional Research Service 7(2013): 20.
5. Franck Debié, “The EU as a continent wide political entity: External normative actor and internal normative power,” IERI Working Papers 11(2013): 6.
6. Christopher Hill and Michael Smith, International Relations and the European Union (2^nd ed.), (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011).
7. Mix, “The European Union: Foreign and Security Policy,” 22.
8. “EU Common Foreign and Security Policy,” Government Offices of Sweden, 2009.
9. “European Union External Action: About CSDP – Overview,” EUROPA, 2013.
10. Roy Ginsberg, The European Union in International Politics: Baptism by Fire, (Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2001).
11. Neill Nugent, The Government and Politics of the European Union (6th ed.), (New York: Duke University Press, 2006).
12. David Allen and Alfred Pijpers, European foreign policy-making and the Arab-Israeli conflict, (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1984).
13. Luk Langenhove and Léonie Maes, “The Role of the EU in Peace and Security: Human Security, Peace, Regional Integration,” United Nations University, 2012.

Introduction

Ancient people always moved from one place to another and made the current emigration map of the world. However, compared with the ancient time, the term emigration has not changed a lot because people’s aims of emigration are still the same: to seek for job opportunities, to find a better job, to enroll in a better learning institution among other reasons.

Currently, the geopolitics of the world is changed and states are trying to form unions due to the benefits which come with forming such unions. For example, the European Union (EU) might be the best example of these kinds of unions. The European Union has its own rules and regulations which govern the relationship and interaction of the member states.

The union has many regulations with one of the main regulations being free movement within the union by citizens belonging to nations of the union. It is not only a right that a citizen of a union member state can travel, but also he/she can move, stay and find a job within the EU.

However, from time to time there have been rising some controversial issues related to the free movement of union member citizens within the EU. The new entrant states do not have the same ‘freedom’ and ‘right’ as the 15 main countries which have played a huge role in the EU formation.

It is expected that with time the new members in the union will be allowed to enjoy all the privileges that are enjoyed by the old members. Just like any flexible market, labor mobility is a key factor in production. Free labor movement will ensure that the changing conditions of labor demand are well countered; therefore, free movement of labor is considered a cornerstone of the European Union developement.

The Enlargement of EU

The major enlargement of the EU was witnessed in the year 2004 when ten countries became members. These countries were majorly from the Eastern and Central Europe safe for Mediterranean countries like Cypress and Malta. There was a potential concern over the flow of workers within the EU.

The free movement of workers is a fundamental feature of the EU’s internal market and is defined in the treaty of the European Community. The treaty states that every individual has the right to take up employment and to respond to job offers within the EU. The principal of free movement of people was not ratified by several leaders and countries but this free movement of workers has been ratified by Sweden, UK and Ireland (Hofman 3).

In the years 2004 and 2007, the enlargement of the EU was unprecedented in certain aspects of the economy and policy. There is a lot of evidence that this enlargement had a lot of impacts on the flow of migrants from the new states to the older states. Despite the existence of restrictions, the flow of migrants could not be stopped and only the immigrant composition could be controlled. The free movement of people, goods, services and capital is captured in article 39 to 42 in the charter of the EU.

The flow of immigrant was largely due to the prospects of labor market. The free movement of workers forms a particular component of the EU. The four freedoms that are sanctioned by the charter of the European Community are the primary factors motivating free movement of labor. These four freedoms are the free movement of goods, services, workers and capital. The charter also provides for exceptions regarding to the exercise of these freedoms and they may therefore be restricted in particular circumstances (Metcalf 8).

Leaving ones country, demands courage and determination and leaving ones family and environment that one is acquainted with is not an easy task. The host country does not guarantee opportunities for the migrant workers. The procedure to labor force or to the labor market of the host countries is a complicated one.

Migrant workers from the new states are not entitled to any income for their upkeep and other countries have a tight rules and procedures due to the fear of migrant workers burdening their finance and it is only Sweden that grants this privilege (Traser 10). Understanding the causes and the effects of migration of labor force and their effect on the labor policies of the enlarged EU is a paramount matter. After the expansion of the union, a couple of countries made their labor market accessible to all the members.

Transitional Measures in the Free Movement of Workers

Transitional measures are understood to mean the restrictions that govern free movement of workers and the rights governing them. The restrictions limit the use of treaties by the workers and allow them to take up employment everywhere within the territory of the European Union. The restrictions slapped on workers vary according to the sector and the type of the work. These restrictions are based on quota arrangements, work permits which are only given when the nationals can not fill the available vacancy.

The free movement of workers is a temporary provision which particularly apply to a new state. Transitional clauses do not apply to Malta and Cyprus due to their geographical size and they can take up positions in the EU without any restrictions.

Nationals of the member states who were already working in any EU states before the enlargement were automatically enlisted into the labor market of that particular country for one year or more. This privilege did not however extend to the ability to accessing the labor market of other countries. There are four regimes that are applied by the enlarged EU body, these are:

First is a restrictive immigration regime in countries like Belgium, Finland, Spain, Germany, Greece, France and Luxembourg where workers from the new member states are accorded similar treatment like non-EEA citizens and they are required to apply for a new world permit and these permits are only issued on condition that the vacancy cannot be filled by a native.

There is also a similar restrictive regime which allow for quota system for workers from the new states; this quota system is applied by countries like the Netherlands, Portugal, Italy and Austria. Consequently, there are those countries that allow for general access to their labor market but only with minimal or limited welfare benefits.

In these countries, unemployment can constitute grounds for ones permit to be revoked. These countries are particularly Ireland and United Kingdom. Sweden allow for complete application of rules of free movement of workers (Traser 24).

Furthermore, despite this freedom of movement, there still exist other challenges like legal and administrative costs, unfamiliarity with other European Union members’ languages, limited flexibility of pension rights and inefficient housing market (Heinz and Ward 7).

Currently, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France and Italy are the only six countries that maintain their work permit or visa for those nationals who would wish to take up employment. All the EU member states attach stringent conditions to their welfare benefits except Sweden. Germany and Austria were given the freedom to impose more limitations on provision of services for employment of particular sectors for a transition period of seven years.

This was motivated by the fact that these two countries were considered to be the main receivers of the eastern migrations. Access to welfare system in the UK and in the Ireland is based on the length of ones residence and the nature of employment. Sweden has opted to put all the European community rules into play.

After the enlargement, there was the adoption of transitional arrangements which was motivated by the need to control huge numbers of people moving from the new member states to the old member states.

The restrictions that govern this free movement of labor is largely motivated by the fear by the existing EU members which largely fear that the joining of Eastern and Central Europe states which are large in geography and population into the Union will likely lead to heightened competition with the members of the western European countries through the lower salaries that have been offered; it is the fear of the influx of cheap labor into the market.

This migration of labor is largely due to the regional disparities in prosperity of the EU countries. These disparities have been widely witnessed in the level of income, the cost of living, rates of unemployment and the generosity of the welfare system of some states. There is also an emerging theory on human capital model which is used to explain this movement of labor force within the EU. These factors are age, number of educated nationals and the cost of moving.

Labor migrations are complex and multifaceted; it has a lot of effects on the supply of labor and human capital in the destination markets. Migration can affect the wage system and employment of the natives which will translate to its effect on economic inequality (Kahanec and Zimmerman 16).

Obstacles to Free Movement of Workers

Challenging situations: these may arise due to insufficiency of funds and deteriorated living conditions. Inability to find a well paying job may lead to criminal cases like drug and human trafficking. Lack of sufficient information also impedes free movement of labor.

Practical issues: there has been confusion on the application of pre-accession work permit by the nationals of new member states. In this regard there is always confusion on the rights and conditions governing entry and residence. This has rose due to the situation where a work permit is confused with entry visa that does not apply to any EU citizen.

The procedure involved in labor market is always a tedious one. The steps that are involved are very many; first the migrant worker has to find an employer who is wiling to secure employment and he/she must also submit his/her request to the National agency for Labor in the host country.

The worker then must be certified as competent and experienced by the Local Labor Division whose responsibility is to ascertain the professional and experience of the worker. This process might be characterized by delays in the granting of entry permit (Traser 26).

The movement also comes with psychological and social costs; this is because such a movement will lead to an individual severing contacts with his/her families and relatives and his/her social contacts; it is assumed that social network media will help to unite workers and their family members and friends at home.

It has been pointed out that “institutional variation and other important factors, such as geographic, linguistic or cultural distances” (Kahanec and Zimmerman 9) have had huge “heterogeneous effects on migration flows across Europe” (Kahanec and Zimmerman 9).

The movement of workers across the union has confronted the union with a wave of challenges which include: “an aging population, global competitiveness and growth, and the sustainability of social security systems” (Kahanec and Zimmerman 9). In most cases, it has been observed that it is the young people who are much involved in the migration from one state to another to take up jobs.

Conclusion

Labor mobility is central to the EU charter just like the economics of labor mobility. The free movement of labor is motivated by several factors, generally personal and geographical. The unprecedented enlargement of the EU in 2004 enhanced this phenomenon of free movement of workers.

Workers themselves have their own reasons as to why they wish to move to other EU states. The free movement of workers is governed by various regulations or restrictions which vary from one country to another. Labor mobility being an economic matter is confronted by many challenges ranging from procedures involved in the mobility to uncertainty in the work environment that is available in the host country.

Since all countries are independent, there exist variations in the system of education and labor structure which can be an impediment to the free movement of labor. It can be said that the union is moving in the direction towards becoming a solid union. More need to be done especially in ensuring that all the union members adopt policies which favor cooperation and unity.

Works Cited

Heinz, Ferdinand and Ward, Warmedinker. Cross-border labor mobility within an enlarged EU. Occassional Paper Peries, 2006. Web.

Hofman, Michael. Assessing East-west Labour Migration After EU-enlargement. New York: GRIN Verlag, 2007. Print.

Kahanec, Martin and Zimmerman, Klaus. Migration in an enlarged EU: A challenging solution? Economic papers, 2009. Web.

Metcalf, Katrin. Free movement of workers and the EU enlargement: fundamental freedoms with exceptions. SNEE, n.d. Web.

Traser, Julianna. Report on the free movement of workers in EU: who is afraid of EU enlargement? European Citizen Action Services, 2005. Web.

The European Union forms an important trading block that thanks to the Euro is shaping business dynamic across the world. The integration of the states forming the European Union offers a typical platform for the benefits of integration in the world. The apparent strong position of the Euro has persuaded critics of the union like the United Kingdom to soften their stances and view the benefits of the European Union with less skepticism.

A good number of the policies that define the union interfere with national sovereignty of many member countries but with good reasons. The member countries entrust some of their national sovereignty elements to the union. These are the areas that are specified by the treaty and that the countries would like to work on together.

As a result, a pool of European sovereignty is created. The benefits cut across the social economic spectrum of the member countries; Flourishing democracy, expanded markets, cooperation on immigration and ease in doing business thanks to the Euro are some of the benefits EU member states have been able to enjoy.

Besides the European Parliament, the European court and other democratic institutions, democracy is anchored in the foundation of the union. Many nations in the union are thriving democracies unlike the period after the Second World War when Europe was disjointed. This is in part because of the requirement for all members to strengthen their democratic institutions before joining. Growth of democracy is especially marked in countries like Spain, Greece and the former communist states, now part of the union.

Countries joining the EU are required to abolish the death penalty in order to be compatible with EU membership. The abolition is a major victory for human rights campaigners in the region who have long seen the practice as barbaric and backward. The countries therefore have been forced to amend their legal statutes, as the treaty requires a typical though small effect on their sovereignty.

With a population of over half a billion, the EU forms the world’s largest internal market and the world’s largest trading block. The treaty provides for the formation of an internal market without frontiers to enable free movement of goods, services and capital for all member countries.

Countries within the EU who previously faced major obstacles in exporting their products can now do so with ease, thanks to the opened borders between member states. Free movement of labor too has made it easier for experts who could not secure jobs in their countries to get them elsewhere within the union.

The US has been grappling with a thorny issue of immigration. The same picture is replicated in Europe though on a smaller scale. Initially before the union was in place, illegal immigration to and from European countries dogged many states.

However, the cooperation on immigration policy as defined by the EU treaty has ensured less immigration problems within the member countries. On another front, the European countries can confront illegal immigration especially from Africa and Asia as a bloc as opposed to the single approaches that were employed before the union came to place.

The formation of the Euro too contributes to ease in doing business. Some European countries initially pegged their currencies to the dollar but the Euro has actually provided an alternative to the dollar not only in Europe but internationally. Countries were able to overcome business problems associated with currency fluctuation.

EU citizens can now travel through out the continent except the UK to conduct business without first going through currency exchange procedures.

The above economic benefits have helped the block’s economy to grow faster as projected. Though the EU may not achieve its goal of equaling the US economy by 2010, it is on course to achieve the target, all due to the ceding of sovereignty of the member states to pursue integrated economic policies.

Introduction

Seven years after accession talks for Turkey to the European Union (EU) began, the prospects of membership remain dim. The EU is a union of European states that was formed after decades worth of efforts towards economic and political integration of countries in the continent.

This Union has led to significant benefits for the member countries due to the good relations enjoyed among member countries. Economic prosperity and political stability have been achieved because of the union. As the membership of the EU has increased, the union has acquired marked political, economic, and financial influence on the global stage and it is now considered a power on its own right.

For this reasons, most of the countries in the European continent have been aspiring to join the EU and gain the benefits attached to EU membership. Specifically, Turkey has shown great interest in joining the EU with its leaders actively urging EU leaders to include the country in the Union (Teitelbaum & Philip 2003).

However, the country has been unable to achieve this goal to date. This paper will delve into the political, economic, and cultural reasons that have contributed to the delayed accession of Turkey to the European Union.

Reasons for Delayed Accession

• EU Members Opposition to Turkey

Turkey’s economic instability has delayed its accession to the EU. European Union member states enjoy a relatively high standard of living and income per capita. Teitelbaum and Philip (2003) assert that Turkey suffers from an unproductive and unstable economy.

Specifically, Turkey suffers from a higher unemployment rate that the average rate in the EU countries. There are fears that if Turkey became a member of the EU, it would be an economic burden to the union since millions of Turks would immigrate to countries where there are jobs and higher wages. The EU would also have to make significant monetary investments to bring Turkey at par with the rest of the union.

Turkey has been denied accession because of insufficient democracy in the country. Although Turkey has been practicing a multi-party system and free elections since 1950s, the Turkish democracy has not steadily developed over the decades. Specifically, there have been a number of direct military interventions on the political of the country.

Turkey has engaged in democratic reforms in order to meet EU requirements and subsequent membership. However, the rate of political reforms has been very slow. These slow reform process is seen as an indication of Turkey’s unwillingness to comply with EU standards by some EU leaders (Burgin 2010).

The EU requires certain values and ideals to be upheld by a country before it gains full membership to the union. One of these ideals is that the candidate country must have good human rights records and treat its citizens (including minority groups) with respect and fairness.

Human rights are given a great consideration by the EU and they have grown to become an important dimension of the Union’s foreign relations (Cakmak 2003). The government’s response to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) has also been criticized. The harsh treatment of these separatist group and military aggression in dealing with the Kurdish problem has led to a deterioration of human rights performance of Turkey.

Celebi (2009) documents that the way Turkey has reacted to the Kurdish problem has become a major obstacle slowing down Turkey’s accession to the EU. Until Turkey’s human rights record becomes as good as stipulated by the EU, the country’s prospects for full membership will remain low.

Religion has played a major role in the delayed accession of Turkey to the EU. The EU is made up of countries that have predominantly Christian populations. As a country with a Muslim majority, many European leaders feel that admitting Turkey into the EU would greatly damage the integrity of the union.

As it currently stands, Islamic influence in the EU is negligible with Muslim parliamentarians being absent in most countries and in the countries where they are present, they are vastly outnumbered by their non-Muslim counterparts (Pahre & Burcu 2009).

There are fears that if Turkey gains membership to the EU, the Muslim influence in the union will increase exponentially and therefore damage EU cohesion due to the cultural differences. Some leaders even argue that granting Turkey full membership would open the door for other Muslim nations in the Middle East therefore degenerating the EU into “nothing more than a free trade community” (Teitelbaum & Philip 2003, p.98).

The population of Turkey is also a hindrance to the quick accession to the EU. Opponents of Turkey membership state that the EU lacks absorption capacity and including Turkey would overstretch the union (Burgin 2010). At a population of about 67 million as of 2003, the country was projected to be more populous than any EU member state by 2014 (Teitelbaum & Philip 2003).

This is a very significant factor considering that citizens of any member state are guaranteed the right to move freely to any other EU state and seek jobs there on equal basis with the locals. The threat of mass emigration from Turkey should, it become a member of the EU, is therefore a major consideration by leaders of EU countries.

The population of Turkey will also have implications on the EU since it will give the country likely voting weight. Some opponents to Turkey’s EU membership argue that this would “completely change the architecture of the EU” (Pahre & Burcu 2009, p.358).

• Turkish Opposition

In addition to the hesitance demonstrated by EU leaders, a segment of the Turkish population is also reluctant to join the EU. Surveys conducted in Turkey concerning EU membership note that support for accession to the EU has been diminishing in recent years (Celebi 2009).

Turks have been opposed to the preconditions set by the EU especially concerning its democratic processes. According to some of the country’s leaders, the system in place is respectful to democracy and the excess pressure from the EU is seen as an imposition on Turkey’s internal affairs.

Membership to the EU requires Turkey to conform to certain European values and culture. These values have a Western and Christian basis since most European Countries have a Christian background. The imposition of such values has led to a rise in nationalism and conservative reactions against the EU (Pahre & Burcu 2009). A segment of the Turkish population wants the country to be able to follow its own norms and not conform with those stipulated by the EU in order to gain membership to the union.

Discussion

Turkey has been unable to gain EU membership in spite of its 5-decade long effort to do so. This failure has been caused by the opposition to Turkey’s membership by EU leaders and the failure by Turkey to compellingly meet the membership pre-conditions. Some sceptics express doubt as to whether the European Union will be willing to admit Turkey even if the country is able to fulfil all the requirements imposed on it.

However, all this is highly speculative since the country is already engaged in accession talks. Turkey has proved to be a worthy contender for EU membership and has remained a steadfast military partner though NATO. The country would therefore offer much to the EU if granted membership. However, the country will have to engage in significant changes in its political and cultural sphere in order to gain admission to the EU.

Conclusion

This paper set out to discuss the reasons why Turkey’s full membership to the EU has been delayed. It has pointed out that Turkey’s accession has been delayed based on cultural, economic, and political reasons. The paper has articulated that in addition to economic and political considerations, cultural and religious views are also taken into consideration when considering a country for EU membership.

These factors have slowed down the process of Turkey gaining membership to the EU. The paper has also observed that there is also internal opposition to EU membership by some Turk nationalists.

However, this internal opposition is limited and majority of the population favour EU membership. The major cause of delay is from the EU member states. While Turkey’s EU ambitions continue to be great, it is hard to predict whether the ambitions will result in full membership considering the many forces opposing Turkey’s accession to the EU.

References

Burgin, A 2010, ‘Ongoing opposition in the West, new options in the East: is Turkey’s EU accession process reversible?’, Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, vol. 12 no. 4, pp. 417-435.

Cakmak, C 2003, ‘Human Rights, The European Union and Turkey’, Turkish Journal of International Relations, vol. 2 no. 3, pp.63-90.

Celebi, N 2009, ‘Opinions of Students at Turkish and German Universities on Turkey in the EU Accession Process’, Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice vol. 9 no.2, pp. 475-491

Nisser, S 2009, ‘Between Ethnic-Nationalism, Civic-Nationalism and osmopolitanism: Discourses on the Identity of the EU and the Debates on Turkey’s Accession’, Turkish Journal of International Relations, vol. 8 no. 2, pp. 1-23.

Pahre, R & Burcu, U 2009, ‘The Myths of Turkish Influence in the European Union’, JCMS, vol. 47 no. 2, pp. 357-384.

Teitelbaum, SM & Philip, LM 2003, ‘Is Turkey Ready for Europe?’, Foreign Affairs, vol. 82 no. 3, pp. 97-111.

Introduction

Governance is a process where a government effectively exercises its constitutional authority and utilizes its resources adequately. The problems and affairs are collectively overseen by international organizations, government of countries and World organizations like; United Nations (UN), World Health Organization (WHO), African Union (AU) and European Union (EU) respectively.

In the course of governing the globe, all the super powers that participate in this process make and implement policies that are beneficial to its citizens, government or corporate organizations. These benefits are either political or financial.

This essay will constructively criticize Kathleen McNamara’s article “constructing authority in the European Union” which tries to portray the EU as illegitimate and a taken for granted political entity.

Furthermore, the essay will analyze the importance of the EU as a global governor and the dividends which Europeans enjoy through this respected and important organization. This article critique is intended to acquaint the reader with the writer’s perspective regarding globalization and the management of the globe in a globalized age. (McNamara, 154)

The European Union as a Global Governor

The European Union has by every legitimate means contributed immensely to the growth of both member states of the union and the entire globe. The EU is regarded as one of the most powerful and successful political innovations in the world. It has 27 member states with its powerful presence recognized in a lot of political spheres. (McNamara, 153)

Despite the EU’s reputation, writer Kathleen McNamara thinks otherwise. This brings to mind the question; what is McNamara’s perimeter for measuring success? Also important, one begins to wonder about McNamara’s source of information and how reliable or authentic these sources are.

It is important to note that, there is no reliable and scholarly authority that supports McNamara’s argument and this implies that, the article “constructing authority in the European Union” is merely a personal opinion of McNamara. Regardless of the fact that every individual is entitled to his/her own opinion about any issue, McNamara’s argument about the EU could be termed as dogmatic.

A literal example of this could be seen in the argument about the EU’s passport. The ability of the EU to successfully establish a standardized passport is a milestone achievement and a bold step in the right direction. This step is already emulated by the African Union and this clearly shows that, the EU regardless of McNamara’s argument had done something useful and worth emulating. (McNamara, 171)

The EU has its significant presence in the world trade organization (WTO) and other formal international forums like the G-8. The world trade organization and the G-8 are reputable and formal international forums that have contributed a lot to the growth of the entire world through policy making. These forums consist of scholars, reputable politicians and intelligent policy makers from different nations around the world.

If the EU was a taken for granted political entity as McNamara tries to describe it, serious minded international forums like the G-8 which has world powers like United States of America (USA), China and a host of other countries as members would not have recognized the EU presence in its forum. These examples show that the EU has clearly been a significant and seriously taken political entity not only in Europe but the entire world at large. (McNamara, 156)

Criticizing Kathleen McNamara’s argument about the European Union (EU)

Kathleen McNamara’s arguments, opinions and interpretations of EU’s policies are definitely misplaced. The EU as an entity, does not function alone and policies of the EU are widely recognized and respected throughout the world which is an indication that the EU is not a taken for granted political entity. This renders all the arguments and sources of McNamara null and void.

In McNamara’s article “constructing authority in the European Union”; the writer tries to describe the EU as an illegitimate political entity since its legitimacy is contested by certain people. McNamara feels legitimate authority means achieving a significant level of acceptance without coercion. (McNamara, 153) But it is important for the reader to note at this point that, there is no single policy, law or decision, be it legitimate or not that is unanimously accepted by people.

This means that, it is literally impossible for any organization to make decisions or policies that will be unanimously accepted by everybody involved. A lot of policies made in the past by other international organizations were also challenged or contested; the power and transparency of the United Nations has consistently been challenged too. But never in history has contesting the position of an organization been used as a yardstick to measure such an organization’s legitimacy.

Therefore, using a group of people’s opinion as a yardstick to contest the EU’s legality is totally absurd. More so, since the inception of the EU, it has only experienced an increment in the number of its member states which stands currently at 27. If the EU was coercive as McNamara tries to describe it, its membership would have decreased instead of steadily increasing. It is expected that McNamara would have taken into cognizance all this facts before concluding that the EU is illegitimate and coercive. (McNamara, 157)

Another argument by McNamara which lacks substantial evidence to support the writer’s thesis is referring to the EU as an elite project without mass participation in decision making. McNamara ought to have known better but the writer prefers to lurk in the dark about the EU, obviously blinded by personal opinions. With 27 member states and making decisions and policies that affect over 200 million Europeans, the reference to the European Union an elite project is totally absurd and terrible. (McNamara, 172)

Conclusion

Writer Kathleen McNamara obviously used unreliable sources with distorted facts and half truths to write the article “constructing authority in the European union”. The writer’s argument is dogmatic as aforementioned with no substantial evidence to support the argument. The article was more or less written from McNamara’s personal opinion and the article can therefore, be classified as a mere expression of the writer’s opinion.

Issues like the EU passport had been embedded with the words “European Union” on it are trivial besides the AU also has its passport embedded with the words “African Union”. Furthermore, if the European Union decides to depart from the modern age model of political authority been tied closely to sovereign or territorial states and a new model works effectively for the EU, then McNamara has no reason to criticize such a decision. (McNamara, 174)

Considering the number of years that the EU has been in existence and it’s ever increasing membership; it can be logically concluded that the EU has solid significant cultural foundations that are important and significant to Europeans no matter what McNamara thinks.

Works Cited

McNamara, Kathleen. Constructing authority in European Union: Chicago: Regency, 2007. Print

The formation of the European Union (EU) was done with absolutely positive intentions to all the countries encompassed by it. The organization was created with the sole intention of ensuring that its member counties had positive economic benefits from it. This was the case to a large extent even though other sectors of the countries’ economies suffer negative effects today.

The advantages of the formation of the EU include the use of single currency in markets and the prevention of wars. It is important to note that the use of one currency in two different markets makes it possible for entrepreneurs to avoid the currency exchange rates that are most likely to favor others and undermine the economic prosperity of other businesspeople.

In other terms, the use of a common currency in different markets levels the business platform for all. The EU is vital in preventing wars in the sense that it encourages its member countries to engage in active business. For this reason, the countries are less likely to go to war if they depend on one another businesswise (Halmers, Davies, and Giorgio, 157).

The EU also plays an integral part in reducing the levels of inflation in its member countries. For instance, countries like France and Italy that had an alarming high rate of inflation in the early 80s were compelled by the EU to fix their exchange rates in order to regulate their rates of inflation. Despite the positive intentions of the EU, there are some negative impacts that came along with it.

For instance, economists indicate that the trade benefits of the EU were overestimated to an extent of making its member countries overambitious. Another problem was particularly faced by Germany. As member countries struggled to equate their economies to Germany’s, Germany suffered a high inflations rate (Eeckhou, 293).

The European Union is attributed to the loss of sovereignty of some member countries. Under normal circumstances, a government elected by the native people is supposed to work independently by formulating and implementing its own policies. However, EU member countries are forced into complying with foreign policies.

For instance, their central banks are regulated by the EU in a bid to regulate the exchange rates. This is opposed to the sovereignty a country ought to enjoy. Additionally, the EU also regulates imports, exports and their rates of its member countries. It controls their taxation especially in the ports. This too should not be the case as far as sovereignty is concerned (Halmers, Davies, and Giorgio, 198).

In my opinion, the disadvantage for the formation of the EU that is business oriented is the single market strategy. This is the strategy by the European Union where people and countries have the freedom of trading, making investments on their money and looking for employment without running into physical, technical or legal barriers.

The strategy was formulated to come up with economies of scale and perhaps allow for the creation of a Europe-wide commerce with the aim of enabling faster economic growth in the region. To some extent, this strategy has bore fruits. However, critics say that the single market strategy has not eliminated regulations.

On the contrary, it has merely created regulations that conform to the European market. For this reason, EU compels its minor member to fit into the economic regulations of major members. Moreover, a single market cannot operate properly in markets with different wealth and cultural levels (Panke, 165).

Works Cited

Panke, Diana. Small States in the European Union: Coping with Structural Disadvantages. Farnham, Surrey, England: Ashgate, 2010. Print.

Halmers, Damian, G T. Davies, and Giorgio Monti. European Union Law: Cases and Materials. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Print.

Eeckhout, Piet. Eu External Relations Law. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2011. Print.