Category: European Union

Overview

The Purpose and Objectives of Formation

Development of regional blocks have been created throughout decades. The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and European Union are some of the most influential regional blocks in the contemporary world. It is necessary to note that the two organisations have much in common, though there are various differences.

For instance, one of the major and primary objectives of these unions creation was economic as members of the blocks obtained an opportunity to develop their economies more effectively. It is possible to take a closer look at the purpose of creation of each union.

The GCC was founded in 1981 as an economic union of some countries of the Middle East (Low & Salazar, 2011). At the same time, the union also aimed at development of similar regulations and paradigms in the sphere of finance, legislation, customs, administration, trade and religion. The member states also collaborated closely in the field of scientific research, business and education. They also aimed at creation of a single currency.

At the same time, the EU was created on the basis of the European Communities that were established in the 1960s. The EU was officially formed in 1993 (Bache, George & Bulmer, 2011). The major aim of the block was also financial as member states could create favourable conditions for development of their economies through establishment of close business ties.

At the same time, the union was also inspired by the will of Europeans to resist excessive nationalism that led to the devastating wars in the first part of the 20^th century (Chalmers, Davies & Monti, 2010). The union was aimed at development of close relations in the field of economy, finance, politics, scientific research, education and creation of a single currency.

Member States (Brief Profile)

The GCC includes the following countries: Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates (Khamis & Semlali, 2010). As for the EU, it includes significantly more member states that joined the union at different times. It includes 28 European countries and the founders are Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands and Germany.

Political System

The two unions also have certain similarities in the area of governance and politics. For instance, the supreme council is the governing body of the GCC. It is constituted by the heads of the countries included in the organisation (Khamis & Semlali, 2010). This authority focuses on major and strategic issues and each decision has to get the unanimous approval. Each member of the organisation has one vote.

Another important body is the Ministerial Council that is constituted by Foreign Ministers of the member states. This body focuses on various regulations and programs aimed at achievement of the goals set. The executive body of the organisation is the Secretariat General that implements decisions made (Low & Salazar, 2011). The Monetary Council is another important body that focuses on development of the single currency for the member states.

The EU’s governance is implemented through a number of bodies. The Primary body is the European Parliament. This is the authority that develops laws and regulations for the member states. Other bodies include, the European Council, the European commission, the Court of Justice if the EU, the European Court of Auditors (Vanhoonacker, 2011). The European Central Bank is the body that focuses on monetary policies and development of the so-called Eurozone.

Economy

As Common Market

The two regional blocks in question are characterised by common markets. As for the GCC, the common market came into being in 2008. The movement of products as well as services was significantly simplified. However, the crisis of the 2008 slowed down the process of development of the common market (Ahmad & Al Faris, 2010).

Simplified customs regulations contributed greatly to development of the common market within the block. At present, the member states have a unified market where people living within the boundaries of the block have equal opportunities in the spheres of business, real estate, insurance, education, access to health services. Of course, there are still various barriers when it come to the movement of products. Taxation is also different in the member states though there are attempts to develop similar regulations.

The EU is also characterised by a common market. More so, the majority of the member states use single currency (Euro). The customs regulations contribute to development of close ties between the member states and free flow of products, capital, services as well as people is ensured (Bache et al., 2011). Notably, there are no customs duties or import quotas for member states, which contributes greatly to the development of the economies of the member states as well as the entire block. Importantly, the global financial crisis also had a negative impact on the EU but the block managed to overcome the difficulties and now it is looking for ways to address new challenges.

As a Monetary Union

The monetary union is the area where the two block differ significantly. Thus, the GCC does not have a single currency though there have been attempts to establish it since 2009 (Ahmad & Al Faris, 2010). Kuwait is the strongest advocate of establishment of the single currency. However, the UAE and Oman are not willing to participate in the monetary union. At the same time, currencies of the member states are used within the block, which can be seen as the first phase and the start of establishment of the single currency.

As far as the EU is concerned, there is the single currency (Euro) that is accepted in the majority of the member states. Such countries as the UK, Denmark and Sweden are unwilling to join the Eurozone as they consider it to be a hazard to their economies. It is necessary to note that the European Central Bank implements quite a strict policy, as there are various regulations to follow for member states as well as countries that want to join the Eurozone. There are also various funds that support the currency during financial crises.

Major Industries and Infrastructure

As for the major industries, the GCC focuses on production of oil and gas. The member states control around 40% of the world’s reserves of these natural resources (Ahmad & Al Faris, 2010). The infrastructure is still under development as member states are working on establishment of the unified system of water supply. As for transportation, there are various types of transport that can be used to travel from one member state to another.

As far as the EU is concerned, around 60% of its GDP is comprised by the sector of services (Chalmers et al., 2010). The block can be characterised by quite a significant degree of diversity. The infrastructure in the EU is highly developed and the transportation opportunities are very diverse.

Challenges

Economic

The two regional blocks are seen as significant powers that affect development of the member states as well as the development of the region. However, the blocks also face various challenges. For instance, the GCC has to cope with issues related to the lack of stability in the global oil market (Ahmad & Al Faris, 2010).

The block also faces a considerable pressure created by the emerging markets. The EU is also affected by the competition created by the emerging market (Chalmers et al., 2010). Some member states fail to follow monetary regulations and the currency is under significant pressure. Many member states are still unable to recover from the global financial crisis. Of course, both blocks have to deal with their member states’ desire to focus on their economies development at the expense of other member states.

Socio-Cultural

As for socio-cultural issues, it is possible to note that the countries in the two blocks are quite diverse culturally and ethnically. This creates certain tension within the GCC and EU. It is necessary to add that the two blocks have quite similar challenges including raising nationalism, religious extremism and people’s dissatisfaction with economic and social programs established in the member states of the EU and GCC.

Political

When it comes to political challenges, it is necessary to note that the two blocks are characterised by certain degree of stability, as there are particular bodies that have particular areas of concern. However, the EU is characterised by more flexibility. It is noteworthy that member states of the GCC have quite different perspectives on the further development of the block, especially when it comes to new members (Low & Salazar, 2011).

Conclusion

The Gaps between GCC and EU

On balance, it is possible to note that the two blocks have similarities as well as differences. The following gaps can be identified. The GCC lacks the necessary flexibility in many spheres. The EU is more diverse economically and, hence, it is more successful in the global as well as regional market. The EU does not depend heavily on some industry. Political decisions are also more flexible as the authorities of the GCC are less likely to compromise.

Suggestions

It is possible to provide a number of suggestions to address the challenges the GCC is facing. First, it is possible to increase collaboration between representative of member states in the Ministerial Council. This body has to have a strategic vision. The GCC should focus on addressing the rising competition rather than focus on specific political or economic gains for particular member states. Political decisions should be more flexible.

Of course, economic diversification should be a priority of the economic development of the GCC. The member states should make sure that they can affect the global oil market. At the same time, it is important to develop other sectors of economy.

Finally, further integration can be beneficial for the GCC. Of course, the single currency may be still debatable but it is essential to make sure that there are no barriers to the flow of products, services, people and capital. This will ensure development of the member states and the entire block as the block will be able to operate as a single entity rather than a union of countries focusing on their economic and national interests.

Reference List

Ahmad, E., & Al Faris, A. (2010). Fiscal reforms in the Middle East: VAT in the Gulf Cooperation Council. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Bache, I., George, S., & Bulmer, S. (2011). Politics in the European Union. Oxford, UK: OUP Oxford.

Chalmers, D., Davies, G., & Monti, G. (2010). European Union law: Cases and Materials. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Khamis, M.Y., & Semlali, A.S. (2010). Impact of the global financial crisis on the Gulf Cooperation Council countries and challenges ahead: An update. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund.

Low, L., & Salazar, L.C. (2011). The Gulf Cooperation Council: A rising power and lessons for ASEAN. Pasir Panjang, Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

Vanhoonacker, S. (2011). The institutional framework. In C. Hill & M. Smith (Eds.), International relations and the European Union (pp. 75-101). New York, NY: OUP Oxford.

Since the European Union is currently suffering from a variety of problems associated with such recent developments as Brexit, the financial crisis, and the migration crisis, researchers have extensively studied whether the Union’s legitimacy is under threat. It is important to study this issue for identifying whether the member-states of the European Union could overcome the crisis and restore its legitimacy.

Economic and political experts have re-examined the foundations of democratic legitimacy of Western countries. It has been mentioned that debates about the European democratic deficit did not reach consensus, which meant that there was a significant conflict of standards associated with the Union’s conformity to both republican and liberal standards. An important argument many researchers presented is associated with the idea that the current crisis has managed to destroy the capacity of democratic member-states of the European Union to exercise their key governing functions in the environment of political and economic conditions.

In this paper, the exploration of the topic of legitimacy in the European Union will be presented through the review of relevant literature. Chapters included in the paper will discuss such topics as sources of legitimacy in the EU, the Eurozone crisis, main actors that should participate in the management of the crisis, as well as problems of the legitimacy of the management during crisis.

Main Actors in the Management of the Euro Crisis

Solutions targeted at the management of the Euro Crisis vary depending on researchers approaches to the issue. For instance, Scharpf (2012) stated that an obvious solution was to “stop defending the euro, to acknowledge the common responsibility for having created a dysfunctional supranational regime, and to seek agreement […]” (p. 30). Therefore, key actors in the management of the crisis are expected to address the problems and prospects of legitimation. Member state governments are among the principal actors of mitigating the Euro Crisis and usually are more prone to considering whether processes of management abide by throughput aspects of legitimacy (Rhinard, 2016). The European Commission is another actor in the management of the crisis since it is considered the main governing body that is exposed to the majority of disasters of any character, whether financial or political (Schmidt, 2015). It is also important to mention the role that the European Council can play in crisis management; the organization has recently contributed to the development of a crisis management framework that included new instruments targeted at the improvement of economic governance of member-states as well as the effective supervision and resolution of crises (Anghel, Drachenberg, & de Finance, 2014). Such an overhaul of the economic governance framework has a potential to resolve the shortcomings of the existing financial processes to subsequently strengthen the coordination and integration of the euro-area.

In order to elevate the burden of the Euro crisis, key players such as member-states, the European Commission, and the European Council have to initiate reforms at the national level that can include fiscal governance reforms, a Macroeconomic Imbalances Procedure, macro-prudential policies, the establishment of the Financial market union and the Economic Union (Praet, 2012). The support of the European Union for a wider range of support and solution programs is essential for facilitating democratic experimentation (Youngs, 2013). Such experimentation should put a start to local-level initiatives that key actors can implement to strengthen the fiscal discipline of the region. It is important to mention that the dialogue about the management of the Euro crisis should imply a greater variety of social partners that can also contribute to the elimination of not only fiscal but also employment, ecological, and social protection problems (Youngs, 2013). This can be challenging because many EU agencies still struggle to open themselves to received formal civic consultation and participation, which can subsequently hinder the process of decision-making and limit the benefits of crisis-induced social movements (Youngs, 2013).

The greatest challenge of the mentioned solutions is keeping up the reform momentum even at times of the most severe manifestations of the Euro crisis that hinders market conditions and prevents nations from restoring the normal conditions in the market. In this case, the support of the European Central Bank (ECB) is necessary to resolve the crisis and preserve the purchasing power of the Euro currency through the establishment of secure environments within the Eurozone (Papasavvas, 2015). Overall, the main actors in managing the Euro crisis should unite for sustaining the reforms.

Problems of Legitimacy of the Management During the Euro Crisis

A well-functioning system of governmental crisis management is the one that has efficient governance capacity and legitimacy, as mentioned by Christensen, Legreid, and Rykkja (2016). The contribution of authorities can be significantly limited by the lack of legitimacy that will subsequently result in poor crisis management performance. To address issues of legitimacy during the process of the Euro crisis management, both cultural and structural contexts matter as well as the nature of the crisis itself (Christensen et al., 2016). It has been identified that problems of legitimacy could be addressed through the integration of adaptation and flexibility, which are significantly limited by “political, administrative, and situational context” (Christensen et al., 2016, p. 887). As mentioned by Youngs (2013) in the article “The EU beyond the crisis: The unavoidable challenge of legitimacy,” the management of the Euro crisis is substantially limited by the fact that the existing proposals of resolving the crisis are dated and lack the acknowledgement of a variety of social movements that contribute to the change of political dynamics. Also, the political reforms proposed by EU governing bodies cannot debate the existing tenets of European democracy and legitimize only the previously implemented strategies.

Considerations of variables of legitimacy, namely throughput and output are essential since they directly influence the appearance of challenges in the management of the crisis. Throughput variables imply the review of the existing decision-making process within the EU institutions while output variables are associated with the final results of the process (Demetriou, 2015). As mentioned previously, the existing solutions that the EU governing bodies have proposed lack focus on important social movements, which means that the throughput variable, which is associated with the process of overcoming the crisis, is significantly limited. With regards to the output variable, which is associated with the final results of the process of crisis management, the changes in the political and economic models have contributed to cooperation between member-states and have enhanced the confidence in the established changes. It is essential to mention that the process of dealing with the Euro crisis has led to the development of a political conundrum, which is greatly challenging for the Union. Researchers have advised governing bodies to reflect on the processes that went wrong during the European integration in the first place to determine what possible alternatives can be implemented to ensure the prosperous development of the EU (De Angelis, 2016).

It is essential to mention that the output and throughput variables of crisis management are also significantly undermined by limitations in capabilities and incentives of the political systems. It has been shown that the representative bodies of the EU associated their power with “capacity to overcome asymmetries of information that otherwise put them at a disadvantage to the very executive bodies they seek to control” (Lord, 625). This is difficult for national EU governments since they struggle with controlling the decisions made by key institutions and therefore need to address significant opportunity costs. In addition, decisions involved in the management of the Euro crisis contribute to problems with legitimacy due to the political inequality of member-states.

In the context of controlling EU-related matters, parliaments of countries are unequal in their power, which means that decisions made by powerful players are usually transferred to countries with lower power capacities (Fossum & Menendez, 2014). Lastly, collective action problems should also be mentioned in the discussion about legitimacy issues in overcoming the Euro crisis. Such problems are associated with the lack of financial coordination between member-states that make it easier for the monetary union to disturb the environment or take irresponsible risks. Therefore, it is strongly advised for the European Union to develop a well-managed macroeconomic framework, in which no governing body will be able to impose any negative regulations on any other body (Fossum & Menendez, 2014). When developed correctly, such a framework will not only contribute to the resolution of legitimacy problems but also will include both high- and low-power member states into the discussion about the most appropriate solutions of Euro crisis management.

Conclusion

Traditionally, evaluations of legitimacy have been discussed in the context of political systems as a whole (Wimmel, 2009). In the course of the exploration of processes involved in the management of the Euro crisis, the issue of legitimacy has been raised in order to determine how different EU institutions have contributed to the elimination of the problem and whether their attempts have been limited by legitimacy. It can be concluded that legitimacy can reflect the social and political agreements that guide relationships between EU citizens and their political leaders; when coercive governance is put in place or when welfare cannot be guaranteed to citizens, legitimacy can diminish, and public trust can reduce (Roth, Nowak-Lehmann, Otter, 2013).

The Eurozone crisis has been subjected to analysis within the context of legitimacy ideas because it triggered a series of political and economic changes that challenged the Union and weakened the economy. Fiscal imbalances and budget deficits in regions such as Greece needed the development of cohesive frameworks for crisis resolution. It has been identified that the lack of consensus between governments and citizens as well as power imbalances within the EU could hinder the process of crisis management. A stable macro-economic framework should be put in place in order to bring member-states together and overcome the crisis through the engagement of the public and the integration of innovative solutions instead of the recycling of old ideas that have hindered legitimacy in the first place.

References

Anghel, S., Drachenberg, R., & de Finance, S. (2016). The European Council and crisis management. Web.

Christensen, T., Legreid, P., & Rykkja, L. (2016). Organizing for crisis management: Building governance capacity and legitimacy. Public Administration Review, 76(6), 887-897.

De Angelis, G. (2016). Political legitimacy and the European crisis: Analysis of a faltering project. European Politics and Society, 18(3), 291-300.

Demetriou, K. (2015). The European Union in crisis. Explorations in representation and democratic legitimacy. London, UK: Springer.

Fossum, J., & Menendez, A. (2014). The European Union in crises or the European Union as crises? Web.

Papasavvas, C. (2015). Responsibility of the ECB in managing the European Debt Crisis: Towards a European Banking Union? Web.

Praet, P. (2012). Managing financial crises: The role of the ECB. Web.

Rhinard, M. (2016). The European Union’s legitimacy as a crisis manager. Web.

Roth, F., Nowak-Lehmann, F., Otter, T. (2013). Crisis and trust in the national and European governmental institutions. Web.

Scharpf, F. (2012). Legitimacy intermediation in the multilevel European polity and its collapse in the euro crisis. Web.

Schmidt, V. (2015).The Eurozone’s crisis of democratic legitimacy: Can the EU rebuild public trust and support for European economic integration? Web.

Wimmel, A. (2009). Theorizing the democratic legitimacy of European governance: A labyrinth with no exit? European Integration, 31(2), 181-199.

Youngs, R. (2013). The EU beyond the crisis. The unavoidable challenge of legitimacy. Web.

France, the United Kingdom, Germany, and the United States of America have been on the forefront when it comes to the enactment of policies in the European Union. However, France remains at the helm of most of the foreign policies in the European Union (David, Gower & Haukkala, 2013). Its participations in several diplomatic forums, in EU have given France an avenue for it to shape the European Union’s decisions regarding its foreign policies.

Evidently, France is a key player in EU’s activities. This paper analyzes the role and the status of France in policies of the European Union, as well as scrutinizes the Franco-Russian relationship. In the analysis, the primary focus will be on the role of France in EU-especially the objectives that France has for the EU, France’s strategy towards Russia’s sanctions, and the Franco-Russian relations, as well as on the stance taken by France with respect to the sanctions imposed on Russia by the EU.

France’s role/status in the European Union

According to Kennan (2009), France has been actively involved in the activities of the European Union. As much as the country has been participating in European Union’s foreign policies, it has had a number of objectives and aims in its role as a major player in the region. Its role in the EU, as well as its status is faced with competition from other countries such as the Germany. As seen from its activities in NATO and the European Union, France has since tried to show its significance both in political and economic arenas (Kennan, 2009).

However, the country has a lot of things to cover before it achieves such objectives owing to the stiff competition from other large and powerful countries such as Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America. Over time, France has been enjoying a significant role regarding its place in the EU, in spite of the many other countries that are involved. For example, France has played a major role in the history of EU. Through its historical role, France has been able to steer development activities within the present day EU.

Moreover, France has been active in the Coal Community, as well as in the European Steel (Sebina, Moahi, & Bwalya, n.d). The alliance involving coal and steel was highly instrumental in ensuring the success of the European Union integration, and the stabilization of the Western Europe. As such, France has contributed highly in integrating the European Union to ensure that it grows both politically and economically (Stimson, Thiebaut & Tiberj, 2014).

Therefore, France is in a position to achieve its integration objectives since the country has strong diplomatic tactics added to its vision regarding a region that is integrated and free from threats of war. As such, along with the above objectives, France aims to broaden the European Union’s sphere of influence. Why then is France best suited to steer the EU into the realization of its international, as well as the national objectives?

To begin with, France has placed itself in a nationalistic atmosphere. As such, it is able to achieve both its objectives and those of the EU considering that it allows itself to be politically integrated fully into the European Union. Thus, France has the potential to influence the development of European Union in terms of politics and economy.

France’s strategy towards Russia and the Franco-Russian relations

France and Russia have been known to have a historical bond link for a long time (Stimson et al., 2014). Franco-Russian relations can be traced back to the early modern period, whereby evidence of erratic contact can be seen from earlier years considering that these two countries experienced a monarchial leadership.

Historical ties and common interests

France and Russia have had strong historical ties, as well as shared common interests. The two countries have shared a friendly relation for a long time, with both countries having similar interests in international politics. For example, both France and Russia adopted an economic cooperation and bilateral security exchanges that were aimed at the promotion of big powers within the region. In addition, these countries share a number of ideologies in the struggle for a dynamic cooperation.

Following the Soviet Union’s collapse, France and Russia exhibited similar interests whereby their role in the creation of a multi-polar world was evident. In the same context, they show asymmetries as opposed to common traits in terms of both countries’ political, social, and economic structures. Such disparity is also evident in both France and Russia’s approaches to foreign policies. In spite of the many years of cordial relationship between these two countries, a number of conflicts have been evident in their activities and around each country’s interests. These conflicts have thus have led to the deterioration of their relationship.

Deteriorating Relationship

Even though the government of France was trying to ensure that there was an economic relationship between France and Russia, it was evident that the French society was focused on enhancing authoritarianism in Russia (David et al., 2013).

Moreover, the two countries had a strained relationship following a number of issues such as the resolutions that were reached by United Nations with respect to the indiscriminate violence that was experienced in Syria, the relationship of the European Union with the countries such as Armenia, Georgia, Moldova, Belarus, and Ukraine. As well, the relationship between France and Russia got strained further due to their energy differences and a number of defense policies.

France’s stance on EU’s sanctions against Russia

The Ukrainian crisis was a major reason that led to the sanctioning of several Russian officials, businesses, as well as individuals. The sanctions therefore, led to the financial crisis in Russia that started in 2014 (Wright, 2000). However, the European Union’s sanctions against Russia received different opinion from different countries and individuals.

Following the first round of the sanctions, other countries such as Japan, as well joined in the sanctioning. Japan’s sanctions involved the denial of Japan from participating in any form of talks related to visa requirements, investment, space, as well as military matters with Russia. With time, the European Union imposed second and third rounds of sanctions against Russia.

The fact that many countries joined in the sanctions and supported EU and other participating countries, does not overrule the point that there were other countries and individuals that advocated for the end of the sanctions. However, most of these countries had their own interests (Marie, n.d). For instance, France experienced conflict of interests between its delivery of the mistral ship as agreed and its stance regarding Russian sanctions by the European Union.

The European Union and the United States of America pressured Hollande of France to postpone its indented delivery of the Mistrial helicopter carriers on basis that Russia was actively involved in the Crimea and Ukraine conflicts. This followed talks about sinking the ship in an event that the contract was not honored, which implied that France was destined to incur numerous losses in terms of money, image, and employment opportunities (Wright, 2000).

However, according to Hollande, there was a need for the West to stop any plans to put sanctions on Russia and instead, aim at offering avenues to lift any existing types of bans as a means of ensuring that the Ukrainian peace process was successful. As showed by Stimson et al., (2014) Hollande was quoted saying, “I’m not for the policy of attaining goals by making things worse…the sanctions must stop now…” (p. 294).

According to France, in the light of Hollande, the position of Russia in the Ukraine crisis had been misunderstood. As such, France’s stand was that the existing sanctions against Russia be eased off; since such a strategy would restore back peace and economic growth.

Conclusion

From the foregoing, it suffices that France has been an active player in the activities and policies of the European Union. The Crimea wars and the Ukrainian crisis were a major blow to the development of the EU. This was because the war and the conflicts affected most of the member states of EU following the EU’s sanctions against Russia that were accompanied by several counter sanctions, which led to economic stain. It has steered the Union into stable political, as well as economical structures. In addition, France has also been involved in the success of the Franco-Russian relations.

However, it is evident that conflicting interests have been instrumental in deteriorating the robust relationship that existed between Russia and France. In addition, the country was a key player in easing off the European Union’s sanctions against Russia. Evidently, even though the European Union has several powerful countries, France has contributed the most in the policies of the EU.

Reference List

David, M., Gower, J., & Haukkala, H. (2013). National perspectives on Russia. New York: Routledge.

Kennan, G. (2009). The decline of Bismarck’s European order. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Marie, M. (n.d). Russia-France: A Strained Political Relationships. Paris: Flammarion.

Sebina, P., Moahi, K., & Bwalya, K. (n.d). Digital access and e-government. Russian Economic Trends, 3 (4), 2.

Stimson, J., Thiebaut, C., & Tiberj, V. (2014). The evolution of policy attitudes in France. European Union Politics, 13 (2), 293-316.

Wright, R. (2000). The Future of EU-Russia Economic Relations. Russian Economic Trends, 9 (4), 8-10.

Introduction

The European Union began in the 1950s with great hopes that it would aid in both political as well as economic development in the European world. Political development was viewed in the perspective that the EU would be in a position to eliminate the military discrepancies that existed between European countries at the time. Efforts directed to this objective by the union have been quite large and its effects conspicuously experienced. The economical development role is aimed at eliminating possible economic distracters such as war. This facet of the EU has not been able to provide quite substantial results if the unequal development among its members is anything to go by. Welfare gains arising from its growth have also been quite low, this begs for a critical view of the effects of the growth of the EU (Coe D. T., 1999).

The EU has continuously expanded since its inception and has always promised to expand even more. Its growth is evident from the number of countries that are subscribing to its members. Despite its increase in membership one question that lingers is whether its constant expansion in membership also translates to the relative expansion of its members as should be the case. Surprisingly this expansion seems to have little or no effect on the development of most member countries. It is expected that with the gradual expansion, of the trading bloc, there should be a relative increment in the GDP over time in the respective countries that are signatories to the union (Jacob, 2008).

In an attempt to critically evaluate the effects of the expansion of the EU, this paper is keen on objectively analyzing facts that point to the expansion of the union as well as comparing how the union’s growth over time has affected different countries and why this is the case. An economic theory will be used in an effort to argue out the effects that should be anticipated in the event a union such as the EU experiences an expansion over a given period. The theory will attempt to shed some light as to why members of a given trade bloc may differ significantly in their GDP despite being under one union that is constantly expanding in both its membership as well as resources. Evidence of the varying impact of the growth of the union will also be put forth, in a bid to clearly illustrate the diverse impacts of the EU expansion based on current economic as well as political state of the member countries. Consequently an objective conclusion on the topic of discussion, which critically questions the significance of the EU expansion to its members, is drawn. This is aimed at establishing the relationships that exist in the findings and the possible effects that they are likely to pose in both the present and the future (Krugman, 1992).

Theoretical perspective of the growth

The economic theory is put into use in an effort to evaluate the concept of the EU expansion. The focus of the theory is not much on the effects arising from the economic integration experienced in the EU, but rather concerns itself more with a growing trade-block phenomenon. A trade-block that is first made up of a few countries, then consequently increases the number of countries over a period, as is the case with the EU. The underlying argument here is whether, the constant expansion has effects that sharply differ from the original form of a trade block (Landau, 2008).

The argument of this theory is based on the domination factor within a given trade block. A trade–block expansion may be inclined to either trade creation or trade diversion. The dominating factor amongst the two greatly determines how members of a given trade block benefit from it. It determines whether an equal or an unequal development is experienced among union members. If for instance trade creation is the dominating factor upon a trade block formation then, an unequal gain among the members is experienced since new members influence changes in the relative prices within the trade-block, which consequently benefit other countries while at the same time harming others economically (Levy, 1997). Therefore a disparity in the growth of members will definitely occur. However, in the case where diversion is the key dominating factor of a trade block, member countries are likely to be treated symmetrically; hence whatever affects the group of a trade block is also presumed to affect each member in the same measure. Diversion is aimed at increasing the net income that is realized in a given trade block, as opposed to the trade creation concept that is keen on creating an opportunity for an existing country using a new member. As a result, the new member is viewed as an outsider who has created an opportunity for growth of the existing members. Much attention is focused on how the existing members within the trade-block stand to benefit rather than how the new member country will benefit from the trade-block. Consequently, as it may be expected there will be quite a great distinction between the growths of the countries involved in the formation of the trade block and those who later joined.

A close comparison between the theory and its argument to the EU case reveals the underlying reason that might attempt to explain the indifferences of growth among its members even with the increase in members. The theory tries to answer the question as to why the GDP of the member countries is not experiencing a relatively equal growth as is expected with the expansion of the trade block (Frankel, 1999).

One factor that comes out clearly is that the intentions that guide the expansion of the trade block determine to a very large extent whether the constituent parties of the union experience or fail to experience an equal growth rate with the subsequent expansion of the trade block. Concerning the forgoing argument the EU, seems to have focused more on the creation of trade for its existing members rather than, diversifying trading opportunities for both its existing as well as new members. This has consequently led to the unequal distribution of resources among members consequently culminating in unequal economic growth of members (Krugman, 1992).

Impacts of the union on members

The impacts of the EU on its members have been argued to be diverse having some members gaining from the union while others not. The gains have been majorly on the political platform. Politically, the EU has brought relatively a better political understanding in the formerly politically volatile area which was characterized by military conflicts between the countries. From the Second World War, several countries in Europe did show political polarization to each with some countries taking to communism and others to capitalism e.g. West Germany and East Germany. Political gains for most countries may never be overestimated since this has brought peace and understanding to the member countries. Their foreign policies have been converged leading to a more impacting perspective as to their policies (Krugman, 1992).

Another political impact could be said to be the silencing of other countries’ ideas. Due to the streamlining of policies and laws regarding foreign understanding and relations, some country’s views end up not being swallowed by others who are considered original and “bigger members of the EU”. Some policies are arrived at due to a majority vote thus silencing the views of other countries. This ends up making some countries inactive in the global politics as their views are thought to be accommodated in the larger Union.

Some member countries have been said to have gained from the Union while others have not. Countries like Belgium, Italy, Germany, Ireland, and France have indicated some sense of economic growth since the joining of the EU also indicating some level of prosperity are countries like Spain, Portugal, and Finland while countries like Austria, Denmark, Greece, and the United Kingdom each indicate a fall in their economic growth. Members joining the Union have been experiencing diverse impacts with the benchmark being on when they did join the union. Research has it that most members who had joined the union originally experience relatively higher per capita income are gaining more from the union than those members who happened to have joined later this is relative to the OECD average. It could hence be said that the union somehow has benefited some member countries more than others. The members who joined later are standing chances of gaining as much as those who joined earlier may be difficult to determine bearing that the figures are hard to trace from the individual countries’ economic indicators. The six original countries that joined the EU are said to have leveled and then showed a rise in their Economic growth.

The impacts of the Union on trade are as well evident. Since joining the EU, the member countries have increased trade among each other in a large sense. This, economists argue, does not improve welfare and so does not assure increased income for the member countries. This, therefore, means that however nondiscriminatory the trade is. However, in terms of investment, the EU members showed an increasingly higher investment accumulation and rate (Ethier, 1992).

Researches conducted on some member countries have indicated increase in the economic growth. For instance, Moghadam and Coe (1993) conducted research on France’s development before and after joining the EU to assess the impacts of joining the organization. The duo was using capital accumulation, growth and trade integration. They identified explicit benefits on France due to the joining of the EU. This was as to the level of output and integration and should therefore not be considered a long-run effect on the growth rate (Coe D. T., 1993).

Italianer (1994) showed an increase in the GDP of the member country.

The union also tends to streamline the economy of the member countries and as such limiting their growth. By streamlining the growth, the countries are to some extent limited on to how far they can go economically (Ethier, 1992).

In terms of trade, the union encourages trade between member countries, not by policies only but conventionally too. Unions tend to increase understanding to member countries and thus encourage increased activities among the member countries, among the activities, is trade. This will serve to reduce the diversity of commodities obtained by the member countries as their products (imports) would mostly come from the neighborhood.

Conclusion

Evaluating the contributions of the EU to its member countries and whether the effects are positive or negative call for a detailed research. This will serve to pinpoint the precise impacts of the organization on the member countries. The research should therefore include traditional non-dynamic gains which emanate from trade and their benefits to the member country. The research would include getting to know whether there are economic growths in the EU or not and if there are, who gets to bag them and after how long does start trickling?

In a surmise, from the discussion held in the paper, the benefits of European integration to member countries in the long-run rates of growth, this happens while large countries and those that have stayed in the EU for long have had their economies grow faster than the OECD countries for the first half a decade and then experiences increased per capita income of the countries. The smaller countries that included the original members of the EU tended to increase their gains from the EU to almost similar levels as the union expanded. The late admissions into the union have had a rather different experience with others gaining (of course with delays) whilst others did not. Assuming these conclusions are accurate, then the impacts await the members who have just joined the union and the ones anticipating joining the union. This may be explained to be as a result of the lack of ability to take advantage of the widened market and thus they take time to adjust to the increased market before they start reaping from the same.

Politically, it would be of the essence to find out when the impacts are felt and where in particular are they felt? This would help identify the “killed” policies of member countries and how politically countries have been impacted upon by the joining of the union.

References

Cecchini. 1992. Cecchini Report. The European Challenge.

Coe, D. T. 1999. Are There International R&D Spillovers Among Randomly Matched Trade Patners. IMF Working paper , 18-23.

Coe, D. T. 1993. Capital and Trade as Engines of Growth in France. IMF staff Papers , 542-66.

Ethier, W. J. 1992. Internationally Decreasing Costs and the World Trade. Journal of International Economics , 1-24.

Frankel, J. A. 1999. Does Trade Cause Growth. American Economic Review , 379-99.

Jacob, V. 2008. The Custom Union Issue. New York : Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Krugman, P. R. 1992. Geography and Trade. Cambridge: MIT.

Landau, D. 2008. The Contribution of the European Common Market to the Growth of its Member Countries: an empirical Test. Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv , 774-782.

Levine, R. a. 1992. A sensitivity Analysis of Cross-County Growth Regressions. American Economic Review , 942-963.

Levy, P. I. 1997. A Political-Economic Analysis of Free-Trade Agreements. American Economic Review , 506-519.

Lucas, R. E. 1998. On the Mechanics of Economic Development. Journal of Monetary Economics , 3-42.

Patrick, V. &. 2007. Did the European Unification Induce Economic Growth? In search of Social Effects and Persistent Changes. Weltwirtschaftliches , 193-220.

Puga, D. a. 1997. Preferential Trading Arrangements and Industrial Location. Journal of International Economics , 347-368.

Romer, P. M. 1996. Increasing Returns and Long-Run Growth. Journal of Political Economy , 1002-1036.

Smith, A. a. 1998. Completing the Internal Market in the European Community. European Economic Review , 1501-1525.

Srinivasan, T. N. 2007. Measuring the Effects of Regionalism on Trade and Welfare. Regional Intergration and Global Trading System , 52-79.

The Treaty of Lisbon is an agreement that brings various European countries together in order to enhance democracy, efficiency, and transparency in Europe; it also aims at forming knowledge-based economies that promote sustainable development and social cohesion under the guidance of two key organs – European Union and European Community. Generally, the mandate of the treaty includes reforming the structure of the European Union and its mode of operations within member countries. The history of the reform process can be traced back to the time when the European constitution was drawn to replace earlier treaties signed in Rome in 2004. Before being accepted, members were expected to ratify it. Following the collapse of the European constitution, it was shelved and the Treaty of Lisbon was enacted to replace it in 2007. However, the treaty became effective in 2009 on ratification by all members based on the constitutional requirement.

Generally, the Treaty of Lisbon seeks to achieve various objectives, including enhancing democracy and transparency in Europe thorough the European parliament; this would not only strengthen the voice of citizens, but also increase participation of national parliaments in facilitating reforms. Additionally, the Treaty intends to enhance efficiency among member countries of European Union, especially in relation to decision and policymaking, institutional frameworks, and living standards of citizens. The next objective of the Treaty is to promote and reinforce human rights and values, preserve fundamental freedom of all citizens and enhance solidarity among European countries. Finally, the Treaty works as a framework for international relations with the global community.

The Treaty of Lisbon is necessary in order to set precedence to modernization and create room for reforms amongst the 27 European Union members who operate under rules governing 15 of its members. The process that runs back to history has sought to find the right platform to use the avenues under its authority as well as empower action. The need has been prompted by challenges facing all nations such as climate change, terror, insecurity, threat to energy and other global concerns.

The Treaty of Lisbon has significantly achieved its success as evidenced by democracy that has increased participation, decision making and openness.¹ Indeed, citizens’ participation has promoted transparency and amplified the voice of people. The Treaty of Lisbon, according to Europa website, is said to strengthen the Union’s capacity, which has promoted coherence; it has also set various policies aimed at enhancing citizens’ success and modern structures that work amongst the 27 member states.²

The European Union reforms process under the Treaty of Lisbon’s Article 10 provides democratic principles seeking to strengthen the mandate of European parliament and citizens’ participation to enhance democratic values of the European Union.³ The Treaty has provisions that seek to reinforce democratic representation and participation. This is highlighted to be achieved through representative democracy, which gives room for empowered institutions like the European parliament and National and Regional organs as stipulated in the European Union Act. On participation, the 2009 Treaty of Lisbon will establish new avenues of communication that will comprise the civil society, which is likely to boost member citizens’ initiatives.

The Treaty, though feted, is likely to water down the gains that would be realized by a powerful European council. Such would include failure to recognize the constitution status, removal of political emblems, not recognizing the charter’s fundamental rights and failure to take a series of amendments to the existing treaties. However, some achievements are likely to be gained as a result of the Treaty of Lisbon mainly due to expansion of the treaty to the Eastern part of Europe as well as redefining its mandate. That enlargement is associated with diversity of views, which might delay decisions and impede development. Furthermore, some benefits accrue for the council as a result of collective voting and additional rights bestowed on the European parliament, which change it into a true organ for making laws. Finally, reducing the number of commissioners can either reinforce or diminish its position.

Social dimensions to the Treaty of Lisbon have witnessed challenges in the 21^st century occasioned by advancement in technology, globalization, and demographic changes. However, the fruits of the Treaty are evident in the case of Slovenian presidency achievements, especially in pushing for the achievement of reforms.⁴ Importantly, efforts are aimed at improving the lives of young people and adopting measures for gender balance. On climate concerns, the European commission in 2008 adopted a pact during the European council meeting, which declared that political solution was necessary for timely adoption among member states by the end of the same year. The need to share burden was seen as key and the meeting ended with calls for adoption of the 2012 comprehensive global agreement. Nevertheless, the major breakthrough in the presidency in the energy sector was the agreement on legislative package for a liberated electricity and gas market.

The significance of the Treaty of Lisbon may be viewed by pointing at the following loopholes. The treaty is viewed to make the British border porous, permitting European Union to take full control over asylum and immigration policies. This has an impact of threatening jobs due to competition that the free market brings, thus eroding the gains made by Thatcher. There is also the danger of reigning in the oil reserves, which is likely to bring disarray to the North oil reserve. The other concern is the disquiet voice, which points at the treaty being similar to the one rejected in French and Dutch forums.

Sectoral gains that are expected include regional cooperation and economic development. Specifically, this involves a call to introduce a common visa, transport agreement on European commission, and setting of the western Balkan investment Framework. The ‘co-decision procedure’, as put forth by Jean-Baptiste Jacquet, allowed the European parliament to be co-equal decision maker with the council of ministers, allowing its opinion in making law significant.⁵ This made the council to consider the amendments proposed by European parliament, leading to the principle of subsidiary; thus, the union was to act when the objectives were fitting and suited to demands of all member states.

There are several important achievements of the Treaty of Lisbon in reference to European reformation. First, it is seen to create an exceptional state by virtue of constitution. Secondly, it elevates the New European Union as a state that encompasses other states comprising its citizens, thus guaranteeing citizens’ status rights. Other notable milestones include creation of the union parliament for the subjects, a cabinet government for the union, and a political president with the benefits of civil participation. Parliament is made second to the union, thus increasing its powers for own capacity.

Abdulla Aziz points at several changes brought by the Treaty of Lisbon including guarantee of fundamental rights and human rights, as well as adoption of the charter on fundamental rights by altering Article six of the Treaty.⁶ These rights are both economic and social, and include the right to partial trial, same labor rights, right to family belonging and professionalism, and right to information, collective bargain, and protection from victimization. Social benefits have been tailored towards meeting social needs such as promoting employment, promoting advancement tertiary education, challenging social exclusion, and spearheading complete social change.

It is important to examine foreign issues in relation to the Treaty of Lisbon reforming European Union. The Treaty has a foreign policy allowing European Union to delegate powers in areas such as defense, military actions, and external relations. The initial expectations were to set way for immediate transfer of power in the future; however, this has faced setbacks since it is expected to be a gradual process that has been slowed down by rigorous requirements of compelled voting to facilitate the move at future dates.

In conclusion, EU power in foreign policy is expected to be enhanced and member states weakened, based on the initial premise of transfer. With a move in place to set EU foreign policy that will make EU boast of experts to initiate dialogue with the foreign government and the business community, there is likely to be major success in enhancing reforms within members of the Treaty of Lisbon. Nevertheless, the fruits of the Treaty can be evidenced by the increased democratic space and economic strides observed in European Union nations.

Works Cited

Achievements of the Slovenian Presidency of the EU Council 2008. Web.

Aziz, Abdulla. “Innovation and changes brought by the Lisbon Treaty: The social Aspect.” International journal of social sciences and Humanity studies 3.2 (2011): 1-8. Print.

Jacquet, Jean-Baptiste. The significance of the 2009 Lisbon Treaty for the Working of the European Union 2012. Web.

The Treaty of Lisbon 2014. Web.

Treaty of Lisbon – question and Answers 2014. Web.

Footnotes

1. The Treaty of Lisbon”. Web.
2. “Treaty of Lisbon – question and Answers,” (2014). Web.
3. “The Treaty of Lisbon”. Web.
4. “Achievements of the Slovenian Presidency of the EU Council,” (2008). Web.
5. J. Jacquet, (2012). “The significance of the 2009 Lisbon Treaty for the Working of the European Union”. Web.
6. Abdulla Aziza, “Innovation and changes brought by the Lisbon Treaty: The social Aspect,” International journal of social sciences and Humanity studies, Vol 3. No 2 (2011): 1-8. Web.

Looking from the broad historical point of view, one may clearly state that the European Union is the most outstanding example of successful collective economic, social and political cooperation. Over the last five decades, the European Community has transformed from the group of historically united countries into a highly interconnected formation, geographically covering almost the entire European continent and being one of the major actors of the world policy.

The most remarkable here is the fact that while delegating the part of their economic, political and legal sovereignty, the members of the EU remain independent and save their national identity. The EU has a unique organizational structure thanks to which its core functions are effectively performed. The following essay will examine the key legislative, executive and judiciary bodies of the EU and their role in maintaining the coherent supranational European system.

Nowadays the European Union consists of seven main bodies that represent and ensure the common interests of all member states. Those are the European Council, the Council of Ministers, the European Commission, the European Parliament, the European Court of Justice, the European Court of Auditors, and the European Central Bank (Corner 2013). The basement of this structure was established yet in 1952 with the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community with its four institutions such as the Assembly, the High Authority, the Council and the Court of Justice. The existing variant of the EU organizational structure was foreseen by the Lisbon Treaty, which was signed in 2007 and became effective in 2009 (Frischhut 2014).

This treaty was aimed to replace the unsuccessful project of the EU constitution. The primary institutional change introduced by the Lisbon Treaty was that the EU’s recognition as a legal entity. It became the subject of international law entitled to be party to international agreements and organizations. The Treaty also enhanced the role of national parliaments. All the laws of the EU were therefore directed to national parliaments for their detailed study and only after that consideration, they could be submitted for acceptance in the EU. If the majority of the national parliaments speak against the bill, it would be changed or rejected (Rossi & Casolari 2014). Formally maintaining the principle of institutional balance between supranational and intergovernmental elements, the Lisbon Treaty shifted the center of influence to the intergovernmental institutions.

The Council of Ministers or the Council of the European Union together with the European Parliament is one of the legislative bodies of the EU. 28 ministers from the governments of the member states are represented in the Council. The relevant European Commissioner is also involved in the work of the Council without the right to vote. The Council was established in 1952 as a special body in the framework of the European Coal and Steel Community to balance the High Authority, a supranational governing body, which later transformed into the European Commission. The Council plays the major role in solving those integration issues, where decision-making process takes place at the intergovernmental level. Among them are the issues of the common foreign and security policy, cooperation in domestic economic and social fields, admission of the new members (McCormick 2014).

At the same time, the Council of Ministers is the second body in the legislature of the EU. The Council of Ministers is sometimes considered the upper house in the EU political system (Barnard & Peers 2014). In fact, any legal act of the EU has to get the approval of the Council. A number of legal acts, as well as the budget of the EU, are subject to a joint decision of the European Council and the European Parliament. The proposal of the European Commission is initially presented to the Council and the Parliament, which are entitled to make relevant amendments. If the Council accepts them, the law is approved, and if not – it presents its common position and sends its version to the Parliament. If there are no objections during the second reading of the proposal, the bill may be adopted. In case there still exist any contradictions, the bill will be further discussed on the common session of the Council and the Parliament. If the committee fails to adopt the final text the Parliament and the Council will approve it in the third reading; otherwise the bill will be rejected (McCormick 2014).

During the first years of the Council’s existence, most of the decisions were taken by unanimous consent, but gradually new principles had been applied. Depending on the issue concerned, one of three types of voting may be used, namely: a simple majority (it is used for procedural matters), a qualified majority with each state having a certain number of votes (used to solve the issues of the internal market, economic affairs, and trade), and a traditional unanimous consent (used to make decisions on the new members, taxation, foreign and security policy, justice, and home affairs). The presidency is carried out by the member states in the manner unanimously determined by the Council; the rotation takes place every six months. For the time being, Luxembourg takes the presidency, with Italy and Latvia being the members of the working trio (The Council of the European Union 2015).

The Council consists of the representatives of the EU member states not lower than the ministerial rank, with each state having one representative. The Council is divided into ten formations defined in accordance with the founding Treaty of the European Council. In the case of the Foreign Affairs Council, there exist an exception – it is headed not by the minister of the presiding country but by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. This position was established by the Lisbon treaty of 2009 (Rossi & Casolari 2014).

The main executive body of the EU is represented by the European Commission. It is responsible for creating laws, implementation of decisions of the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers, ensuring the compliance with the EU treaties and monitoring of the current affairs of the Union. The Commission also ensures the respect of human rights, consults the national governments on the economic, social, military, foreign and cultural policy. In addition, the Commission together with the European Court of Auditors works on the implementation of the EU budget and supervises the use of the EU funds. All decisions of the Commission are of advisory nature; the disputes are settled at the level of national governments. The European Commission also carries out diplomatic functions of the EU abroad, having a huge network of offices worldwide (Barnard & Peers 2014).

One of the most peculiar characteristics if the European Commission is that in contrast to the traditional national governments, it has an exclusive right of the legislative initiative but only within the EU and in accordance with the EU legislation. The Commission may formally introduce bills in the European Parliament. The Council of Ministers, as well as the European Parliament, may ask the Commission to develop legislative proposals on some issues, and the latter may refuse to do this (Frischhut 2014). The Commission consists of 28 members from each member state, together with the President and five Vice-Presidents. The Commissioners in their work represent not their member states but the European Union as a whole. In 2014, Jean-Claude Juncker was elected the President. The European Parliament appoints the Commission for five years with the consent of the member states. The General Directorate and Secretariat provide the administrative assistance to the Commission (The European Commission 2015).

Considering the judiciary system of the EU, one may state that since its formation in 1952 it has become highly streamlined and effective. According to the Treaty of the European Union, the notion of the Court of Justice of the European Union corresponds to the EU judiciary system as a whole and consists of three elements: the European Court of Justice, which is the highest judiciary structure, the General Court, and the Civil Service Tribunal. National courts are sometimes seen as the fourth level of the system, being its functional elements (Frischhut 2014).

The European Court of Justice far exceeds the role of an arbitrator, allowing individual disputes between members of right governmental relations in the EU. The European Court of Justice is composed of 28 judges who are assisted by 11 Advocates General; both judges and advocates are appointed for a six-year period (The European Court of Justice, n.d.).. The Court may sit in chambers or assemble in plenary sessions for the consideration of especially important or complex cases or at the request of member states. The key function of the Court is to check the compliance of the documents issued by the European institutions and governments with the EU treaties. The Court also interprets the EU law at the request of national courts (The European Court of Justice, n.d.).

To better understand the functioning of the European Court of Justice and the possibility of applying the Community law even if it contradicts the national law, one should refer to some practical cases. One of the fists cases in the EU history where the Community law was considered more significant that the domestic is the 1964 trial Costa v ENEL (Judgment of the Court of 15 July 1964, n.d.). Mr. Costa, the shareholder in the Italian company Edison Volta, appealed to the Court of Milan, with a claim to compensate the damage caused to him, in his words, by the nationalization of the company.

Costa claimed that ENEL was founded in violation of several provisions of the 1957 Treaty of Rome. The Italian Constitutional Court, before receiving the clarifications of the European Court of Justice, had come to the conclusion that since the Treaty of Rome was ratified by Parliament through the adoption of a national act issued later than the treaty, then the provisions of the latter in the event of conflict with supranational law should have priority with respect to the relevant provisions of the Treaty. The European Court of Justice, on the contrary, concluded that due to a voluntary concession of the national sovereignties, the provisions of the supranational European law are of greater priority (Isenbaert 2008).

Another notable example is the case of Factortame v the Secretary of State for Transport (1990). The plaintiff, the Spanish fishing company, required to consider the UK demands for the ships to be owned solely by the British citizens an illegal discriminatory measure. After more than seven years of processing, the Court of Justice ruled that individuals have the right to compensation for damages caused by the state in violation of the EU law (Judgment of the Court of 19 June 1990, n.d.).

In particular, the House of Lords emphasized that all national legislation adopted after the resolutions of the EU integration organizations became effective, should be construed in a way that does not violate the rights granted to citizens of the member countries by the provisions of Community law. The national courts received the right not to apply national legislation until the preliminary decision by the Court of Justice was made (Isenbaert 2008). Similar was the 1991 case of Frankovich v Italy, where the state was obliged to compensate the damage caused by the failure to implement the EU Directive № 80/987 (Judgment of the Court of 19 November 1991, n.d.).

Thus, it can be seen that the organizational and institutional structure of the European Union is truly unique. While the European Court of Justice represents the judiciary branch of power, the legislative and executive powers are shared between the Council of Ministers and the European Commission. As to the judiciary system of the EU, it can be seen that supranational legislation is considered domineering over the national one. The EU institutions and bodies, thus, prove to be very flexible and time-relevant mechanisms.

Reference List

Barnard, C & Peers, S 2014, European Union law, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Corner, M 2013, The European Union: an introduction, I.B.Tauris, London.

Frischhut, M 2014, Fundamentals of European Union law: including the Lisbon Treaty amendments, Linde Verlag GmbH, Vienna.

Isenbaert, M 2008, EC Law and the sovereignty of the member states in direct taxation, IBFD, Amsterdam.

Judgment of the Court of 15 July 1964 n.d. Web.

Judgment of the Court of 19 June 1990 n.d. Web.

Judgment of the Court of 19 November 1991 n.d. Web.

McCormick, J 2014, Understanding the European Union: a concise introduction, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.

Rossi, L & Casolari, F 2014, The EU after Lisbon: amending or coping with the existing treaties? Springer Publishing, New York.

The Council of the European Union 2015, The presidency of the Council of the EU. Web.

The European Commission 2015, The Commission and its priorities. Web.

The European Court of Justice n.d., Presentation. Web.

France and Germany work in cooperation when dealing with the EU’s policies and problems. Recently, the French President and German counselor announced that they would dedicate €500 billion to supporting the EU’s economic recovery (Puglierin & Franke, 2020). However, apart from addressing the EU’s internal issues, the two states have been paying attention to foreign policy, as China proceeds with its mask diplomacy and considering the United States’ divisive policy towards the EU.

Germany plays a more active role in determining the foreign policy of the EU after the state became the EU’s Councill chairman on July 1, 2020 (Puglierin & Franke, 2020). However, the state’s approach to managing foreign policy can be characterized as pragmatic. The President of France, however, expresses a more visionary approach to foreign policy for the EU. According to Puglierin and Franke (2020), “France and Germany should use the momentum they created through their agreement on the recovery fund to give the EU a stronger geopolitical voice” (para. 5). Moreover, in 2017, the two states presented a unified agenda for managing foreign and internal policies of the EU, which points to the fact that leaders of both states recognize the need to develop a similar approach to managing EU foreign policies (Kempin & Kunz, 2017). More specifically, the states began to strengthen their military forces in light of geopolitical threats.

Overall, the survey of the citizens of the EU states shows that Germany shapes foreign policy to a larger extent when compared with France. However, France has a distinctly different approach to foreign policy, since its President expresses visionary ideas, unlike Germany’s counselor, who focuses on a pragmatic approach. In essence, both states are powerful forces and should work in cooperation to manage the EU’s foreign policy.

References

Kampin, R. & Kunz, B. (2017). France, Germany, and the quest for European strategic autonomy. IFRI. Web.

Puglierin, J. & Franke, U. E. (2020). The big engine that might: How France and Germany can build a geopolitical Europe. European Council of Foreign Relations. Web.

Introduction

The European Union is not only a political union but also an economic one that has a regulatory regime designed to ensure the quality of goods and services. It has thus devised a checklist with regulations and standards that merchandise manufactured by its member states and stakeholders must meet. These regulatory measures also ensure that goods and services move freely within its member states. In addition, this body sees to it that common policies like the use of a common currency are applied in the market operations and this makes it easy for member states to engage in various businesses.

On the other hand, the EU looks into the quality standards that must be put in place in the manufacture, usage and disposal of electronic devices. It was with this issue therefore that the EU resolved to introduce the Electromagnetic Compatibility directives which would be enforced and monitored to ensure that the environment was kept free of electromagnetic waste and that manufacturers took more responsibility in guiding users on the usage and disposal of electronic equipment (The World Fact Book, 2010). This paper looks at the EU regulatory directives with special focus on the EU Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) directive.

EU Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) directive that an electrical, electronic and computer products need to comply with

The EU came up with a directive on electromagnetic compatibility in 1997 well known as the 89/336/EEC. This directive lacked legal status and there was a great need to modify it and in 2004 and a new directive under the title 2004/108/EC came into place. The objectives of introducing this EMC directive were to enhance the free movement of electronic goods in the EU market. In addition, this objective was geared at ensuring that the environment was kept safe through the manufacture of electromagnetic apparatus that are acceptable according to the set standards. This directive not only applied to fixed installations but also to apparatus circulating in the EU market.

To ensure that compatibility with these regulations was adhered to, the EU came up with certain provisions. These included checks that would ensure that the equipment would meet the laid down requirements. Good engineering also coupled up as a provision to govern the compatibility regulations and member states had to come up with measures that would curb non compliancy. These modifications gave the 2004/108/EC directive a legal status which included clear distinctions on what was acceptable and what was not. In addition, the new directive emphasised on the inclusion of definitions of the electromagnetic equipment to shed clarity to the buyers. (European Union, 2010).

Another directive on compatibility that electrical, electronic and computer products need to comply with protection requirements laid down by the EU. This equipment must undergo an assessment procedure which ensures that they meet all the requirements. Fixed installations are however exempted from the EC Declaration of Conformity (DoC) as well as the CE marking and though they must meet the protection requirements. Manufacturers have to present their technical documentation on the equipment they have manufactured and this must be clearly laid down. This electronic equipment must also be free from electromagnetic disturbances which may cause other equipment to function abnormally (pp. 16-30).

Due to growing technology, electronic waste has multiplied and the EU has come up with two more directives aimed at combating this menace. The RoHS Directive does not allow the use of hazardous materials during the manufacture of electronic products. This directive minimises environmental pollution when the equipment becomes redundant or gets damaged. The second directive, best known as the WEE Directive advocates for recycling of electronic waste to ensure that it does not harm the environment. This directive therefore demands that manufacturers take back their damaged or outdated products and recycling them to manufacture other usable products (Lane, 2006).

Just in case the manufacturers forfeit these directives, they are liable to pay for the damages incurred in terms of pollution. These directives take off the burden of dealing with electronic waste from the entrepreneurs and outs it on the manufacturers who have viable options on their disposal. All electronic apparatus must have the mark ‘CE’ affixed on them as an indicator that they have tested and passed the set EU requirements. These directives therefore emphasize on recycling and reuse of electronic products and these requirements must be met by electrical, electronic and computer products (CBI, 2003).

To effect these regulations, the EU gave manufacturers and entrepreneurs a transitional period which would give each party ample time to adjust. This ensured that they did not give excuses on not meeting the set directives citing a short notice. The EU then embarked on a sensitisation crusade which aimed at enlightening all parties from the community level to make sure that no one was left out in this defining process (Lane, 2006).

Organizations responsible for enforcing and monitoring the EMC directives within the UK

The EU has set up organisations in various countries to ensure that the formulated directives are adhered to. These organisations have the role of monitoring and enforcing the EMC Directives. They ensure that the products in use are environmental friendly in that they do not emit electromagnetic interferences. They also ensure that these equipment bear immunity to low interferences. These products are thus tested to ensure that they meet the laid down requirements (Conformance, 2008).

The Trading Standards Service and Ofcom is one of the bodies in the United Kingdom that enforces and monitors the EMC directives. The Electromagnetic Compatibility Regulations 2006 is also active in the UK in the implementation of the EU directives on electromagnetic compatibility. The other body responsible for this is the Health and Safety Executive which conducts investigations to rid the market of products that do not comply with the EU directives.

Defaulters of these directives suffer penalties as directed by the EU. For instance, suppliers who deal with products that are not compliant with the directives end up paying a fine of up to £5000 or serve a three-month jail term. Manufacturers of such products are required to replace them with compliant ones or else withdraw them from the market. These bodies have the powers to prohibit the sale of noncompliant apparatus or suspend them for some time until they prove they can manufacture equipment that complies with the EU directives (Conformance, 2008).

Bodies responsible for EMC within the USA or any other developed country outside the EU

The enforcement of the EMC Directives is a responsibility of each member state and they must ensure that their territories are free from non-compliant apparatus. This responsibility is handled by custom officers as well as trading standards officers. The Custom Officers have the duty of assessing all goods entering their state whereas the Trading Standards Officers have the duty of inspecting goods being exported to the EU markets. Some of the enforcing and monitoring bodies in the US include the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) which regulates the use of equipment that may interfere with radio frequencies (Regulatory Agencies, 2010).

It therefore has the duty of restricting the RF signals as well as assigning them to safe frequencies. The other body is the Underwriters Laboratory (UL) which is a privately owned company. Its role is certifying safe products through rigorous testing and it ensures that they meet the EUs directives on compliancy. There are other regulatory bodies in both EU and non-EU countries.

For instance, Canada is home to the Canadian Standards association (CSA) which deals with ensuring that products are safe for use and also checks their compliancy with the set standards. Canada is also home to Underwriters Laboratory (UL) and IC-DoC. Germany has a regulatory body known as the TUV which regulates product safety. Sweden has the TCO body as well as the MPR-DoC, agencies that specialise in checking emission characteristics in the magnetic and electric fields (Regulatory Agencies, 2010).

However, the enforcing and monitoring process has not been without fault and the EU has braved the blunt of it all. For instance, efficiency, enforcement and equity have been major problems that these organisations have encountered in their line of duty. Some of these institutions have failed to deliver results due to various management weaknesses while others have lacked the necessary data to cater to the requirement needs. On the other hand, the EU has to be applauded for taking a great step in fighting the climate changes by curbing environmental pollution as a result of electronic waste (Kruger and Pizer, 2004).

Why EU directives are used to address technical issues

Lack of clear cut directives on the manufacture and use of apparatus can be detrimental to the environment which will directly impact on users. The EU has well defined directives on the requirements and that is why they are used to address technical issues. For instance, radio communications could disorganise the airwaves completely if people set the frequencies at their own will. The EU directives demand that these communications go hand in hand with the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) regulations. This body ensures that users are spared the electromagnetic disturbances (Savage, 2006).

In addition, the EU directives are fair and effective and this harmonises the market. Manufacturers and users are therefore cushioned against unscrupulous dealings. The EU standards are the people’s watchdog to ensure that they get quality products that do not pose any harm to them. Their insistence on apparatus and fixed installations coming with detailed descriptions is vital in the sense that the layman may not understand the technicalities used. Inclusion of such details makes it easy to use the apparatus since they are easy to understand (Savage, 2006).

The mark of quality, ‘CE’ is another reason why equipment sells as people are assured that it meets all the required standards as per the EU directives. This makes them feel safe using the apparatus as ‘CE’ is a trusted mark of quality in EU and non- EU countries. The disposal of electronic waste is tricky for the layman and many entrepreneurs had to deal with the inconveniency of hiring warehouses for the electronics they had outgrown. Thanks to the EU, this technical issue has been addressed in the directives which demand that manufacturers embark on a take-back scheme. This involves them taking back the electronic apparatus that are not needed anymore for recycling, a factor that contributes to the question on why EU directives are used to address technical issues.

The EU has also imposed a requirement on manufacturers that plods them to be more creative in their processes to be able to provide the consumer with apparatus that are reusable, recoverable and recyclable. Manufacturing companies also have the duty of availing households which act as collection centres for waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE). This saves the entrepreneur a lot of hassle when it comes to disposing electronic products that have outlived their use. Another reason why EU directives are used in solving technical issues is that they urge manufacturers to cater for the recovery and treatment of electronic waste. This is meant to rid the environment of harmful waste which can lead to land, water and air pollution. This will go a long way into ensuring that the environment is freed from electromagnetic pollution which has contributed to global warming in the recent past (Savage, 2006).

Conclusion

The EU regulatory directives were put in place to promote a free market where quality merchandise would be manufactured and distributed to entrepreneurs as evidenced by this report. The EU wanted to have an upper hand in issues that concerned the setting of policies which gave a clear outline on the quality of merchandise that could sell in the free market. This led to the introduction of the directive 2004/108/EC which dwelt on electromagnetic compatibility.

For many years, the market had been plagued with electronic waste which was wrongly disposed and ended up polluting the environment. There was therefore a need to act swiftly and save the environment from such degradation. In addition, electronic merchandise which did not meet the required standards found its way into the market and thus put the users at a great risk. These concerns prompted the EU to come up with the aforementioned directives which gave clear requirements on what was acceptable and what was not.

The EU had to get representatives in Member States as well as in countries that were not members whose role would be to enforce and monitor the set directives. That is why there are bodies such as the Trading Standards Service and Ofcom in the UK, the Federal Communications Commission in the USA as well as the Underwriters Laboratory in Canada to mention but a few. All these organisations act as the people’s watchdog to ensure that they get quality products.

The enforcing and monitoring process initiated by the EU has not been without its hiccups. It has faced several pitfalls such as inefficiency on the part of manufacturers and acting agencies, equity issues as well as enforcement problems. The process has not only been expensive but also slow and this has brought about allowance allocation issues. There have also been concerns on compliance with some of the requirements being considered impractical. However, we have to applaud the EU for the noble course it has taken towards saving the environment from the prevailing climate changes which have been attributed to environmental pollution.

References

CBI. (2003). EU legislation: Take-back electronics (WEEE). Market Information data base, 1(1), 1-3.

Conformance. (2008). Electromagnetic compatibility directive. CE marking and product safety consultancy, 2(5), 1-2.

European Union. (2010). Guide for the EMC directive 2004/108/EC. EU Directives Journal, 8(2), 1-67.

Kruger, J. & Pizer, W. A. (2004). Opportunities and potential pitfalls. The EU emissions trading directive, 1(1), 4-62.

Lane, K. (2006). Implementing the new Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) Directive 2004/108/EC in the United Kingdom. Official Journal of the European Union, 24 (2), 14-113.

Regulatory Agencies. (2010). Regulatory agencies and compliance requirements. Tyco Electronics Systems, 5(4), 1-2.

Savage, M. (2006). Implementation of the waste electric and electronic equipment directive in the EU. Joint Research Centre, 21(2), 1-108.

The World Fact Book. (2010). European Union. Central intelligence agency, ISSN 1553-8133.

Introduction

International and regional unity are crucial since it promotes social and economic development. The European Union (EU) is one of the strongest regional unions that bring together member countries for the common good. The EU was formed through the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) resulting from the Lisbon Treaty. The European Union member states are obliged to obey the obligations under the treaty. The Union contributes to creating better jobs and decent social standards for all Europeans. Consequently, through its parliament, the Union formulate various legal acts like directives, treaties, and regulations. The member states must comply with the EU legal acts, and non-compliance can lead to legal suits before the EU commission or EU court. Non-compliance with the EU legal acts leads to an infringement procedure under articles 258, 259, and 260 of the TFEU. Therefore, the infringement procedure plays a significant role in enforcing the EU law.

EU Law

The EU law is founded on democracy since the member states are given a level playground for formulating the law. The EU has seven institutions, but the parliament, EU commission, EU Council, and the Court of Justice of the EU play a major role in formulating and enforcing the EU law. The EU council and parliament have jurisdiction to establish principles and set conditions in compliance with the union treaties.¹ Moreover, the two institutions have the jurisdiction to consider and vote for any legal draft in public.² The EU Commission and the EU Court of Justice are involved when member states fail to comply with EU legal actions.³ Article 288 of the TFEU outlines five legal acts that members may comply with and act according to their provisions. Legal acts involve the various legislative acts, court judgments, and any legal object that legal scholars would consider administrative or quasi-judicial.⁴ Although the EU law supersedes the national law of European countries, the legal acts can be binding or non-binding.

Like any other legal system, the EU law has primary and secondary laws. The primary EU law is the treaties that are binding agreements among EU members.⁵ Article 288 of the TFEU provides secondary laws regulating and guiding the members. The five secondary laws are regulations, directives, decisions, recommendations, and opinions.⁶ Regulations are binding legislative acts, and EU countries must comply with them once enacted. An example of regulation is the protection of Geographical Indications (GIs) on agricultural products. The EU regulation restricts the use of GIs in European countries.⁷ As the regulations, the directives are binding among EU members. Directives involve legal acts establishing a specific goal without a specific execution means. Consequently, the members must decide on their preferred directive implementation.

Moreover, decisions of the EU court and Commission are binding on European countries. The decisions are often addressed to individual EU member countries, one or more specific European, or a legal entity like a corporation. For instance, in 2009, the EU Commission fined Microsoft Corp. for abusing its domination in the market.⁸ Unlike the regulations, directives, and decisions, opinions and recommendations are non-binding among EU members.⁹ Recommendations involve official statements issued by either of the seven EU institutions.¹⁰ Meanwhile, opinions are used in a legal context to mean any EU institution’s view on a common subject without imposing legal obligations.¹¹ Therefore, failure to implement the directives, decisions, and regulations may result in an infringement procedure as provided under articles 258, 259, and 260 of the TFEU.

Infringement Procedure

The EU members are obliged to obey and implement any EU directive, regulation, and decision. An infringement procedure arises when a member state fails to implement EU legislative acts. Infringement can only arise under two circumstances: the Commission determines that a member state failed to execute EU Treaties and if the concerned state fails to comply with the Commission’s opinion on the infringed matter.¹² Therefore, the EU Commission has discretionary power to determine whether sufficient evidence is against an EU legal act breach. An infringement case against a member state can be brought before the Commission by an individual, another member state, and other legal persons like companies. Locus Standi all legal entities ensure that members do not violate the union law causing discrimination against any individual.¹³ Article 258 of TFEU outlines the following sequence in an infringement proceeding: pre-ligation, litigation, and follow-up stages.

Pre-Litigation Stage

The pre-litigation is the first stage of the infringement procedure, where the Commission receives complaints from individuals or any other party with locus standi. Upon receiving the complaint, the Commission develops informal contact with the member state concerned to prepare the ‘Letter of Formal Notice.’¹⁴ However, if the Commission, upon the initial infringement assessment process, is satisfied that the concerned country did not breach EU law, it develops a ‘pre-closure’ letter. The concerned member countries are expected to reply to the ‘Letter of Formal Notice’ by explaining their position on the matter. Infringement action is commenced if the concerned member state gives an unsatisfactory reply to the Commission. According to the case of Commission v. The Netherlands, the Commission’s discretion is as outlined in article 258 of the TFEU.¹⁵ Moreover, the Court does not have jurisdiction to determine whether the Commission’s power was wisely exercised.¹⁶

The pre-litigation stage serves two purposes: allow the concerned member to prepare a defense, as observed in the case of Commission v Italy and allow the member states to comply before the matter is referred to the EU Court of Justice.¹⁷ If the Commission is fully satisfied that the state’s non-compliance caused serious harm, an infringement action is filed. However, the action hearing and determination may take time, considering the high number of cases before the Commission. Therefore, the Commission may request provisional measures binding from the Court.¹⁸ The measures prevent the concerned country from causing serious harm through non-compliance. For instance, in the case of Commission v Poland, the Court issued interim orders before the Polish government submitted its observations on logging in protected forests.¹⁹ The member states are then allowed to prepare their defense for the litigation stage.

Litigation and Follow-Up Stages

The litigation is the hearing and determination stage where the concerned European country respond to the matter before the Commission. The litigation arises if the concerned government unsatisfactorily complies with the Commission’s recommendation during the pre-litigation stage. The Commission has full discretion to consider whether to file a proceeding or not. However, the power is limited to special circumstances, like where the pre-litigation procedure took excessive duration, making it difficult for members to refute the Commission’s claim.²⁰ The Commission may make an informed opinion on the matter or refer it to the EU Court of justice for determination and subsequent punishment.²¹ EU countries can defend themselves since the EU law observes the doctrine of Audi alteram partem.²²Therefore, various defenses are available to the concerned states.

Various defenses are available for concerned countries and vary from case to case. The first and common defense is denying the breach of the EU law or the obligation in question.²³ The member state can explain to the Court the measures it has taken to implement the law in question.²⁴ The concerned member state can contend that the obligation to comply is reciprocal and needs full compliance by other European countries. In such a defense, the member state needs to show that other member countries have not complied with the EU law, and it is not an exemption.²⁵ The concerned government can also use lack of jurisdiction as a defense but in limited cases. For instance, the Commission may not have exclusive jurisdiction to hear human rights cases and is required to refer the cases to the EU Court of Human Rights.²⁶

Moreover, the member state may defend itself by stating that the case lacks merit and is founded in bad faith. The defenses available for the member states must be substantiated with compliance claims. If the defenses fail, the Court declares non-compliance, and the concerned member state is fined appropriate lumpsum.²⁷ The follow-up is the final stage, where the EU Court of justice may impose a further penalty if the member state fails to comply with the law and judgment. Therefore, articles 258, 259, and 260 significantly determine an infringement action against EU countries.

Conclusion

The EU promotes economic and social development among European countries. The Union has an established EU law that supersedes the national laws of member countries. Treaties are the primary sources of EU law, while directives, regulations, decisions, opinions, and recommendations are secondary sources of law. The binding EU legislative acts include treaties, directives, regulations, and decisions. Meanwhile, the recommendations and opinions are non-binding laws among the EU member states. Failure to comply with the EU laws can lead to an infringement action under articles 258 and 260. The infringement procedure enforces the EU law by punishing and fining non-complying member states.

References

C-152/98, Commission v. The Netherlands, (EU:C:2001:255), para. 20

C-293/05, Commission v. Italian Republic [2006], (EU:C:2006:750), para. 22.

C-441/17 R, Commission v Poland [2018], (ECLI:EU:C:2017:877).

Case C-365/97 Commission v Italy [1999] ECR I-7773, paragraphs 23 and 24.

Case C-383/00, Commission v. Federal Republic of Germany, [2002], (EU:C:2002:289), para. 19.

Case T-201/04 Microsoft v Commission [2007] ECR II-3601.

Commission v Spain, Judgment of 6 October 2009 (EU:C:2009:614), para. 21.

Craig P, and De Burca G, EU Law (Oxford University Press 2020).

Helios J, and Jedlecka W, ‘The Derivative Concept of Legal Interpretation in EU Law’ (2019) 115 Przegląd Prawa i Administracji.

‘Infringement Proceedings Against EU Member States | Legal Guidance | Lexisnexis’ (Lexisnexis.co.uk, 2022).

Kochenov D, and Bárd P, ‘The Last Soldier Standing? Courts Versus Politicians and The Rule of Law Crisis in The New Member States of the EU’ [2019] European Yearbook of Constitutional Law 2019.

Korkea-aho E, ‘National Courts and European Soft Law: Is Grimaldi Still Good Law?’ (2018) 37 Yearbook of European Law.

Makogon B and others, ‘Constitutional Justice in Circumstances of Public Authority Limits’ (2018) 7 Journal of History Culture and Art Research

Rasnača Z, ‘Collective Redress in Labour and Social Law Disputes: An (Attractive) Option for the EU?’ (2021) 12 European Labour Law Journal.

Sillen J, ‘The Concept Of ‘Internal Judicial Independence’ In the Case Law of The European Court of Human Rights’ (2019) 15 European Constitutional Law Review.

Smuha N, ‘The EU Approach to Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence’ (2019) 20 Computer Law Review International.

Terziev V, Petkov M, and Krastev D, ‘Sources of European Union Law’ (SSRN, 2022).

The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) 2022

Wang W, ‘The Formal Adequacy Principle from The Perspective of Judicial Case Management: Macau’ [2021] Civil Case Management in the Twenty-First Century: Court Structures Still Matter.

Footnotes

1. Article 14, The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
2. Article 15, TFEU.
3. Article 258-260, TFEU.
4. Boris V. Makogon and others, ‘Constitutional Justice in Circumstances of Public Authority Limits’ (2018) 7 Journal of History Culture and Art Research.
5. Venelin Terziev, Marin Petkov and Dragomir Krastev, ‘Sources of European Union Law’ (SSRN, 2022). Web.
6. Article 288.
7. Joanna Helios and Wioletta Jedlecka, ‘The Derivative Concept Of Legal Interpretation In EU Law’ (2019). Web.
8. Case T-201/04 Microsoft v Commission [2007] ECR II-3601.
9. Emilia Korkea-aho, ‘National Courts and European Soft Law: Is Grimaldi Still Good Law?’ (2018) 37 Yearbook of European Law. Web.
10. Joanna Helios and Wioletta Jedlecka, ‘The Derivative Concept of Legal Interpretation in EU Law’ (2019) 115 Przegląd Prawa i Administracji. Web.
11. Nathalie A. Smuha, ‘The EU Approach to Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence’ (2019) 20 Computer Law Review International. Web.
12. Article 258, TFEU.
13. Zane Rasnača, ‘Collective Redress in Labour and Social Law Disputes: An (Attractive) Option for the EU?’ (2021) 12 European Labour Law Journal. Web.
14. C-293/05, Commission v. Italian Republic, Judgment of 30 November 2006 (EU:C:2006:750), para. 22.
15. C-152/98, Commission v. The Netherlands, (EU:C:2001:255), para. 20.
16. Case C-383/00, Commission v. Federal Republic of Germany, judgment of 14 May 2002 (EU:C:2002:289), para. 19.
17. Case C-365/97 Commission v Italy [1999] ECR I-7773, paragraphs 23 and 24.
18. Article 279, TFEU.
19. C-441/17 R, Commission v Poland [2018], (ECLI:EU:C:2017:877).
20. Commission v Spain, Judgment of 6 October 2009 (EU:C:2009:614), para. 21).
21. Ibid.
22. Wei Wang, ‘The Formal Adequacy Principle from The Perspective of Judicial Case Management: Macau’ [2021] Civil Case Management in the Twenty-First Century: Court Structures Still Matter. Web.
23. Paul P Craig and Grainne De Burca, EU Law (Oxford University Press 2020).
24. Dimitry Kochenov and Petra Bárd, ‘The Last Soldier Standing? Courts Versus Politicians and The Rule Of Law Crisis In The New Member States Of The EU’ [2019] European Yearbook of Constitutional Law 2019. Web.
25. ‘Infringement Proceedings Against EU Member States | Legal Guidance | Lexisnexis’ (Lexisnexis.co.uk, 2022). Web.
26. Joost Sillen, ‘The Concept Of ‘Internal Judicial Independence’ In the Case Law of The European Court of Human Rights’ (2019) 15 European Constitutional Law Review. Web.
27. Article 260, TFEU.

In the 21^st century, globalization has become a leading trend that defines the political, social, and economic landscapes of the Earth. International alliances are acquiring a status of paramount importance, determining geopolitical affairs to a considerable degree. Among these trends, a supranational union has been formed that is often referred to as the West. In a general sense, this alliance often coincides with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), comprising the majority of the European Union, as well as the United States and its closest allies. The purpose of the NATO is to ensure the security of its member states and defend their interests in the global arena.

From one perspective, this organization addresses an array of challenges that pose risks to the security of its members. The range of threats varies from the spread of international terrorism and radical groups to the emergence of opposing superpowers in the geopolitical arena. Within its framework, there remain heated debates regarding the status and the role of the European Union (EU). The EU in its own capacity assembles the leading states of Europe within a single organization. However, the efforts of the Union have been centered around economic and legislative activities of its members. The defense component of the nations’ well-being remains delegated to the NATO, which prompts the Alliance’s opponents to stand in favor of an autonomous position of Europe in this regard. More specifically, it is said that the reliance on the U.S. for defense and national security leads to a situation, in which American interests are placed above the well-being of the EU.

In this regard, the European Union is a strong entity that encompasses some of the world’s leading nations. In response to the central question, the EU will benefit from a more independent stance on the matters of national security and defense. In spite of the alignment of values, European nations are located on another continent and they face different threats, as compared to the U.S. Therefore, the EU should not refrain from defending its interests and maintain its own, independent security policy. This perspective does not imply that the NATO partnership should be abandoned. Instead, a multi-tier framework needs to be established, in which the EU will determine its own security, while the Alliance will address full-scale, worldwide threats and cooperation.

The EU will benefit from being autonomous in defense and security policy. The position of an independent actor could assist the Union in strengthening its role in the international society and contributing to peace-making on the global scale. At the same time, Brattberg and Valasek (2019) note that the EU needs to establish specialized decision-making structures that could work independently from the ones of sovereign states in crises and wartime situations. Furthermore, to become autonomous in defense and security realms, the EU needs to improve its operational and civilian capabilities “through a competitive high-tech European defense industrial base” (Brattberg &Valasek, 2019, p. i). Still, the development of these capabilities is a matter of time and eventually will make the EU a strong international actor that enjoys autonomy in defense and security decision-making.

If the EU becomes autonomous in defense and security policies, its interest might intersect with the ones of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). At the same time, this intersection is expected to strengthen cooperation between the two alliances on security issues. As Tardy and Lindstrom (2019) put it, cooperation between the EU and NATO is a cornerstone for effective resistance to contemporary international security threats. Furthermore, it should be added that currently, the EU focuses on autonomy in economic and legal aspects, and the inclusion of defense and security will only strengthen its positions.

To conclude, there are debates on whether the EU should gain autonomy in defense and security policies. Such a model of EU resembles NATO because it is concerned with protecting its member-states from external threats. The present essay proves that the EU will benefit from it and make the participating countries better off. Still, to become autonomous, the EU needs to improve its operational and civilian capabilities and develop a way to separate the national and supranational responsibilities.

References

Brattberg, E., & Valasek, T. (2019). EU defense cooperation: Progress amid Transatlantic concerns. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Tardy, T., & Lindstrom, G. (2019). The scope of EU-NATO cooperation. The EU and NATO: The Essential Partners, 1-11.