LEARNING MATERIALS

EU STRATEGY FOR AFRICA

COMPRESSED EU STRATEGY FOR AFRICA

A COMPREHENSIVE EU STRATEGY FOR AFRICA POLITICAL DIALOGUE: GOVERNANCE, SECURITY AND MIGRATION

Africa has been categorized into 2 according to development: the fragile states mostly the Sahel with poor government, little state capacity and insurgency; and the better governed with a state-building mechanism in place characterized by adequate means of revenue generation and the overall high standard of living. This difference can be eliminated by the proper system of governance, adequate means of revenue and the increased legitimacy of the government. This issue can be properly solved by the EU-Africa partnership. This is because despite the other partnerships that the African continent can enter into (or are into), the EU-Africa is the most beneficial and sustainable according to statistics in terms of FDI, AfCFTA, ODA and humanitarian aid (which has been supplied since 2014). This proposal is to last from 2021 to 2027 with clear mutual advantages but the problems of individuality, migration and mobility which stems from the explosive population growth of some African countries while taking into consideration, the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The strategy acknowledges the relationship with China but revers its action to be due to the present resources and the boost caused to the Chinese economy with no much respect for the rights and status quo of the African countries. This was further affirmed with the occurrence of the COVID 19 which though had the continent receiving health aids from China, still stirred rumours about the origin of the virus. The Parliament however does not see China as a threat rather it regards the current relationship in furtherance to form the EU-Africa partnership. An instance is the strengthening of the Center for Disease Control capacity of the AU which was formed in 2017. To effectively allow for the proposed partnership, the Parliament is tasked with the tolerance of values and ideas unlike the norm-based values and ideologies of the European Union. On one hand, the developed category claims to be a thriving and well-advanced market and on the other hand is the fragility dilemma suffered by the second category with the Sahel region as a focus.

Security

While conflicts such as the Mano River Basin and the Angola civil war have become things of the past, conflicts in DRC, Somalia and the Sahel region keeps reflecting in the books of insecurity thus the need for international assistance and intervention which the EU seeks to render. Though the EUCAP-Sahel, EUTM, MINUSMA and AFISMA have been in operation, there isn’t much positivity to be recorded. For this reason, currently, focus is now on balancing the needs of the region and the foreign policy of the union all to achieve the goal of security.

Sahel, The Eu And Regional Organisations

This is clearly seen in the G5 Sahel initiative which merely illustrates the objective of economic integration of the Union hence the danger of the consequences of such narrow security arrangement. Thus, in subsequent policies, more about the unintended consequences, the political integration and the general development of EU and Africa need be taken into consideration.

State building, governance and human rights.

‘Good governance is the effective and inclusive economic, social, education and health policies, Equal access to basic social services, equal access to fair redistribution of resources, equal access to justice and open and inclusive societies foster peace and security and act as a foundation for jobs and growth, Attracting investment’. The EU confirms that it has been attending to this issue in a wrong format hence the strategy of fiscal capacity amidst other possible long term support systems which will in turn lead to the national development in and sustainable social contract of the African countries.

Migration and mobility

This is seen as an opportunity and challenge depending on the cause-effect relationship as seen from the lens of AU and EU during the European Refugees crisis 2014-2015. Countries like Mali, Mauritania and extensively in the Sahel region will come to light on mention of the Canary Islands and the Mediterranean Routes. However, a well managed migration and mobility will have a positive impact on the country of origin, transit and destination countries through balancing security concerns and larger development agenda.

On the way to go, a more closer dialogue is to be had with AU, ECOWAS and national government to fully understand the continent’s needs and resources in order to yield an effective joint-interest.

COMPREHENSIVE EU STRATEGY FOR AFRICA DEVELOPMENT, HUMANITARIAN AID AND CLIMATE CHANGE.

This brings into focus the technology sectors as well as climate change mitigation with respect to agriculture and other related fields in Africa while working towards a government-to-government approach rather than the individual approach to facilitate the efficiency of the institutions (ACP) and financial cooperation of EU-Africa.

Sustainable Development Priorities

The strategy faults the precedence given to economic growth, thorough urbanisation, infrastructure and mechanised agriculture as they do not align with the current realities of Africa. For this reason, there is the need to prioritize the SDGs in a way in line with a bottom-up administration and operation. Thus, attention should be given to social and environmental discourse before the overall economic influence is worked upon to make for a balance and sustainable practice.

Security Development Nexus

Here, humanitarian aid should be looked upon and ideals such as cooperation on disaster risk prevention and mitigation should be upheld rather than leaving the discourse for future conversations.

Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation

The decision on this can be linked to its political effect rather than its social or environmental effect. Nonetheless, it is necessary to identify the difference sources of clean, affordable energy that will mitigate climate change in the vulnerable regions while not neglecting the gradual depletion of the entire ecosystem and emulate the practice of climate diplomacy.

Migration and Development

The current brain drain of education and health professionals is highlighted for mention in addition to a modification of the current policies on return and re-admission to a more complementary policy that will work in favour of both parties for a legal migration to achieve a general positive impact.

Institutional Compatibility and Funding

Restating the harm in going on with the AU-ACP coexistence as to being against sustainable development, a diversion and novel way is sought. Also, the AU-ACP Joint Parliamentary Assembly is one that has the analysed result to be worthy of note in ensuring sustainability as it will mitigate the imbalance in the partnership. Moreso, similar structures such as NEPAD and AUDA need to be in operation as against the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument (NDICI) to bring about proper funding. Lastly, bilateral sources of funding need be acquired through the co-operation of both parties and affected bodies to mobilise domestic taxes to boost the ODA.

Policy Cohesion and Sustainable Development

PCSD ought to include coherence between social, economic and environmental dimensions of sustainable development, the inclusion of non-state actors in implementation and the vertical governance at multilateral and local level. Primarily, it should include an evidence based political and policy discussion with direct participation by stakeholders.

Relevance for post Covid 19 pandemic

This is necessary to foster future relationship between the parties and dealing with the pandemic from the health aspect alone won’t be enough to solve the issue hence the inclusion of digitalization and a more robust health infrastructure that will serve the long-term goal post COVID-19 era

Primarily, the EU strategy with Africa seeks to promote increased participation, development in social aspects, the awareness of the crucial role of the state’s preparedness for crisis, emphasis on the adaptation policies, continent-to-continent approach with respect to institutional framework, joint financing and emphasis on people-centered solutions.

COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGY FOR AFRICA TRADE AND INVESTMENT

PROGRESS TOWARDS A NEW COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGY WITH AFRICA

While this is in a way to work with Africa, 5 plans have been highlighted: green transition and energy access, digital transformation, sustainable growth and jobs, peace and governance along with migration and mobility which will be treated in 10 actions. Other ideas in motion include the political alliance of both parties, the focus on youth empowerment, the expansion of the continent, the multilateral cooperation amidst others to foster primarily the mutual partnership. Specifically with respect to trade and investment, the proposals are job creations, sustainable investment, a more coordinated approach for mobilisation of investors and a common interest as set by the World Trade Organisation. All of this is with emphasis on digital transformation.

ECONOMIC TIES BETWEEN EUROPE AND AFRICA

1 EU-Africa trade relations and regional trends

Prior to Covid 19, the import and export rate of Africa and EU according to statistics was on the scale of a moderately profitable one which works well for both economies. However, during the pandemic the numbers have fallen due to the reduction in demand together with supply from both parties which in turn affected both economies negatively. As to regional trends, intra-African trade has been on the lower side of the chain. It is referred to as the lowest inter-regional trade in the world. However, there is a dynamic in the current system of the East African Community (EAC) and the Southern African Development Community (SADC).

2 Trends in Foreign Direct Investment to Africa

The COVID-19 caused a global decline in the FDI with the most affected being South Africa, Morocco, Ethiopia, Egypt and Congo and the top investors being France, Netherlands, US, UK, China and Italy making member states of the EU majority on the list. However, this is dependent on the areas of investment, capitals, jobs created and projects. This decline will be solved by the strategy if operated with policies which are in tandem with the plans and actions proposed.

EU TRADE AND INVESTMENT POLICY TOWARDS AFRICA

1 EU Trade Regimes Towards Africa

The EU trade policy towards Africa has been traditional divided into North African policies and Sub-Saharan Africa. When North Africa is mentioned, the rate of import and export are not on an equal balance hence the negotiation on Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Areas (DCFTAs) within the region. Though substantial progress has been made, the negotiation has stalled due to government issues and the Western Saharan issue with Morocco over sovereignty. The Economic Partnership Agreement which has been since 2003 can also be regarded as a way in which the Union has extended help towards Africa together with other regimes of trade policy.

2 The EU and the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA)

Currently, the EU is supporting the operation of the FTA which is an agreement of the African Union with about 44 signatories. This support is in 3 channels: the Pan-African Programme (that supports negotiations, the establishing of an African Trade Observatory and strategic dialogue on investment climate reforms, among others), the EU Aid for Trade and the EU External Investment Plan.

3 EU Initiatives For Mobilizing Investments

Due to the absence of a single framework for the mobilization of investments in Africa from the EU, the initiatives have been formed; the Africa-Europe Alliance, The External Investment Plan (EIP) and European Investment Bank-related instruments.

EUROPEAN CULTURE AND VALUE

EUROPEAN CULTURE AND VALUES

ADEBOWALE AYOBADE

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WORK

FACULTY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES

UNIVERSITY OF LAGOS

aayobade@unilag.edu,ng, ayobade2000@yahoo.com

Introduction

Culture is a very important emblem that people all over the world used in distinguishing themselves from others. It has been a source of discrimination and prejudice which has affected intergroup relations even in contemporary society. Africans take pride in their cultural heritage just as the Asians, Europeans, people of the Middle East and those in the Persian Gulf see their culture as superior to others. Culture creates a universe of meaning from which individual perceive the world around them. Every culture has inherent values which make the use of the universe of meaning practically possible, foster social interaction and organization of the society for peaceful co-existence and social order. Every society looks back upon its own history and has consequently derived its own set of values from it. It is believed that common set of values unites individuals, and therefore a society comes into existence. Values’ describe those beliefs or ideal mental images used to maintain social customs or habits of interest to us or introduce new ones. Much have been learned about African culture by African students but little is known to them about European culture. Therefore, this session focuses on European culture, it’s nature and formation to its present state.

Learning Objectives

The objective of this session is to provide students with a basic knowledge of European culture. Specific objective of the session includes;

The creation of an understanding of the common features of European cultures.
Exposure of the dividing line in European culture
Examination of the formation of European culture.
To provide a brief examples of European culture by country.

The Concept of Culture and Value

Culture can be described as the totality of customs, norms, values, beliefs, attitude, art, capability and standard that distinguish a group or a society from others. Culture provides social identity and to individuals and groups and give them a sense of belonging coupled with its socializing influence. Culture changes and are passed down from generation to generation. It dictates the nature of society and the pattern of behaviour therein. “We use the word ‘values’ to describe those beliefs or ideal mental images used to maintain social customs or habits of interest to us or to introduce new ones. If habits or customs becomes obsolete, the values that surrounded and sustained them will also go into extinction. Values are the fundamental elements of the culture; they define the meaning and significance for the people within a social system. (Bilbeny, 2020). “Values are the fundamental elements of the culture; they define the meaning and significance for the people within a social system (society). The rules and norms of a society are derived from its values. From this point of view, it becomes clear that values have a deep significance for the respective social system due to the fact that they significantly influence, control and regulate this social system” (European Value Info, ND).

European Cultural Divide and Commonality

Most scholarly work on culture focus more on African, Asian and the American cultures and tend to shy away from the fact that Europe also have cultures that distinguish them from and connect them to other cultures all over the world. Europe grows as divisions as the continent increased into, the practical division, in 314, of the Roman Empire into East and West, the ‘New Rome’, arose within the Empire with the second split in 768. The third division emerged form the schism between East and West in 1054. While, the fourth division was the greatest, taking place within the Western Church itself in 1517, between the Protestant North, followers of Luther, and the Catholic South (Bilbeny, 2020). Cultural values of any society are either individualistic or collectivistic in nature and the European cultural value falls within the individualistic dimension (Gobel et.al, 2018). Though there are differences in the culture of European societies, they share common features which distinguish them from the rest of the world. European cultural values emphasise the uniqueness of the self and embrace egalitarianism rather than individualistic hierarchy. And this unites Europe as one undivided cultural society. This fact is succinctly explained in the words of Gobel et.al (2018) below.

Drawing on data from the World Values Survey (WVS), the results from their two studies show that despite the existence of large differences among European cultures, they all share a distinct model of selfhood characterised by commitment to others and egalitarian values, but also by an emphasis on seeing the self as unique (i.e., different from others) and decontextualized (i.e., with an essence that does not require contextual information). They find a distinctive European value profile that is consistent with this selfhood: European cultures uniformly value

relationships that are agreeable and horizontal. They strongly endorse harmony–egalitarianism, rather than mastery–hierarchy. It is the commitment to others and the egalitarianism rather than individualism–collectivism that distinguish the European continent from other cultures in the world. (p. 860).

However, the history of European societies was characterized by conflict and violence over dominance and subjugation and great concerns over national identity rather than egalitarianism. In recent years, the issue of Brexit, Scotland and Catalonia quest for independence and the great divide between eastern and western Europe reveal the fragmented nature of European culture and the difficulty in accepting or complying with the values foisted by the European Union on European society by some countries like Poland and Hungary. Egalitarianism in practice is only superficial contrary to what European scholars believe. The difference and the problem of uniting European culture and values into a united one has a long history has revealed in the words of Bilbeny (2020).

Paradoxically, the idea of Europe grows as divisions within the continent increase, and as there is a degree of awareness of the latter. First came the practical division, in 314, of the Roman Empire into East and West. This division, which would give rise to Constantinople, the ‘New Rome’, arose for internal reasons within the Empire, something that would not be the case with the second split in 768, with Charlemagne’s Germanic Holy Roman Empire and its increasing confrontation with Islam, which was approaching from the Mediterranean and which led to a separation between the Carolingian North and the Muslim South.

The third division arose out of the schism between East and West in the Christian Church in 1054. A cause —internal this time— that would create a dividing line between the West, with its Latin rite, and the East, with its Greek one. But the fourth division, internal once again, turned out to be the greatest, taking place within the Western Church itself in 1517, between the Protestant North, followers of Luther, and the Catholic South. For many Christians, this was a blow comparable only to that suffered by the same religion back in 314, when the Roman Empire was divided, and they felt that the end of the world was upon them. In the sixteenth century, the Lutherans were regarded, despite the obvious differences, much as the jihadists are viewed (and condemned) today. A real shock to the system that just happened to coincide with the Turks’ expansion across the Mediterranean. Finally, the very last internal division in Europe, one that will surely have contributed to its self-awareness, took place in 1945 after the defeat of the Nazis, between the capitalist West and the communist East. Each division of Europe bolstered the idea that the different parts had of themselves and, indirectly, due to this very division, the idea of Europe itself. An idea that would begin forming after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire in 476 and at the end of the Eastern Empire in 1453, with the fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans (para.5-7).

So, European culture and values can be divided into individualism and communitarianism. While most of the western European cultures embrace individualistic values, most eastern European cultures emphasize communitarian values. And there is a clear cultural difference in terms of the geographical divide in the European continent. According to Bilbeny (2020), there are four geo-cultural spaces in Europe: The Franco-German, the central Europe, the Mediterranean and the Slavic. The term “European values” usually includes achievements of European arts like painting, architecture, literature, music and the like. While “Basic European Values” contains only the essential and elementary values from which the fundamental of our free, modern and democratic society has evolved (Creative Commons by EuropeanValues.info).

Europeans often perceive their cultural value as universal and the European Union have made efforts at unifying its members culturally on the basis of the so called universal values. These values include; humanistic thinking, rationality, secularity, rule of law, democracy and human rights. But not all European countries adhere to these cultural values as some of them are not members of the union, challenging the acclaimed universality.

Quiz: European culture is universal. How true is this statement?

Development of European culture

Historically, the first known European culture was that of the people living in the Lower Danube Valley and Balkan Foothills prior to the emergence of the first cities and temples in the Mesopotamia and the Nile (Wilford, 2009). These people developed technology, art and long distance trade at that time. Writing further about this cultural group, Wilford (2009) said.

For 1,500 years, starting earlier than 5000 B.C., they farmed and built sizable towns, a few with as many as 2,000 dwellings. They mastered large-scale copper smelting, the new technology of the age. Their graves held an impressive array of exquisite headdresses and necklaces and, in one cemetery, the earliest major assemblage of gold artifacts to be found anywhere in the world. The striking designs of their pottery speak of the refinement of the culture’s visual language. Until recent discoveries, the most intriguing artifacts were the ubiquitous terracotta “goddess” figurines, originally interpreted as evidence of the spiritual and political power of women in society (para.2-3).

The spread of Greek ideas and culture as well as the rise of empires like the Roman empire and other empires from small communities in Europe together with Jewish and Christian influence contributed a lot to the formation of European culture and values through cultural diffusion and convergence. Series of crises among emerging European nations, the Turks’ expansion across the Mediterranean and the division of the Roman empire into Western and Eastern empires and their collapse in 476 and 1453 (due to the fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans) respectively, led to the quest for the restoration of old empires giving rise to the Humanist Movement and imitation of classical Greco-Roman lifestyle (Bilbeny, 2020). The humanist ideas and values evolved into rationalism, secularism, rule of law, democracy and human rights successively, representing the main value from which other European cultural values are derived (European Value Info, ND). Despite the influx of immigrants from Muslim societies and Africa into Europe, it is very easy to distinguish the immigrant group cultures from the European culture (Gobel et.al, 2018). So, immigrants have to undergo the process of acculturation in order to enjoy inclusiveness in the society.

Quiz: European culture developed from chaos. Do you agree/?

Examples of Cultures in Europe

The analysis of European culture above shows that there are diverse cultural heritages among European societies despite the common cultural features that unify them. Here, we shall look at specific European societies and their cultural elements.

British Culture

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is made up of four countries including England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The British culture is built around the royalty with the four countries committed to the same monarch and government despite having their different legislative houses. They use the same currency and share similar laws and policies and subject to the same royal family (Evason, 2021).

The constituent countries of the UK Speak English as a common language but have differences in accents or dialects due to differences in native language. The native languages include: Welsh spoken in Wales, Gaelic and Scots spoken in Scotland, Irish and Ulster Scots in Northern Ireland and Cornish in Cornwall, England. Scottish is a Celtic language spoken in Northern part of Scotland while the Cornish language is spoken by a small group of people in England. While there are other minor languages, the UK has over 50 accents which are different from the Queen’s English (Great British Mag, 2022).

The British value punctuality as they often frown at late coming for either official or unofficial events. British do not condone jumping queue, they see standing patiently on the queue as a normal thing and would challenge any person who jump or try to jump the queue. It is part of the British culture to apologize to people for any inconveniences and keep a little distance when conversing with one another as closeness to them may mean aggression. British are used to shaking hands when greeting but for close relatives they do not just shake, they give a kiss on the cheek especially when one of those greeting is a female. It is customary to bring gifts like chocolate, flower or wine to the a family or home when invited by them as an appreciation for the invitation. Also, they often respect the elderly and the disabled. For instance, individual is expected to leave his seat in public transport by standing up for the elderly and disabled.

Art work is a very important part of British culture and history as they help to showcase old traditional heritage of Britain. One of such is the Stonehenge which as built around 2600 B.C. Closely related to British art is the architectural prowess of the British people which usually show specific traits characteristic of different periods in history.. The British are tea loving people and have a sense of humour and sarcasm in their interaction with one another and used to making fun of politicians in the public. In addition, the class system is an integral part of British culture though the working class is believed to have faded away, there is stark difference between the middle class and the upper class (Evason, 2021).

The German Culture

Germany is the second largest country in Europe after Russia and wield great influence politically and economically in Europe. While German is the official language of the people, other languages include “Serbian in eastern Germany; North and West Frisian, spoken around the Rhine estuary; and Danish, primarily spoken in the area along the Danish border. Romani, which is an indigenous language, Turkish and Kurdish” (Zimmermann, 2018). Advameg (2022) gives more information about the German language in the following words.

The major German dialect groups are High and Low German, the language varieties of the southern highlands and the northern lowlands. Low German dialects, in many ways similar to Dutch, were spoken around the mouth of the Rhine and on the northern coast but are now less widespread. High German dialects may be divided into Middle and Upper categories, which, again, correspond to geographical regions (para.11)

The Germans are very rich in art and music that they have contributed a lot to classical music that wield influence even up till today. Talking the German art, Zimmermann (2018) said,

With their penchant for precision and engineering, it is not surprising that Germans have a strong tradition of printmaking by woodcut and engraving. There is also a strong representation of all phases of architecture — including Romanesque, Gothic, Classicist, Baroque, Rococo and Renaissance — represented in cathedrals, castles and public buildings. One well-known example of classic German art is the Brandenburg Gate, a former city gate that is now used to symbolize Berlin’s unity (para.14).

Germans place high value on control, privacy and community as well as punctuality as they traditionally cherish an organized way of doing things. In the community, Germans are used to helping one another care for their garden and often work together to protect and maintain the environment. Germans maintain a small family size and take family life very serious and at the same time protect their privacy. Germany is the home of beer in the orld as most of world best beer are brewed there. Beer is an integral part of the German culture, it’s their favourite beverage and certain festivals like the Oktoberfest (literally, “October celebration”) are dedicated to it.

Spanish Culture

The Spanish culture has a great influence on Latin American countries. Majority of the Spanish people speak Spanish or Castellano while there are other languages like Basque, Catalan, Valencian and Galician spoken by some groups in the poplation (Godoy, 2021). Greeting is a very important aspect of Spanish culture and simple handshake is normally used wwhen greeting someone one is not familiar with. When familiarity becomes stronger, greetings come with a hug or a double kiss on the cheek.

The Spanish have a series of festivals and celebrations which are elaborately carried out as prominent in their tradition. Some of these festivals are identified by Godoy (2021) below.

Semana Santa (Holy Week) is one of the largest celebrations. It’s known for having processions that commemorate the Passion of Christ.

El Día de Reyes Magos (Day of the Three Kings) is widely celebrated across the country and is a favorite holiday for children. They receive gifts and there’s colorful parades in the cities where they celebrate their long awaited arrival.

Spanish “fiestas” (festivals) are large celebrations and carnivals devoted to a specific Saint or City. These fiestas have traditional foods, fireworks, dancing, handmade decorations, parades, concerts, and theater.

Other traditions like the running of the bulls of San Fermín in Pamplona, and the tomato fights of la Tomatina are experiences that draw millions of people and tourists to celebrate Spanish culture.

Spanish traditional clothing patterns are often showcased in Torero (bull-fighting), Flamenco dancer and festivals. Godoy (2021) also identified some of the traditional wears below.

El traje corto (short suit): short jackets, combined with a white shirt, and high-waisted trousers. It’s usually worn by men with a Spanish sombrero (hat).
La mantilla (veil): a long lace or silk veil that covers women’s head and shoulders. It was once a requirement to wear it before entering a church.
La peineta (comb):a tortoise-shell comb worn by women to secure the mantilla in their hair.

Moreover, music is a very important aspect of Spanish culture and it varies based on the regions. The Flamenco dance represent the image of Spain and it is often greeted by a mix of traditional music. Other Spanish dances include: Sardana from Catalona, Muineira from Galicia, Fandango, Zambra from Andalusia, Jota from Valencia, and Sevillna from Sevilla (Godoy, 2021; La Moncloa, nd). Also, Spanish people believe in superstition. They believe having a hat on your bed connote something evil and that bringing old broom to a new house would bring bad-luck. So, when moving to a new house or apartment, they get new brooms.

End of Session Assignment

Colonial master from Europe claimed that African culture is primitive and inferior to that of Europe. Succinctly explain your stand on this claim?
The universality of European culture is the bases for globalization and global culture. Explain this view?

Policy Paper

Acculturation of African Immigrant into European Culture and the Effects on African Culture

EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTION AND GOVERNMENT MECHANISM

COURSE MODULE FOR

EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTION AND GOVERNANCE MECHANISM

Efem N. Ubi, PhD.

Associate Professor and Director of Research and Studies

Nigerian Institute of International Affairs

Lagos, Nigeria

Introduction

The European Union is run by its institutions and an understanding of this institutional structure is essential to understanding the European Union. This module therefore focuses on the European Union institutions and Governance Mechanism. Importance will be given to the key roles each EU institutions play within the EU structure and the relationships between them. The module will start by introducing what the European Union is all about, this will be followed by examining and studying the four central institutions as well as other institutions of the EU. The focus will be first, on their functions and roles within the European Union – i.e., what they do and how they relate to each other. And second, it aims to introduce participants to the essential foundations of EU governance, analyzing the ways in which decisions and rules in the EU are made in various institutional arrangements. The format of the module will combine discussions among participants with interactive lectures.

Objectives of the Course

The main objectives of the program are for participant to gain access to specific knowledge, useful and relevant information and networks that helps understanding how the European Union as an entity works through extant institutions and relevant governance mechanisms. The program will also give participants the necessary technical knowledge in contributing to the overall European-African political, economic and socio-cultural relations and how these relations can contribute to the overall Africa-EU economic growth and development. At the end of the course, participants will:

Have an unprecedented world view and demonstrable understanding of the European Union
Demonstrate in-depth knowledge and understanding European Union governance structure and how they function.
Be able to Identify, differentiate and analyze the main institutions of the European Union and how they relate and complement each other.
Apply theoretical knowledge acquired during the Summer School in their different field of endeavor, professional capacities, and even formulations of policies now and in the future.

In light of the above, the module will take the following structure/breakdown as shown below for lucid understanding of how the EU institutions work and what lessons Africa can learn from

European institutions to build its own integration process.

Introduction to the European Union?
The four Central Institutions of the European Institutions
Other Institutions of EU
At the end of each lesson, Participants will be divided into groups and will be given assignment to do. This is in other to examine their knowledge of the module.

Brief Introduction to European Union
In the beginning, only 6 countries in Europe; Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands started working together. Later more and more countries in Europe joined them and the European Union was created. Today, the European Union (EU) comprises 27 European countries, governing common economic, social, and security policies. The countries that made up the EU are: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Republic of Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden.
The EU was created by the Maastricht Treaty, which entered into force on November 1, 1993. The treaty was designed to enhance European political and economic integration by creating a single currency (the euro), a unified foreign and security policy, and common citizenship rights and to further advanced cooperation in the areas of immigration, asylum, and judicial affairs (Gabel 2022).
Types of institutions and bodies
The European Union’s institutional set-up is unique and its decision-making system is constantly evolving. There are 7 European institutions, 7 European Union bodies and over 30 decentralized agencies which are spread across the EU. These institutions work together to address the common interests of the EU and European people. There are 4 main decision-making institutions which lead the EU’s administration. These institutions collectively provide the EU with policy direction and play different roles in the law-making process:
1. The European Parliament (Brussels/Strasbourg/Luxembourg)
2. The European Council (Brussels)
3. The Council of the European Union (Brussels/Luxembourg)
4. The European Commission (Brussels/Luxembourg/Representations across the EU)
The work of the above 4 main EU institutions, which covers the legislative and executive tasks of the EU, is complemented by the work of another 3 EU institutions as listed below. These 3 institutions are responsible for managing the judicial, financial and external audit aspects of the European Union. We shall examine them briefly for lucidness.
1. the Court of Justice of the European Union (Luxembourg)
2. the European Central Bank (Frankfurt)
3. the European Court of Auditors (Luxembourg)

1. THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

The European Parliament represents the citizens of EU countries and is directly elected by them. The European Parliament is the legislative assembly of the European Union (EU). It was inaugurated in 1958 as the Common Assembly, which was later renamed the European Parliament in 1962.

It takes decisions on European laws jointly with the Council of the European Union. It also approves the EU budget. It runs a network of liaison offices in EU capitals, London, Edinburgh and Washington D.C. The size of members’ delegations varies depending on population of the country. The European Parliament is made up of 705 Members, who are directly elected. It is important to note here that, the MEPs are not organized by nationality, but by political affiliation. In other words, they are organized into transnational party groups based on political ideology – of the following groupings below:

Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats),
Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament,
Renew Europe Group, Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance,
Identity and Democracy Group,
European Conservatives and Reformists Group,
The Left group in the European Parliament – GUE/NGL

ASSIGNMENT

Participants will be divided into six groups and each group will write briefly on each political group of the European Parliament

The European Council is one of the EU’s 7 official institutions and is located in Brussels (Belgium) and was established in 1974 at the time it was an informal forum. However, it was formalized in 1992 and became an official EU institution in 2009. The European Council brings together EU leaders to set the EU’s political agenda and defines the EU’s overall political direction and priorities, traditionally by adopting conclusions. For instance, at its meeting in Brussels on 20 June 2019, the European Council agreed on an agenda for the EU for the next five years. ‘A new strategic agenda 2019-2024’ sets out the priority areas that will steer the work of the European Council and provide guidance for the work programmes of other EU institutions. The strategic agenda focuses on four main priorities:

Protecting citizens and freedoms
Developing a strong and vibrant economic base
Building a climate-neutral, green, fair and social Europe
Promoting European interests and values on the global stage.

How the European Council works

In line with the EU treaty, EU leaders meet at least four times a year (usually quarterly), usually in March, June, October and December. These meetings, often referred to as ‘EU summits’, are held in Brussels, in the Europa building. They usually take place over two days, on a Thursday and a Friday. Only the heads of state/government can vote during the meetings. The meetings are chaired by the President of the European Council. The President can also convene special European Council meetings or informal meetings as necessary.

The European Council does not negotiate or adopt EU laws. It only sets the EU’s policy agenda and usually adopts ‘conclusions’ during European Council meetings which identify issues of concern and actions to take. And issues are decided by consensus – but by unanimity or qualified majority in some cases.

Decision-making process of the EU Council

The European Council usually decides by consensus (i.e., no member opposes the adoption). This is also the decision-making modality the European Council uses to adopt conclusions. However, in certain specific cases provided for in the EU treaties (such as for the adoption of legal acts), the European Council decides by vote. A vote on a given agenda item may be initiated by the president. It may also take place on the initiative of any other member, provided that a majority of members are in favor. There are three voting modalities:

Unanimity
Qualified majority
Simple majority

Unanimity is required, for example, when the European Council takes a decision regarding the number of members of the European Commission. When the European Council acts by unanimity, abstentions do not prevent the adoption.

Qualified majority is used by the European Council, for example, when establishing the list of Council configurations, or when proposing to the European Parliament a candidate for President of the Commission.

Simple majority is employed when the EU adopt procedural decisions by virtue of its rules of procedure.

Note:

EU Council Members are made up of the Heads of state or government of EU countries, European Council President, European Commission President.
The European Council is chaired by a president who is elected for a 2.5-year term, renewable once.
The EU Council usually meets 4 times a year – but the President can convene additional meetings to address urgent issues.
It does not adopt laws except for possible EU Treaty amendments.
In fact, it represents the highest level of political cooperation between EU countries.

What does the European Council do?

According to the EU website, the European Council

Decides on the EU’s overall direction and political priorities – but does not pass laws
Deals with complex or sensitive issues that cannot be resolved at lower levels of intergovernmental cooperation
Sets the EU’s common foreign & security policy, taking into account EU strategic interests and defense implications
Nominates and appoints candidates to certain high profile EU level roles, such as the ECB and the Commission.

On each issue, the European Council can:

Ask the European Commission to make a proposal to address it
Pass it on to the Council of the EU to deal with.

The Council of the European Union

The Council of the European Union (originally the Council of Ministers), is the main decision-making institution of the EU. The Council of the European Union represents the governments of EU countries. The Council of the EU is where national ministers from each government meet to adopt laws and coordinate policies. Ministers meet in different configurations depending on the topic to be discussed. The Council of the EU takes decisions on European laws jointly with the European Parliament (European Union, 2022).

The composition of the council changes frequently, as governments send different representatives depending on the policy area under discussion. All community legislation

requires the approval of the council. The president of the council, whose office rotates among council members every six months, manages the legislative agenda. Council meetings are chaired by a minister from the country that currently holds the presidency. The exception to this rule is the Foreign Affairs Council, which, since the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, is under the permanent supervision of the EU high representative for foreign affairs and security policy.

The European Commission

The European Commission represents the common interests of the EU and is the EU’s main executive body. The EC has legislative functions, such as proposing new laws which are scrutinized and adopted by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. It also has a judicial function, such as finding legal solutions to business and trade issues between countries within the EU. The EC further manages EU policies (except for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, which is conducted by the High Representative for CFSP, Vice-President of the European Commission), and the EU’s budget and ensures that countries apply EU law correctly. This is done by the EC representation offices which act as the Commission’s voice across the EU. They monitor and analyze public opinion in their host country, provide information about EU policies and the way the EU works, and facilitate the Commission’s cooperation with the host member country.

The EC is composed of members called commissioners, who are citizens of and are nominated by the respective governments of each member state. However, the EC is charged with representing the EU or community interest, not the interests of the member states, and the commissioners are called to act independently in that interest. They are expressly forbidden to take instructions from their member state. Because of its responsibility to represent the

European interest and enforce the treaties and legislation that provide the legal foundation for the EU and communities, the EC is known as the guardian of the treaties.

Note: in nutshell, the EC’s primary tasks, include:

Administration and implementation of EU and community policies and legislation, including formulation and spending of the budget
Initiation and drafting of community legislation

Enforcement of EU and community law

Representation of the EU and the communities at the international level, including negotiation of international treaties.

OTHERS (COMPLIMENTARY INSTITUTIONS OF THE EU

The Court of Justice of the European Union

Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), also called European Court of Justice (ECJ), with its headquarters are in Luxembourg, is the judicial branch of the European Union (EU). Its basic mission is to ensure the observance and uniform application and interpretation of EU law within EU member states and institutions.

The CJEU originated in the individual courts of justice established in the 1950s for the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), the European Economic Community (EEC), and the European Atomic Energy Community (EAEC). The Court ensures that EU law is followed, and that the Treaties are correctly interpreted and applied: it reviews the legality of the acts of the EU institutions, ensures that EU countries comply with their obligations under the Treaties, and interprets EU law at the request of national courts. It further interprets

community law, settles conflicts between the organization’s institutions, and determines whether members have fulfilled their treaty obligations.

Each member State selects one judge, who serves a renewable six-year term; to increase efficiency, after the accession of 10 additional countries in 2004 the ECJ was allowed to sit in a “grand chamber” of only 13 judges. Eight impartial advocates-general assist the ECJ by presenting opinions on cases before the court. In 1989 an additional court, the Court of First Instance, was established to assist with the community’s increasing caseload.

The ECJ has established two important legal doctrines. The first is that, European law has “direct effect,” which means that treaty provisions and legislation are directly binding on individual citizens, regardless of whether their governments have modified national laws accordingly. And the second is that, community law has “supremacy” over national law in cases where the two conflict.

2. The European Central Bank (ECB)

The ECB and the European System of Central Banks conducts monetary policy by controlling the supply of euros in the region and are responsible for keeping prices stable in the euro area. For example, if the euro zone begins to experience price increases—owing, for example, to an unexpected increase in demand or a sudden reduction in supply—the ECB responds by pulling euros from the market to relieve the pressure on the prices. Conversely, if the euro-zone economies experience a recession—an economic downturn associated with declining output and economic activity—the ECB steps in by pumping more euros into the market in order to fuel economic activity and revert the effects of the recession.

The ECB and the European System of Central Banks are also responsible for the monetary and exchange rate policy in the Eurozone and support EU economic policies. The ECB and the national central banks of EU member countries make up what is known as the Eurosystem. The ECB is responsible for the supervision of lending institutions in the Eurosystem and in participating non-euro-area member states. The ECB is overseen by a governing council consisting of six executive board members, with one serving as the president, and the 19 governors of the national central banks of the euro-zone countries. Executive board members are appointed by the European Council.

The ECB is the only institution that can authorize the printing of euro banknotes. Unlike the Federal Reserve—which, as the central banking authority of the United States, uses the buying and selling of U.S. government bonds to influence the money supply—the ECB influences the supply of euros in the market by directly controlling the amount of euros available to eligible member banks.

3. The European Court of Auditors

The ECA contributes to improving EU financial management, and promoting accountability and transparency, and acts as the independent guardian of the financial interests of EU citizens. It checks that EU funds are correctly accounted for, that they are raised and spent in accordance with the relevant rules and regulations, and that they deliver value for money.

How the EU and its governance mechanism work diagrammatically.

ASSIGNMENT:

The Participants will be divided into seven groups. And each group will wite briefly on the Structure and function of each European Institutions.

ECONOMIC INTEGRATION CONCEPT

Course Module for Economic Integration Concept, Types, Benefits and Cost

Course: Economic Integration Concept, Types, Benefits and Cost

Contents Page

Introduction 2

Course Objectives 2

Course Materials 2

Study Units 3

Working through the Course 4

Assessments 4

Textbooks and References 5

Introduction and Course Description

This course offers an introductory discourse on the concept of economic integration, its types, benefits and cost. Also, comparative perspective on the place of regional integration, as well as its role within the global economic order are dissected. More so, the case studies are focused majorly on European and African regional institutions, with little coverage and highlights on Asian Regional Integrations. This course is developed on three main topics: (1) origins and concepts of economic integrations, especially in the context of the competing ideas of universalism and regionalism in the post-World War II period; (2) comparative assessment of variations in the design and performance of regional economic integration institutions; (3) the future of economic integration in the post-American era, particularly the place of regional integration in the ongoing global power shift.

Courses Objectives

Economic Integration is an important course in the EU-African Connect Summer school. It is designed to explore primarily economic integration processes in Africa and European regions. The main objective of this course is to simplify and aid comprehension of the concepts, types, benefits and costs of economic integration; as well as they evolved after the WW II. Importantly, through the course, an insight is provided describing the trajectory through which different regional integration institutions have been employed to promote growth and development via resource flows and intra-regional trade. The objectives and outlines are specified at the beginning of the summer class, and are employed as measures to evaluate degree of progress in the course. At the end of each module, the objectives are also utilized in evaluating if the progress made are in tandem with the stated objectives of the module. The entire modules are sufficient to completely achieve our stipulated course objectives.

The Course materials comprises major components including:

(i) Course Guide

(ii) Study Units

(iii) Textbooks

(iv) Assignments

Study Units

There are 10 study units in this course: They include:

Module 1: Economic Integration

Unit 1 Introduction, Definitions and Concepts

Unit 2 Theories of Economic Integration

Unit 3 Benefits and Costs of Economic Integration

Module 2: Regional Integration in Europe

Unit 4 The European Union

Unit 5 Competence and responsibilities of the European Union

Module 3: Regional Economic Integration in Africa

Unit 6 The Central Africa Economic and Monetary Community (CEMAC)

Unit 7 Southern Africa Development Community (SADC)

Unit 8 The Economic Community of West Africa (ECOWAS)

Module 4 Challenges and Successes

Unit 9 The EU Successes and Challenges

Unit 10 Successes and Challenges of Regional Economic Integration in Africa

Working through the Course

Owing from the above, the course commences with basic introduction to the nature of economic integrations and progresses subsequently into comprehensive analysis of the various regional integrative systems in Europe after the WW II. Also, the evolution of regional economic integration in Africa since the early 90’s is x-rayed. The course also examined the successes and challenges of these unions, drawing comparative analysis. The course module expressly contains study objectives, course contents and reading materials. In addition, there would be self-assessment exercise and Tutor-Marked Assignments at the end of every lecture week to assess the progress of students and delivery efficiency of facilitators. All these are intended at assisting in achieving the aims and objectives of the program.

Students’ Assessments

The assessment for this course during the summer school are in the form of weekly assessments and examination at the end of the course. Also, students would be assessed both from class discussions, individual and group assignments. The scores would be distributed as follows:

Assignments: 20 percent

Tests: 20 percent

Examination: 60 percent

List of Reading Materials and Textbooks

Adeniran, T. (1983). Introduction to International Relations Ibadan: Macmillan Nig. Ltd.

Asante, S. B. (1989). The Political Economy of Regionalism in Africa: A decade of ECOWAS. Boulder: West view Press.

Balassa, B. (1961). The Theory of Economic Integration Homewood III: Irwin.

Bellassa, B. (1964). Theory of Economic Integration Homewood Illinois: Richard D. Irwin Inc.

Breslin, S. Hughes, C. Philips, N. & Rosamond, B. (2001) Regionalism in the Global Political Economy: Theories and Cases. London: Routledge.

Burley, A. M. & Mattli, W. (1993) ―Europe before the Court: A Political Theory of Legal Integration‖ International Organization Number 47, Volume 1.

Cameron, D. (1992). ―The 1992 Initiative: Causes and Consequences. In Sbragia, A. (Ed.) Euro-Politics Institutions and Policy making in the ‘New’ European Community Washington: The Brookings Institute.

Camilleri, J. (2003). Regionalism in the new Asia-Pacific Order Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Coleman, W. D. & Underhill, G.R. (1998) Regionalism and Global Economic Integration: Europe, Asia and the Americas. London: Routledge.

Davidson, B. (1966) A History of West Africa Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor books.

De Grauwe, P. (1992). The Economics of Monetary Integration New York: Oxford University Press.

De Melo, J. & Panagariya, A. (Eds) (1993) New Dimensions in Regional Integration Cambridge: University Press, Cambridge.

Deutsch, K. W. et. al (1957) Political Community and the North Atlantic Area Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Deutsch, K.W. (1957) et al. Political Community and the North Atlantic Area Princeton: University Press. Princeton

Dike, K. O. (1965) Trade and Politics in the Niger Delta Oxford: Oxford University Press.

El-Agraa, A. M. (1989) The Theory and Measurement of International Economic Integration New York: St. Martins.

Eze, O. & Sesay, A. (2010) Africa and Europe in the Twenty First Century. Lagos: NIIA.

Fage, J. D, (1969). A History of West Africa Cambridge: University of London Press.

Farrell, M. & Hettne, B. (2005) Global Politics of Regionalism London: Pluto Press.

Francois, C.A. & Subramaniam A. (1998) ―Beyond Trade: Regional Arrangements as a Window on Globalization‖. In Igbal, Z. and Khan, M. S. (Eds) Trade Reform and Regional Integration in Africa IMF Washington DC IMF

Frankel, J. (1973) Contemporary International Theory and the Behavior of States London: Oxford University Press.

Giovannini, Aberto (1990). The Transition to European Monetary Union Rome: Bank of Italy.

Gould, J. & Kolb, W. L. (1964) A Dictionary of the Social Sciences New York: The Free Press of Glencoe.

Haas, E. B. (1958) The Uniting of Europe: Political Social and Economic Forces. Stanford Califonia: University Press.

Hall, P. A. (1989). The Political Power of Economic ideas: Keynesianism Across Nations. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.

Hargreave, J. D. (1969) (Ed.) France and West Africa New York: St. Martins Press.

Hazelwood, A. (1967). ―Problems of Integration among African State‖ in Hazelwood, A. (Ed.) Africa Integration and Disintegration London: Oxford University Press.

Hazlewood, A. (1975). Economic Integration: The East African Experience. London: Heinemann.

Ingram, J. (1973). ―The Case for European Monetary Integration‖ Essays in International Finance No 98 Princetons New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Kisanya, E. J. (1984). ―Regional Cooperation: Challenge for the Continent Africa now‖. Africa Now

Lindberg, L. (1963) The Political Dynamics of European Economic Integration Stanford Calif: Stanford University Press.

Machlup, F. (1976) ―A History of Thought on Economic Integration‖ In Fritz Machlup (Ed.) Economic Integration: World Wide, Regional and Sectoral. London: Macmillan Press.

Mambara, J. L. (2007), Assessment of Benefits of Regional Integration in SADC and COMESA-A Gender Analysis, Harare: Trade and Development Studies Centre.

Mytelka, L. K. (1979). Regional Development in a Global Economy Yale: Yale University Press.

Nyongo, P. A. (1993) (Ed.) ―Regional Integration, Security and Development in Africa‖ In Obasanjo O, and Mosha, F. G. (Eds) Africa Rise to Challenge Ota: Africa Leadership Forum (ALF) Publications.

Ogunkoya, E. O. (1993) ―An Empirical Evaluation of Trade Potential in Tanzania, Memeo Nairobi: AERC.

Ojo, O. (1980). ―Nigeria and the Formation of ECOWAS International Organization, 344 (Auturm) Onwuka, R.I. & Sessay, A. (1985) (Eds) The Future of Regionalism in Africa London: Macmillan Press.

Richard, H. (1975) (Ed.) The Political Economy of Africa Cambridge, Mass: Schenkman Publishing Co.

Robson, P. (1983). Integration, Development and Equity: Economic Integration in West Africa. London:

Allen and Unwin. Rosamond, B. (2000). Theories of European Integration Palgrave: Macmillan Press. Sbragia, A. (Ed.) Euro-Politics: Institutions and Policy making in the ‘New’ European Community. Washington: The Brookings Institute.

Scitovsky, T. (1958) Economic Theory and Western European Integration London:

Allen and Urwin Seligson, M. A. ―The Dual Gap: An Overview of Theory and Research. In Seligson, M. A. and Passe-Smith, J. T. (Eds.) Development and Underdevelopment: The Political Economy of Global Inequality. London: Boulder.

Sesay, A., Olayode, O. & Omotosho, M. (2008) ―Africa and South-South Cooperation: Opportunities and Challenges‖. In Dargin, J. (Ed.) South-South Cooperation in the Global System Harvard: Harvard University Press.

Steinmo, S., Thelen, K. and Longstreth, F. (1992) Structuring Politics Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Perspective Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Sullivan, D. & Radebaugh, L. (2003) International business: Environments and Operations‖. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Tokuta, R. A. (1984). ―ECOWAS Treaty and the East African Common Market Compared. In Akinyemi, A. B. et al. (Eds) Reading and Documents in ECOWAS

Viner, J. (1950) The Custom Union Issue New York: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Wallerstein, E, (1961). Africa: The Politics of Independence. New York: Vintage Books.

Weigall, D. & Stirk, P. (1992) (Eds) The Origins and Development of the European Community Leicester: Leicester University Press.

Wiener, A. & Diez, T. (2004) European Integration Theory Oxford: Oxford University Press

Wright, S. & Okolo, J. E. (Eds.) West Africa: Regional Cooperation and Development. Boulder: West view.

UNIT 1 INTRODUCTION DEFINITION AND THEORIES

CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Objectives

3.0 Main Content

3.1 Definition of Regional Integration

3.2 Deep Integration Recognition

3.3 Theories of Integration

4.0 Conclusion

5.0 Summary

6.0 Tutor-Marked Assignment

7.0 References/Further Reading.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This is the first among the four units that constitute the module. As an introduction the unit defines regional integration and goes ahead to examine its formation through supranational institutional structures and via intergovernmental decision making or a combination of both. Discussions in this unit take a broad overview of the conceptual and theoretical clarifications of and also form the foundations upon whish specific issues are built.

2.0. Objectives

At the end of this unit you should be able to: a. Define Regional Integration in your own words or adapt various definitions drawn from various authors. b. Discuss at least five important functions that a good regional integration initiative must fulfill c. Explain the theoretical foundations of conventional approaches to regional integration which dates back to three important schools of economic thought in the 1960s: Neoclassical economics, Marxism and development economics.

3.0 Main Content

3.1 Definition/Description

Regional integration is a process in which neighbouring states enter into an agreement in order to upgrade cooperation through common institutions and rules. The objectives of the agreement could range from economic to political to environmental, although it has typically taken the form of a political economy initiative where commercial interests are the focus for achieving broader socio-political and security objectives, as defined by national governments. Regional integration has been organized either via supranational institutional structures or through intergovernmental decision-making, or a combination of both. Past efforts at regional integration have often focused on removing barriers to free trade in the region, increasing the free movement of people, labour, goods, and capital across national borders, reducing the possibility of regional armed conflict (for example, through Confidence and Security-Building Measures), and adopting cohesive regional stances on policy issues, such as the environment, climate change and migration.

Intra-regional trade refers to trade which focuses on economic exchange primarily between countries of the same region or economic zone. In recent years countries within economic-trade regimes such as ASEAN in Southeast Asia for example have increased the level of trade and commodity exchange between themselves which reduces the inflation and tariff barriers associated with foreign markets resulting in growing prosperity Regional integration has been defined as the process through which national states voluntarily mingle, merge and mix with their neighbors so as to lose the factual attributes of sovereignty while acquiring new techniques for resolving conflicts among themselves. De Lombaerde and Van Langenhove describe it as a worldwide phenomenon of territorial systems that increases the interactions between their components and creates new forms of organization, co-existing with traditional forms of state-led organisation at the national level. Some scholars see regional integration simply as the process by which states within a particular region increase their level of interaction with regard to economic, security, political, or social and cultural issues.[3] In short, regional integration is the joining of individual states within a region into a larger whole. The degree of integration depends upon the willingness and commitment of independent sovereign states to share their sovereignty. Deep integration that focuses on regulating the business environment in a more general sense is faced with many difficulties. Regional integration initiatives, according to Van Langenhove, should fulfil at least eight important functions:

 the strengthening of trade integration in the region  the creation of an appropriate enabling environment for private sector development  the development of infrastructure programmes in support of economic growth and regional integration  the development of strong public sector institutions and good governance;  the reduction of social exclusion and the development of an inclusive civil society  contribution to peace and security in the region  the building of environment programmes at the regional level  the strengthening of the region‘s interaction with other regions of the world.

The crisis of the post-war order led to the emergence of a new global political structure. This new global political structure made obsolete the classical Westphalian concept of a system of sovereign states to conceptualise world politics. The concept of sovereignty became looser and the old legal definitions of the ultimate and fully autonomous power of a nation-state are no longer meaningful. Sovereignty, which gained meaning as an affirmation of cultural identity, has lost meaning as power over the economy. All regional integration projects during the Cold War were built on the Westphalia state system and were designed to serve economic growth as well as security motives in their assistance to state building goals. Regional integration and globalisation are two phenomena that have challenged the pre-existing global order based upon sovereign states since the beginning of the twenty-first century. The two processes deeply affect the stability of the Westphalia state system, thus contributing to both disorder and a new global order.

Closer integration of neighbouring economies has often been seen by governments as a first step in creating a larger regional market for trade and investment. This is claimed to spur greater efficiency, productivity gain and competitiveness, not just by lowering border barriers, but by reducing other costs and risks of trade and investment. Bilateral and sub-regional trading arrangements have been advocated by governments as economic development tools, as they been designed to promote economic deregulation. Such agreements have also aimed to reduce the risk of reversion towards protectionism, locking in reforms already made and encouraging further structural adjustment.

Some claim the desire for closer integration is usually related to a larger desire for opening nation states to the outside world, or that regional economic cooperation is pursued as a means of promoting development through greater efficiency, rather than as a means of disadvantaging others. It is also claimed that the members of these arrangements hope that they will succeed as building blocks for progress with a growing range of partners and towards a generally freer and open global environment for trade and investment and that integration is not an end in itself, but a process to support economic growth strategies, greater social equality and democratisation. However, regional integration strategies as pursued by economic and national interests, particularly in the last 30 years, have also been highly contested across civil society. There is no conclusive evidence to suggest that the strategies of economic deregulation or increased investor protection implemented as forms of regional integration have succeeded in contributing to “progress” in sustainable economic growth, as the number of economic crises around the world have increased in frequency and intensity over the past decades. Also, there is increasing evidence that the forms of regional integration employed by nation states have actually worsened social inequality and diminished democratic accountability. As a result of the persisting contradiction between the old promises of regional integration and real-world experience, the demand from across global civil society for alternative forms of regional integration has grown.

Regional integration arrangements are a part and parcel of the present global economic order and this trend is now an acknowledged future of the international scene. It has achieved a new meaning and new significance. Regional integration arrangements are mainly the outcome of necessity felt by nation-states to integrate their economies in order to achieve rapid economic development, decrease conflict, and build mutual trusts between the integrated units. The nation-state system, which has been the predominant pattern of international relations since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 is evolving towards a system in which regional groupings of states is becoming increasingly important vis-a-vis sovereign states. Some have argued that the idea of the state and its sovereignty has been made irrelevant by processes that are taking place at both the global and local level. Walter Lippmann believes that, “the true constituent members of the international order of the future are communities of states.” E.H. Carr shares Lippmann view about the rise of regionalism and regional arrangements and commented that, “the concept of sovereignty is likely to become in the future even more blurred and indistinct than it is at present.”

Regional Integration Agreements Regional integration agreements (RIAs) have led to major developments in international relations between and among many countries specifically increases in international trade and investment and in the formation of regional trading blocs. As fundamental to the multi-faceted process of globalization, regional integration has been a major development in the international relations of recent years. As such, Regional Integration Agreements has gained high importance. Not only are almost all the industrial nations part of such agreements, but also a huge number of developing nations too are a part of at least one, and in cases, more than one such agreement. The amount of trade that takes place within the scope of such agreements is about 35%, which accounts to more than one-third of the trade in the world. The main objective of these agreements is to reduce trade barriers among those nations concerned, but the structure may vary from one agreement to another. The removal of the trade barriers or liberalization of many economies has had multiple impacts, in some cases increasing Gross domestic product (GDP), but also resulting in greater global inequality, concentration of wealth and an increasing frequency and intensity of economic crises.

The number of agreements agreed under the rules of the GATT and the WTO and signed in each year has dramatically increased since the 1990s. There were 194 agreements ratified in 1999 and it contained 94 agreements form the early 1990s. The last few years have experienced huge qualitative as well as quantitative changes in the agreements related to the Regional Integration Scheme. The top three major changes were:

Deep Integration Recognition
Closed regionalism to open model
Advent of trade blocs

SELF ASSESSMENT EXCERCISE

What is regional Integration?

3.2 Deep Integration Recognition

Deep Integration Recognition analyses the aspect that effective integration is a much broader aspect, surpassing the idea that reducing tariffs, quotas and barriers will provide effective solutions. Rather, it recognizes the concept that additional barriers tend to segment the markets. This in turn impedes the free flow of goods and services, along with ideas and investments. Hence, it is now recognized that the current framework of traditional trade policies are not adequate enough to tackle these barriers. Such deep-integration was first implemented in the Single Market Program in the European Union. However, in the light of the modern context, this debate is being propounded into the clauses of different regional integration agreements arising out of increase in international trade.

3.3 Closed regionalism to Open Model

The change from a system of Closed regionalism to a more Open Model had arisen out of the fact that the section of trading blocs that were created among the developing countries during the 1960s and 1970s were based on certain specific models such as those of import substitution as well as regional agreements coupled with the prevalence generally high external trade barriers. The positive aspects of such shifting is that there has been some restructuring of certain old agreements. These agreements tend to be more forward in their outward approach as well as show commitment in trying to advance international trade and commerce instead to trying to put a cap on it by way of strict control.

3.4 Advent of Trade Blocs

The Advent of Trade Blocs tend to draw in some parity between high-income industrial countries and developing countries with a much lower income base in that they tend to serve as equal partners under such a system. The concept of equal partners grew out of the concept of providing reinforcement to the economies to all the member countries. Under this section the various countries agree upon the fact that they will help economies to maintain the balance of trade between and prohibit the entry of other countries in their trade process.

An important example of this would be the North American Free Trade Area (NAFTA), formed in 1994 when the Canada – U. S. Free Trade Agreement was extended to Mexico. Another vibrant example would entail as to how EU has formed linkages incorporating the transition economies of Eastern Europe through the Europe Agreements. It has signed agreements with the majority of Mediterranean countries by highly developing the EU-Turkey customs union and a Mediterranean policy.

SELF ASSESSMENT EXCERCISE

Differentiate between a Closed model and an Open model of regionalism

3.3 Theories of Integration

The theoretical foundations of conventional approaches to regional integration date back to three important schools of economic thought in the 1960s: Neoclassical economics, Marxism and development economics. The earliest theoretical work on regional integration emanated from the theory of comparative advantage in international trade, and the interest of liberal economists in promoting the reduction of tariff and nontariff barriers to trade. At issue was the choice of modalities for implementing such policies and the effectiveness of regional integration as a mechanism of trade liberalization.

Viner‘s classic article on the subject pointed out that regional economic integration could lead to either ―trade creation‖ or ―trade diversion‖ (Viner 1950). By reducing trade barriers between neighbouring countries, customs unions and free trade areas could promote economic efficiency in the allocation of resources by contributing to the gradual strengthening of international trade. However, the emergence of such economic entities could also promote trade ―diversion‖ and become a source of economic inefficiency, if the most competitive producers of a particular product suddenly found themselves excluded from the regional market as a result of the customs union.

This approach continues to inspire the economics profession even today, and the issue of integration seen from the point of view of comparative advantage and the trade creation/diversion dichotomy is still prevalent in the specialized literature, as reflected in contemporary debate on whether the formation of major economic blocs constitutes progress or a hinderance to the liberalization of international trade. However, there are serious analytic limitations to this model, with its focus on static efficiency in the allocation of resources, for countries whose main interest lies in the dynamics of development and industrialization.

Marxist-Leninist thinkers have adopted a different approach (see Inotai 1982; Benallègue 1987). In their view, integration emerges as a reflection of the internationalization of capital and is intrinsic to the evolution of the capitalist economy. For example, the creation of a single European market is seen to reflect the concentration of capital and the internationalization of European firms, rather than the desire of welfare-maximizing governments to rationalize the allocation of resources among the countries concerned. The integration of the European market is thus the consequence, not the precursor, of the transformation of production and trade in favour of larger firms. Regional integration, so conceived, is a source of exclusion and impoverishment of small-scale enterprise and a range of social groups through the usual mechanisms of market displacement. Developing countries intent on actively promoting development through the initiative of the state are urged not to rely on free market forces. Integration among developing countries, in this view, should be geared toward the rational use of available resources according to a planned and centralized approach to production for the satisfaction of the region‘s own needs.

Although appealing in its dynamic vision of development, this approach is based on some questionable assumptions, notably about the effectiveness of planning in relation to markets. The rapid collapse of the Eastern Bloc‘s Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (COMECON) after the break up of the Soviet Union has largely relegated to the history books an approach to economic cooperation and integration based on centralized planning and government directives.

The analysis adopted by Marchal (1965) and Perroux (1966) seemed to mark a watershed in thinking about integration. These authors proposed an alternative approach that would take into account the historical dimension of economic and social phenomena. According to Marchal, integration as the result of development is distinct from integration as an instrument or precondition of development. Economic integration can be perceived as the historical product of evolving technical, economic, and social structures; or it can be the product of conscious efforts on the part of human societies, acting collectively to improve their economic condition as a matter of policy choice. Marchal shows that integration taken as a product of history is first and foremost the result of social transformation. It cannot occur just anywhere or under just any conditions. Perroux (1966) follows a similar approach, centred upon three questions: who integrates? through what process? and to whose advantage?

However, in operational terms, these two authors do not stray very far from the voluntarist approach of their predecessors or from related development thinking prevalent at the time. For Marchal (1965), integration must be based on industrialization as its driving force, and it must be sustained by those social forces capable of supporting and organizing the industrialization process. Similarly, borrowing from development and industrialization thinking of the 1960s, Perroux (1966) builds his model around the concepts of growth poles, strategic investments, and industrialization. Industrialization is presented here as a collective instrument of development, based on import protection. He draws a distinction between three models of integration and industrialization, based respectively on the use of markets, productive investments, or institutional mechanisms.

This developmentalist and industrializing view of integration ends up assigning a secondary role to the social dimension of the issue, thus abandoning the approach initially adopted and replacing it with a technocratic and geographically focused one. Perroux (1966) thus begins by proposing a socioeconomic and political approach to integration, but allows it to be deformed by the influence of existing development theories.

This brief overview suffices to illustrate the voluntaristic thread of these various approaches. Each of these models is based on the absence, or at least the neutrality, of extra-economic factors in decision-making, thus ignoring the social and political dynamics likely to have an impact on the integration process. Such an approach may be of some use in the design of theoretical constructs, but it is hopelessly inadequate if the aim is to design actual economic policies or strategies for change.

In most cases of regional economic integration among Third World countries, research in this field is dominated by theories based on the European experience. The European Economic Community (EEC), now European Union (the EU), has become ―a living laboratory for the integration theory‖ (Asante 2002:5). Not surprisingly, the literature on economic integration and development has pointed out that developing countries do not satisfy the criteria of neo-classical customs union theory and that they will not reap the traditional welfare gains from integration. Hence, economist such as Viner and Lipsey deny that integration schemes will benefit developing countries (Viner, 1950 and Lipsey, 1960: 496-513). Their argument is based on the concepts of trade creation and trade diversion.

Viner (1950) defines trade creation as a shift in trade from high cost to a low cost source of supply within the integration area, and trade diversion as shift from a low cost source of supply outside the integration area to a high cost producer within it. In Viner‘s view, if there is more trade diversion than trade creation within a customs union, then the net effect on world welfare and the welfare of members will be negative. Since trade diversion (at least in the short run) will obviously prevail over trade creation in Third World customs union, argues Asante, as the members shift from low cost producers in the developed world to high cost producers among their neighbors, Viner and Lipsey are opposed to the creation of customs union among developing countries. However, there has been a growing criticism about applying Viner‘s criteria and Lipsey‘s general conclusions to the possible effects of customs union among developing countries. Therefore, on a synoptic conception of several authors (Atsain, 1983; Robson, 1968; Nowzad, 1969), economic integration connotes a process of economic development which involves the elimination of discriminatory barriers among economic units of nation-state. For easy operational community arrangements, such economic units are expected notably to be units within a regional/sub-regional setting e.g., African, European, West African, East African and Central African settings. Put simply, economic integration in an economic region involves pure economic and political unification, economic/political cooperation and free trade areas (Nwabuzor, 1982).

Theoretically and empirically too, the main concern of the theory of economic integration is the gains from changes from the isolationist approach in development efforts to the collective and cooperative regional arrangements (Robson, 1980: 145). However, the relevant aspect of that theory which informs the establishment of African, European and American economic communities, also as earlier noted, is the ―Customs Union Theory‖ which proposes trade creation among member states based on comparative cost advantages (Viner 1950; Robson, 1980).

Whereas, the Custom Union Theory seems to have underpinned the cooperative and collective economic arrangements among the nations within an eco-political region/sub-region in both the developed and developing nations alike, nonetheless, its adoption in different zones tends to focus on divergent goals. In Africa, quite unlike Europe, the overriding necessity to accelerate, foster and encourage the socioeconomic development of African countries was seen as major development priorities at independence (OAU, 1963; ECOWAS, 1975). This therefore explains the need for the promotion of harmonious economic development of the region and the subsequent call for effective regional/sub-regional economic cooperation via the elimination of all types of obstacles to the free movement of goods/services and factors of production. In this regard, African regional groupings are couched under the efficacy of the theory of Customs Union focused on trade liberalization and its attendant benefits and also collective self-reliance, within the scope of economic prosperity.

Integration in the West African sub-region has largely been informed by integration process in Western Europe, Latin America, Asia and elsewhere in Africa. The main objectives of integration in these areas have generally been both economic and political. It has been economic where the immediate preoccupation has been the promotion of better economic welfare or economic development. Where it has been political, the ultimate concern is the political unity of the component states. The emergence of a federal or confederate system is to cater better for the political and economic interests of the member states in a highly competitive global system.

The inevitability of political unity has been underscored by the fact that economic integration has been a political process: it requires the surrender of the major national economic instruments to the supranational authority; also, it involves the government of the Member States as the major actors as far as the initiation and implementation of sub-regional policies are concerned. The integration objectives in the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) are essentially the same although the political aspect has not been overtly proclaimed as in the case of European Economic Community (EEC). Many West African leaders are first concerned with the promotion of economic development as the first step to ensure political independence.

Accordingly, most studies adopt the Functionalist approach to the study of regional integration because theorists are concerned about integration as a contractual form of interdependent relations of states that share common experiences, values, interests and aspirations and that agreed to work together for the realisation of commonly set goals. (Haas, 1976) This is preferred because it provides institutional mechanism that promotes regional integration as is seen in ECOWAS. The functionalist- neofunctionalist approach, stresses the way in which supranational institutions possessing binding decision-making power emerge from a convergence of self-interest on the part of various significant groups in society.

Mitrany (1965) observes that integration by any means is a long and arduous process. Although, some observers have predicted integration through federation, most hold that integration is a testing process tied to compiled successes. Functional model of integration rejects rapid constitutional consolidation and looks instead to progress in specific sectors. The functionalist view holds that even compatible societies cannot integrate all public functions simultaneously. Gradual and parallel progress in several sectors may converge into general, cross sectoral integration. Without this convergence, integration is encapsulated or isolated as having no carry over effects in other sectors. It is Mitrany‘s theory that they felt the need in one particular sector generates a felt need for functional collaboration in another sector. He, therefore, felt and concluded that functional activity could change international activity and give it a new orientation in such a way that people think more and more of working together rather than getting engaged in activities that conflict and lead to confrontation.

The Functionalist thesis like Oyewunmi lays much emphasis on an apolitical approach to integration. The argument of the functionalist thesis according to Oyewunmi (2002) therefore, is that integration is best achieved through a gradual and incremental process which will gain a momentum of its own as the interests of member states converge and as they become more and more independent, in other words, integration by stealth, a case of one thing leading inexorably to the other. Neofunctionalism which is regarded as off-shoot of functionalism (though there are contestations on whether functionalism preceded integration or functionalism is part of integration theory) relies on organization by functions but it brings about new functions, consequences and relations, as the spill-over effect. ‗Spill-over‖ refers to demonstration effects and to aspects of sector integration. People through a learning process as the experience of one endeavor leads to task expansion and diversification or spill-over so as to bring about greater collaboration and peace. A leading NeoFunctionalist, Haas (1964) has especially used the ―spill over‖ to show how functions can eventually lead to the demise of the nation-state. By this, he meant a situation whereby, through peace and non-coercive means, people are brought together from different nation-states and they begin to work and do things together. However, several criticisms have been leveled against neo-functionalism showing its limitations in explaining what actually goes on in the international system, it would be wise to agree with scholars like Adeniran, (1983) that integration is an outgrowth of functionalism. It is the coming together at a high level, within the international system of certain units from a lower level. Integration implies the shift of allegiance from, one‘s tribe or ethnic group to the nation or from one‘s nation to an international community or regional association. This occurs mostly in expectation of joint rewards or for fear of likely penalties.

Integration has long been identified by states men and leaders around the world as strategy for development, the evidence being the different regional groups that have been formed especially since the wake of the 1970s. Even the largest world economic power, the United States of America and other industrialized nations of the world find it necessary to integrate and have different groups formed for this purpose. It then means that the benefits of integration cannot be over-emphasized. Tokuta, (1984) particularly states that integration has been proposed with much fervor, particularly in developing countries, as a major response to the problems of underdevelopment. As the gap between the developed and the underdeveloped countries increases, integration is conceived as a defensive reaction by the developing countries to harness their limited resources for development purposes as well as a source of barging power in their relations with the developed world. This gap has become more widened with intensification of economic, political, social and cultural relations across international boundaries and especially the current economic dominance in form of globalization.

In the view of David Mitrany, the leading exponent of functionalism shortly after 1945, integration could be effected through the creation of a transactional complex of economic and social organization. International activities could be organized around basic functional needs such as transportation, health and welfare necessities, cultural activities, trade and production. This process would not involve the surrender of national sovereignty but would promote global peace and security.

In organizing these thoughts and model, Mitrany assumes first that politics and economics cannot be separated in the functions of the state but that both could be internationalized without any visible loss of sovereignty by the state. However, it is difficult to internationalize political and socio-economic issues in the affairs among the state. This is particularly so in the cases of newly independent countries which are generally sensitive to the full control over economic development and therefore of legitimizing governments. It was in this vein that I.L. Claude (Jr.) argued that states are not likely to be induced to participate in functional endeavours where they have unsettled political and security issues which divide them.

Also, Mitrany assumes that the internationalization of politics and economics would ultimately shift loyalty and sovereignty from states to international organizations. This, he said, would occur as a result of specifying the technical and noncontroversial aspects of governmental conducts and weaving an ever-spreading web of international institutional relationships with initial concentration on commonly experienced or non-controversial needs and the expansion of these at the expense of the political needs.

Again, this assumption is fraught with certain difficulties. The establishment of new international organizations may not lead to the shift of loyalties from states. This was for example, well-illustrated in the case of the defunct East African Community. The community had a well-organized East African Airways which served the three Member States, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda. In spite of this however, Kenyan industrialists persistently argued for a separate-operated national airways on the grounds that the sub-regional one was inefficient and did not adequately serve their growing requirements.

4.0 Conclusion

5.0 Summary

Discussions in this unit have focused primarily defining regional integration and explaining its origin in Europe and the different theoretical conceptualizations surrounding it. It should be obvious to you now as a student that regional integration is all about economic development and growth around the globe. Also, that the forces

of globalization have deepened interdependency between and among states making it impossible for any state or nation to exist in isolation

6.0 Tutor-Marked Assignment

Explain what you understand the “Custom Union theory” to mean and what theory do the developing countries base their integration upon and why.

7.0 References/Further Reading

Bellassa, B. (1964) ―Theory of Economic Integration Homewood‖, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin Inc Deutsch, K. W. (1957) et al. Political Community and the North Atlantic Area Princeton University Press: Princeton. Etzioni, A. (1965) Political Unification. New York: Holt Rinchart and Winston.

Haas, E.B. (1964) Beyond the National State. Stanford California: Standard University Press.

Hazelwood, A. (1967) ―Problems of Integration among African State‖ In Hazelwood, A. (Eds.) Africa Integration and Disintegration London: Oxford University Press.

Lipsey, R.G. (1960) ―The Theory of Customs Union: A General Survey‖. Economic Journal Vol. 70 Pp 496 – 513

Machlup, F. (1976) ―A History of Thought on Economic Integration‖ In Machlup (Eds) Economic Integration World Wide” Regional, Sectoral London: Macmillan Press.

Military, D. (1965) ―The prospects of Integration: Federal or functional‖, Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol.4.

Mytelka, L. (1994) ―Regional Cooperation and the New Logic of International Competition‖ In Mytelka, L. (Ed.) South-South Cooperation in a Global Perspective Paris: OECD pp 21-54.

Myelka, L. K. (1979). ―Regional Development in a Global Economy‖ Yale University Press Vaitos, C. V. (1978) ―Crisis in Regional Economic Cooperation (Integration) Among Developing Countries: A survey‖ World Development.

Viner, J. (1950) The Custom Union Issues New York: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

UNIT 2 REGIONAL INTEGRATION IN EUROPE

CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Objectives

3.0 Main content

3.1 History of regional integration in Europe

3.2 Objectives of the European Union

4.0 Conclusion

5.0 Summary

6.0 Tutor-marked assignment

7.0 References/further reading

INTRODUCTION

In the first unit, we defined regional Integration and examined in great detail what we mean by the term Integration pointing out what Closed and Open integration is all about. The unit further went into the theories of regional integration examining the various arguments of different theorists. In this unit, we are going to examine the history and objectives of the European Union in other to find out what actually brought the members of these communities together to form a Union.

OBJECTIVES

At the end of this unit, you should be able to: a. State when and how regional integration came about in Europe b. Mention and discuss the various objectives of the EU.

3.0 Main Content

3.1 History of Regional Integration in Europe

In 1951, a few Western European states agreed to confer powers over their steel and coal production to the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) in the Treaty of Paris, which came into force on 23 July, 1952. Coal and steel production was essential for the reconstruction of countries in Europe after the second World War and this sector of the national economy had been important for warfare in the first and second World Wars. Therefore, France had originally maintained its occupation of the Saarland with its steel companies after the founding of the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) in 1949 by transferring national powers over the coal and steel production to a newly created ECSC Commission, the member states of the ECSC were able to provide for greater transparency and trust among themselves. This transfer of national powers to a Community to be exercised by its Commission was paralleled under the 1957 Treaty of Rome establishing the European Atomic Energy Community (or Euro atom) and the European Economic Community (EEC) in Brussels.

In 1967, the Merger Treaty (or Brussels Treaty) combines the institutions of the ECSC and Eura-tom into that of the EEC. They already shared a Parliamentary Assembly and Courts. Collectively, they were known as the European Communities. In 1987, the Single European Act (SEA) was the first known revision of the Treaty of Rome that formally established the single European market and the European Political Cooperation. The Communities still had independent personalities although were increasingly integrated, and over the years were transformed into what is now called the European Union.

The six states that founded the three Communities were known as the ―inner six‖ (the ―outer seven‖ were those countries who formed the European Free Trade Association). These were Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and West Germany. The first enlargement was in 1973, with the accession of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom. Greece joined in 1981, while Portugal and Spain did the same in 1986. On 3 October 1990 East Germany and West Germany were reunified, hence East Germany became part of the Community in the new reunified Germany (not increasing the number of states). The European Union

The European Union (EU) is an association of twenty-seven sovereign member states that by treaty have delegated certain of their competences to common institutions, in order to coordinate their policies in a number of areas, without however constituting a new state on top of the member states. It was officially established by the Treaty of Maastricht in 1993 upon the foundations of the pre-existing European Economic Community.

Thus, 12 states are founding members, namely, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom. In 1995, Austria, Finland and Sweden joined the EU. Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia became members in 2004. Finally, Bulgaria and Romania gained access in 2007. Official candidate states include Croatia, Iceland, Macedonia, and Turkey. Applications have been submitted by Albania, Montenegro and Serbia. Morocco‘s application was rejected by the EEC and Switzerland‘s is frozen. Norway rejected membership in two referendums.

The institutions of the European Union, its parliamentarians, judges, commissioners and secretariat, the governments of its member states as well as their people, all playing a role in European integration. Nevertheless, the question of who plays the key role is disputed as there are different theories on European integration focusing on different actors and agency. The European Union has a number of relationships with nations that are not formally part of the Union. According to the European Union‘s official site, and a statement by Commissioner Günter Verheugen, the aim is to have a ring of countries, sharing EU‘s democratic ideals and joining them in further integration without necessarily becoming full member states. The European Union operates a single economic market across the territory of all its members, and uses a single currency between the Euro zone members further the EU has a number of economic relationships with nations that are not formally part of the Union through the European economic area and Custom Union agreements.

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union enshrines certain political, social, and economic rights for European Union (EU) citizens and residents into EU law. It was drafted by the European Convention and solemnly proclaimed on 7 December 2000 by the European Parliament, the Council of Ministers and the European Commission. However, its then legal status was uncertain and it did not have full legal effect until the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009.

Under the Charter, the European Union must act and legislate consistently with the Charter and the EU’s courts will strike down legislation adopted by the EU’s institutions that contravenes it. The Charter applies to the Institutions of the European Union and its member states when implementing European Union law.

The Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (Treaty of Rome) did not include any reference to fundamental or human rights. The EEC Treaty was written a few years after the failure of the European Defence Community Treaty and the European Political Community Treaty. The latter treaty had included rights provisions and Craig and de Búrca argue that, in light of that failure, the drafters of the EEC Treaty wished to eschew any implicitly political elements. However, the idea that the purely economic end of the new EEC Treaty would be unlikely to have any implications for fundamental rights was soon to be tested.

Court cases

Soon after the entry into force of the EEC Treaty, the Community established itself as a major political entity with policy ramifications beyond its economic aims. In 1964, the European Court of Justice handed down its decision in Costa v ENEL, in which the Court decided that Union law should take precedence over conflicting national law. This meant that national governments could not escape what they had agreed to at a European level by enacting conflicting domestic measures, but it also potentially meant that the EEC legislator could legislate unhindered by the restrictions imposed by fundamental rights provisions enshrined in the constitutions of member states. This issue came to a head in 1970 in the Handelsgesellschaft case when a German court ruled that a piece of EEC legislation infringed the German Basic Law. On a reference from the German court, the ECJ ruled that whilst the application of Union law could not depend on its consistency with national constitutions, fundamental rights did form an “integral part of the general principles of [European Community] law” and that inconsistency with fundamental rights could form the basis of a successful challenge to a European law.

In ruling as it did in the Handelsgesellschaft case the ECJ had- in effect- created a doctrine of unwritten rights which bound the Community institutions. While the court’s fundamental rights jurisprudence was approved by the institutions in 1977 and a statement to that effect was inserted into the Maastricht Treaty, and it was only in 1999 that the European Council formally went about the initiating the process of drafting a codified catalogue of fundamental rights for the EU.

Proclamation

In 1999 the European Council proposed that a “body composed of representatives of the Heads of State and Government and of the President of the Commission as well as of members of the European Parliament and national parliaments” should be formed to draft a fundamental rights charter. On being constituted in December of that year the “body” entitled itself the European Convention.

The Convention adopted the draft on 2 October 2000 and it was solemnly proclaimed by the European Parliament, the Council of Ministers and the European Commission on 7 December 2000. It was at the same time, however, decided to defer making a decision on the Charter’s legal status. However, it did come with the political weight of having been approved by three powerful institutions and as such was regularly cited by the ECJ as a source of fundamental rights.

Legal force

A modified Charter formed part of the defunct European Constitution (2004). After that treaty’s failure, its replacement, the Lisbon Treaty (2007), also gave force to the Charter albeit by referencing it as an independent document rather than by incorporating it into the treaty itself. However, both the version included in the Constitution and the one referenced in the Lisbon Treaty were amended versions of the Charter.

On the coming into force of the Lisbon Treaty on 1 December 2009, Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding proposed that Commissioners should swear to uphold all EU treaties and the Charter. On 3 May 2010, the European Commission swore a solemn declaration at the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg, pledging to respect the EU Treaties and to be completely independent in carrying out their duties during their mandate. For the first time, the Commissioners also explicitly pledged to respect the new Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Several states insisted upon an opt-out from national application of the charter (see below for details).

Legal status

Article 2 of the Charter affirms the prohibition on capital punishment in the EU

Following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty in 2009 the fundamental rights charter has the same legal value as the European Union treaties. The Charter referred to in the Treaty is an amended version of the 2000 document which was solemnly declared by the same three institutions a day before the signing of the Lisbon Treaty itself.

Article 51(1) of the Charter addresses the Charter to the EU’s institutions, bodies established under EU law and, when implementing EU laws, the EU’s member states. In addition both Article 6 of the amended Treaty of European Union and Article 51(2) of the Charter itself restrict the Charter from extending the competences of the EU. A consequence of this is that the EU will not be able to legislate to vindicate a right set out in the Charter unless the power to do such is set out in the Treaties proper. Furthermore, individuals will not be able to take a member state to court for failing to uphold the rights in the Charter unless the member state in question was implementing EU law. It is this last point that has been subject to the most debate.

The Charter is not the first attempt to place human rights principles at the core of European Union law. All EU member states are, and candidate states are required to be, signatories to the Council of Europe’s European Convention on Human Rights, so that many principles from the Convention, such as the right to a fair trial, were taken as the baseline for European Court of Justice jurisprudence even before their formal reiteration in Charter. In interpreting the human rights protections provided by the general principles of EU law (described in the Court cases section above), the ECJ had already dealt with the issue of whether the rights protected by those general principles applied to member states. Having ruled in Johnston v Royal Ulster Constabulary that a right to fair procedures was one of the general principles of EU law, in Kremzow v Austria the ECJ had to decide whether or not a member state was obliged to apply that principle in relation to a wrongful conviction for murder. Kremzow’s lawyers argued that his case came within the scope of EU law on the grounds that his wrongful conviction and sentence had breached his right to free movement within the EU. The ECJ responded by saying that since the laws under which Kremzow had been convicted were not enacted to secure compliance with EU law, his predicament fell outside the scope of EU law.

The wording in Kremzow v Austria, referring to the “field of application of EU law”, differs from the wording in the Charter which refers to the implementation of EU law. However, the amended explanatory memorandum issued alongside the Charter in 2007 describes the wording used in the Charter as reflecting ECJ precedent.

The British and Polish protocol

In the negotiations leading up to the signing to the Lisbon Treaty, Poland and the United Kingdom secured a protocol to the treaty relating to the application of the Charter of the Fundamental Rights in their respective countries.

The protocol, in article 1(1) states that the “Charter does not extend the ability of the Court of Justice of the European Union, or any court or tribunal of Poland or of the United Kingdom, to find that the laws, regulations or administrative provisions, practices or actions of Poland or of the United Kingdom are inconsistent with the fundamental rights, freedoms and principles that it reaffirms.” Article 1(2) then says that the Title IV of the Charter, which contains economic and social rights, does not create justiciable rights, unless Poland and the UK have provided for such rights in its national law.

Both countries to which the protocol currently applies had different reasons for negotiating the protocol. The United Kingdom originally opposed a legally binding charter over concerns that it would result in a stream of British citizens going to the European Court of Justice in attempts to enforce their Charter rights in the UK, and in increased costs for business. While the British accepted a legally binding rights charter during the negotiations of the failed European Constitution, they negotiated a protocol during the Lisbon negotiations which, according to the then British Minister for Europe, would ensure that the Charter would not extend the powers of the European Court of Justice over United Kingdom law. Although their problems with the Charter related to its perceived liberal stance on social issues, in September 2007 the Polish government indicated that they wished to be included in the British protocol.

There is considerable debate concerning the legal effect of the protocol. One view, shared by Jan Jirásek, is that the protocol is an opt-out that excludes the application of the Charter to Poland and the United Kingdom. Another, shared by Ingolf Pernice, is that the protocol is only an interpretative protocol which will either have limited or no legal consequence.Craig and de Burcá argue that the protocol is merely declaratory. It says that the “Charter does not extend the ability” of the ECJ or other court to overturn UK or Polish law, but the ECJ already had the power to do this in any case. Accordingly, the Protocol is “unlikely that it will have any significant effect in practice.

In NS v Home Secretary, the European Court of Justice ruled that Article 1(1) of Protocol “explains Article 51 of the Charter with regard to the scope thereof and does not intend to exempt the Republic of Poland or the United Kingdom from the obligation to comply with the provisions of the Charter or to prevent a court of one of those Member States from ensuring compliance with those provisions.”

Proposed Czech protocol

During the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon, Czech President Václav Klaus expressed concern that the Charter would allow families of Germans who were expelled from territory in modern-day Czech Republic after the Second World War to challenge the expulsion before the EU’s courts, though legal experts have suggested that the laws under which the German were expelled, the Beneš decrees, did not fall under the jurisdiction of EU law. After Klaus refused to finalize the Czech Republic’s ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon unless the country was excluded from the Charter, as Poland and the United Kingdom had been, EU leaders agreed in October 2009 to amend the protocol to include the Czech Republic at the time of the next accession treaty in a measure designed to persuade Klaus to sign the treaty. He subsequently signed the treaty.

In September 2011, the Czech government formally submitted a request to the Council that the promised treaty revisions be made to extend the protocol to the Czech Republic, and a draft amendment to this effect was proposed by the European Council. However, the Czech Senate passed a resolution in October 2011 opposing their accession to the protocol. When Croatia’s Treaty of Accession 2011 was signed in late 2011, the Czech protocol amendment was not included. During the Czech Republic’s parliamentary ratification of the accession treaty in the spring of 2012, the government attempted to combine the approval of the Charter opt-out with the ratification bill. However, with the Senate controlled by the opposition parties, their objections to the opt-out could have led to the accession treaty being rejected. As a result, the government decided to separate the proposed opt-out from the accession treaty bill.

A vote on a draft report by the European Parliament Constitutional Affairs Committee in January 2012 recommending against granting the Czech Republic’s request to be added to Protocol 30 resulted in a tie. The report argued that Protocol 30 was not functioning as a general opt-out from the Charter, but only allowed the countries to limit the application of subsequent EU laws based solely on the charter. Thus, the Czech Republic would still be bound by the Charter even if they were added to the Protocol. In October 2012, the committee approved the report. and a third draft of the report was published on 11 December 2012. The report was tabled in Parliament during its session on 22 May 2013, and the Parliament voted in favour of calling on the European Council “not to examine the proposed amendment of the Treaties”. The Parliament did, however, give its consent in advance that a treaty revision to add the Czech Republic to Protocol 30 would not require a new convention.

In January 2014, after presidential and parliamentary elections the previous year had resulted in new leadership in the country, new Czech Human Rights Minister Jiří Dienstbier said that he would attempt to have his country’s request for an opt-out withdrawn. This was confirmed on 20 February 2014 by the new Prime Minister Bohuslav Sobotka, who withdrew the request for an opt-out during a meeting with President of the European Commission José Manuel Barroso shortly after his newly elected government won the confidence of Parliament. In May 2014, the Council of the European Union formally withdrew their recommendation to hold a Intergovernmental Conference of member states to consider the proposed amendments to the treaties.

The text

The Charter contains some 54 articles divided into seven titles. The first six titles deal with substantive rights under the headings: dignity, freedoms, equality, solidarity, citizens’ rights and justice, while the last title deals with the interpretation and application of the Charter. Much of Charter is based on the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), European Social Charter, the case-law of the European Court of Justice and pre-existing provisions of European Union law.

The first title (Dignity) guarantees the right to life and prohibits torture, slavery, the death penalty, eugenic practices and human cloning. Its provisions are mostly based on the ECHR, although Article 1 closely reflects Article 1 of the German Basic Law.
The second title (Freedoms) covers liberty, personal integrity, privacy, protection of personal data, marriage, thought, religion, expression, assembly, education, work, property and asylum.
The third title (Equality) covers equality before the law, prohibition of all discrimination including on basis of disability, age and sexual orientation, cultural, religious and linguistic diversity, the rights of children and the elderly.
The fourth title (Solidarity) covers social and workers’ rights including the right to fair working conditions, protection against unjustified dismissal, and access to health care, social and housing assistance.
The fifth title (Citizen’s Rights) covers the rights of the EU citizens such as the right to vote in election to the European Parliament and to move freely within the EU. It also includes several administrative rights such as a right to good administration, to access documents and to petition the European Parliament.
The sixth title (Justice) covers justice issues such as the right to an effective remedy, a fair trial, to the presumption of innocence, the principle of legality, non-retrospectivity and double jeopardy.
The seventh title (General Provisions) concerns the interpretation and application of the Charter. These issues are dealt with above.

Raising the Charter’s profile

The EU has attempted to raise the profile of the Charter so that citizens are more aware of their rights. For example, the EU Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) has produced apps for and Android with the text of the Charter in all EU languages and related information. It has also published mini-versions of the Charter in all EU languages.

In 2010, the FRA put out a tender for poets to turn the Charter into an 80-minute long epic poem, with music, dance and multimedia elements. This was also to raise awareness and to simplify the legal text into more understandable language. However, Viviane Reding, the European Commissioner for Justice, Freedom & Security, wrote to the director of the FRA slamming the idea on cost and dignity grounds and instructing him to cancel the project.

3.2 The Objectives of the Union

Article I-3 of the Constitutional Treaty, which covers the internal and external objectives of the Union, merges the provisions of the EU Treaty and those of the EC Treaty. These objectives must guide the Union in the defining and implementation of all its policies. The main objectives of the Union are now to promote peace, the Union’s values and the well-being of its peoples. These general objectives are supplemented by a list of more detailed objectives which include the promotion of:

an area of freedom, security and justice without internal frontiers;
an internal market where competition is free and undistorted;
sustainable development, based on balanced economic growth and price stability, a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress, and a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment;
scientific and technological advancement;
social inclusion and indiscrimination, and the promotion of social justice and protection, equality between women and men, solidarity between generations and protection of the rights of the child;
economic, social and territorial cohesion, and solidarity among Member States.

In addition to the above, the Union respects cultural and linguistic diversity and ensures that Europe’s cultural heritage is safeguarded and enhanced. Furthermore, apart from the objectives in the Union‘s Treaties, the Constitution thus adds the promotion of scientific and technological advance, of solidarity between generations and of the protection of children’s rights. Economic and social cohesion now additionally acquires a territorial dimension. Cultural and linguistic diversity, and the safeguarding and enhancing of Europe’s cultural heritage, also become Union objectives. Paragraph 4 of Article I-3 is devoted to the Union’s promotion of its values and interests in its relations with the rest of the world. This paragraph brings together the objectives from the EU Treaty relating to the common foreign and security policy, and the provisions of the EC Treaty relating to development cooperation, peace, security, sustainable development of the Earth, solidarity and mutual respect among peoples, free and fair trade, eradication of poverty, protection of human rights (in particular the rights of the child) and development of international law (respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter). The Constitution includes as a new objective the protection of children’s rights on the international stage. Finally, in Part III of the Constitutional Treaty, Articles III-115 to III-122 contain provisions relating to more specific requirements which the Union must fulfill in implementing the Constitution, in particular, equality between men and women, the combating of discrimination, requirements relating to employment and social policy, protection of the environment and consumers and consideration for the specific nature of services of general economic interest.

3.3 The Free Trade Area (FTA)

The creation of the Free Trade Area (FTA) eliminated tariffs, quotas and preferences on goods among member states. Numerous countries have signed a European Union Association Agreement (AA) with FTA provisions. These mainly include Mediterranean countries (Algeria in 2005, Egypt in 2004, Israel in 2000, Jordan in 2002, Lebanon in 2006, Morocco in 2000, Palestinian National Authority in 1997, and Tunisia in 1998), albeit some countries from other trade blocs have also signed one (such as Chile in 2003, Mexico in 2000, and South Africa in 2000). Further, many Balkan states have signed a Stabilization and Association Agreement (SAA) with FTA provisions such as Albania (signed 2006), Croatia (2005), Montenegro (2007), Macedonia (2004), Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia (both 2008, entry into force pending). In 2008, Poland and Sweden proposed the Eastern Partnership which would include setting a FTA between the EU and eastern countries such as Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine.

Conclusion

In 1951, only a few Western European states agreed to confer powers over their steel and coal production to the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) in the Treaty of Paris but after the WW 11 Coal and steel production was essential for the reconstruction of countries in Europe. More of the European Countries came together in 1949 to form the European Economic Community. In addition to the above, the Union respects cultural and linguistic diversity and ensures that Europe’s cultural heritage is safeguarded and enhanced. Economic and social cohesion now additionally acquires a territorial dimension.

Summary

Discussions in this unit largely focused on the history of the formation of the European Economic Community and their early Objectives. It was pointed out how the European Communities were reluctant before WW11 to give up power over their Iron and Steel and coal production to the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) in the Treaty of Paris but were much more interested to do so after the WW 11. We also looked at their stated objectives when they eventually came together for in 1949 to form the EEC.

Tutor-marked assignment

How did the European Union come about and mention at least four of its main objectives.

7.0 References/further reading

Etzioni, A. (1965) Political Unification. New York: Holt Rinchart and Winston.

Haas, E.B. (1964) Beyond the National State. Stanford California: Standard University Press.

Hazelwood, A. (1967) ―Problems of Integration among African State‖ In Hazelwood, A. (Eds.) Africa Integration and Disintegration London: Oxford University Press.

Kisanga, E. J. (1984) ―Regional Cooperation: Challenge for the Continent‖ Africa Now, London.

Lipsey, R.G. (1960) ―The Theory of Customs Union: A General Survey‖. Economic Journal Vol. 70 Pp 496 – 513

Mytelka, L. (1994) ―Regional Cooperation and the New Logic of International Competition‖ In Mytelka, L. (Ed.) South-South Cooperation in a Global Perspective Paris: OECD pp 21-54.

Myelka, L. K. (1979). ―Regional Development in a Global Economy‖ Yale University Press

Vaitos, C. V. (1978) ―Crisis in Regional Economic Cooperation (Integration) Among Developing Countries: A survey‖ World Development.

Viner, J. (1950) The Custom Union Issues New York: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

UNIT 3 THE EUROPEAN UNION COMPETENCE/RESPONSIBILITIES

CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Objectives

3.0 Main content

3.1 The European Union Competence/responsibility

3.2 Membership in European Union agreements

3.3 Euro-Mediterranean Partnership

4.0 Conclusion

5.0 Summary

6.0 Tutor-marked assignment

7.0 References/further reading

INTRODUCTION

We have examined the history and objectives of the EU in the previous unit pointing out the year of establishment and the merger that brought about the Union. We went further to identify the objectives and discussed them in details. In this unit, we shall examine the Exclusive and the Supporting competences of the EU and go a long way in identifying its major partnerships and agreements.

OBJECTIVES

At the end of this unit you should be able to

Identify the areas of Exclusive, Supporting and shared Competences in the EU
Write small essays on the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and
The Schengen zone

3.0 Main Content

3.1 Competence/Responsibility of the EU

Whilst most responsibilities (competences) are retained by the member states, some competences are conferred exclusive on the Union for collective decision, some are shared pending Union action and some receive Union support. The European Customs Union defines an area where no customs are levied on goods travelling within it. It includes all European Union member states. The abolition of internal tariff barriers between EEC member states was achieved in 1968. Andorra and San Marino belong to the EU customs unions with third states. Turkey is linked by the European Union-Turkey Customs Union. A prominent goal of the EU since its creation by the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 is establishing and maintaining a single market. This seeks to guarantee the four basic freedoms, which are related to ensure the free movement of goods, services, capital and people around the EU‘s internal market.

The European Economic Area (EEA) agreement allows Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein to participate in the European Single Market without joining the EU. The four basic freedoms apply. However, some restrictions on fisheries and agriculture take place. Switzerland is linked to the European Union by Swiss-EU bilateral agreements, with a different content from that of the EEA agreement.

The Euro zone refers to the European Union member states that have adopted the euro currency union as the third stage of the European Economic and Monetary Union (EMU). Further, certain states outside the EU have adopted the euro as their currency, despite not belonging to the EMU. Thus, a total of 22 states, including 16 European Union states and six non-EU members, currently use the Euro. The Euro-zone came into existence with the official launch of the Euro on 1 January 1999. Physical coins and banknotes were introduced on 1 January 2002. The original members were Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, and Spain. Greece adopted the euro on 1 January 2001. Slovenia joined on 1 January 2007, Cyprus and Malta were admitted on 1 January 2008, and Slovakia joined 1 January 2009. Outside the EU, agreements have been concluded with Monaco, San Marino, and Vatican City for formal adoption, including the right to mint their own coins. Andorra, Montenegro and Kosovo have also used the euro since its launch.

The European Union first started with economic integration which brought about prosperity among the member states and then moved on to also cooperate with one another in the areas of education, culture, health, politics and a whole lot of other areas as we will see in the following: Education: The European Region Action Scheme for the Mobility of University Students (ERASMUS) program seeks to encourage and support free movement of the academic community. It was established in 1987. A total of 31 states (including all European Union states, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Turkey) are involved. Switzerland is again eligible for membership as from 2007, after a period of absence following the rejection by that country of closer links with the European Union. The European Higher Education Area (EHEA) aims to integrate education systems in Europe. Thus, degrees and study periods are recognized mutually. This is done by following the Bologna process, and under the Lisbon Recognition Convention of the Council of Europe. The Bologna declaration (in full, Joint declaration of the European Ministers of Education convened in Bologna on 19 June 1999 is the main guiding document of the Bologna process. It was adopted by ministers of education of 29 European countries at their meeting in Bologna in 1999. It proposed a European Higher Education Area in which students and graduates could move freely between countries, using prior qualifications in one country as acceptable entry requirements for further study in another.

The principal aims agreed were:

“Adoption of a system of easily readable and comparable degrees”. That is to say, countries should adopt common terminology and standards 2. “Adoption of a system essentially based on two main cycles, undergraduate and graduate. Access to the second cycle shall require successful completion of first cycle studies, lasting a minimum of three years. The degree awarded after the first cycle shall also be relevant to the European labour market as an appropriate level of qualification. The second cycle should lead to the master and/or doctorate degree as in many European countries.”

The Bergen meeting subsequently refined the second point, and produced a three cycle framework of qualifications, which in the UK terminology (adopted, at least partially, by many European countries) would be Bachelor for a first degree of three years, Master for subsequent study, and Doctor for a degree which has “made a contribution through original research that extends the frontier of knowledge by developing a substantial body of work”.

The Bologna declaration has later been followed up a series of meetings between EU ministers. Each meeting has produced a communiqué based on their deliberations. To date these include the Prague communiqué (2001), the Berlin communiqué (2003), the Bergen communiqué (2005), the London communiqué (2007) the Leuven & Louvain-la-Neuve communiqué (2009). European Commission has published (European Communities, Feb. 2009) an “ECTS Users‘ Guide”, including one “Overview of national regulations (…)” and “Status of the proclamation”. The Bologna Ministerial Anniversary Conference 2010 in Budapest and Vienna was held in March 2010. It issued the Budapest-Vienna Declaration. The communiqués indicate that progress is being made towards the Bologna Declaration’s aim of a European Higher Education Area, however such an area is not universally accepted as being a desirable outcome. According to the Busapest-Vienna declaration, the next Ministerial Meeting was held in Bucharest on 26–27 April 2012.

All EU members or candidates at the moment (except Cyprus which joined later) and three out of four EFTA countries: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and United Kingdom, Croatia, Cyprus, Liechtenstein, and Turkey joined in 2001. In 2003, Albania, Andorra, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Holy See (a Council of Europe permanent observer), Macedonia, Russia and Serbia signed the convention. Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine followed in 2005. Finally, Montenegro joined in 2007. This makes a total of 46 member states. Monaco and San Marino are the only members of the Council of Europe which have not adopted the convention. The other two European nations that are eligible to join, but have not, are Belarus and Kazakhstan.

Health: The SOS project, also known as Smart Open Services, aims to promote free movement of patients. It will allow health professionals to electronically access the data from patients from other countries, to electronically process prescriptions in all involved countries, or to provide treatment in another EU state to a patient on a waiting list. The project has been launched by 12 EU state including Austria, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union is a document enshrining certain fundamental rights. The wording of the document has been agreed at ministerial level and has been incorporated into the Treaty of Lisbon. The Czech Republic, Poland and the United Kingdom have negotiated an opt-out from the Charter. Furthermore, the European integration process has extended the right of foreigners to vote. Thus, European Union citizens were given voting rights in local elections by the 1992 Maastricht Treaty. Several member states (Belgium, Luxembourg, Lithuania, and Slovenia) have extended since then the right to vote to all foreign residents. This was already the case in Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands and Sweden. Further, voting and eligibility rights are granted among citizens of the Nordic Passport Union, and between numerous countries through bilateral treaties (i.e. between Norway and Spain, or between Portugal and Brazil, Cape Verde, Iceland, Norway, Uruguay, Venezuela, Chile and Argentina), or without them (i.e. United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland). Finally, within the EEA, Iceland and Norway also grant the right to vote to all foreign residents. There is also the Schengen Zone. The main purpose of the establishment of the Schengen Agreements is the abolition of physical borders among European countries. Total of 29 states, including 25 European Union states (all except Ireland and United Kingdom) and four non-EU members (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland), are subject to the Schengen rules. Twenty Six states have already implemented its provisions, leaving just Bulgaria, Cyprus and Romania to do so among signatory‘s states. Liechtenstein still has to fully implement the rules. Further Monaco, San Marino and Vatican City are de-facto members.

The European Union is not a state and as such does not have its own dedicated military forces. However, there are a number of multi-national military and peace keeping forces which are ultimately under the command of the EU, and therefore can be seen as the core for a future European Union army. These corps includes forces from 25 EU states – all except Denmark, which has an opt-out clause in its accession treaty and is not obliged to participate in the common defense policy; and Malta, which currently does not participate in any battle group – Norway and Turkey. Also, the Western European Union (WEU) capabilities and functions have been transferred to the European Union, under its developing Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP).

The EU also has close ties with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), according to the Berlin Plus agreement. This is a comprehensive package of agreements made between NATO and the EU on 16 December 2002. With this agreement the EU is given the possibility to use NATO assets in case it wanted to act independently in an international crisis, on the condition that NATO does not want to act itself – the so-called ‗right of first refusal‘. In fact, many EU member states are among the 28 NATO members. The Treaty of Brussels is considered the precursor to NATO. The North Atlantic Treaty was signed in Washington, D. C. in 1949. It included the five Treaty of Brussels states, as well as the United States, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark and Iceland. Greece and Turkey joined the alliance in 1952, and West Germany did the same in 1955. Spain entered in 1982. In 1999, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Poland became NATO members. Finally, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovenia and Slovakia joined in 2004. In 2009m Croatia and Albania joined Ukraine and Georgia were told that they will also eventually become members in 2008. The Republic of Macedonia‘s application process is finished, but it is blocked by Greece. Thus, 21 out of 28 NATO states are among the 27 EU members, another two are members of the EEA, and two more are EU candidates (one of those is member of the EU customs space).

On 22 May, 2007, the member states of the European Union have agreed to create a Common political framework for space activities in Europe by unifying the approach of the European Space Agency (ESA) with those of the individual European Union member states. However, ESA is an intergovernmental organization with no formal organic link to the EU; indeed, the two institutions have different Member States and are governed by different rules and procedures. ESA was created in 1975 by merging ELDO with ESRO. The 10 founding members were Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. The Republic of Ireland joined on 31 December 1975. In 1987, Austria and Norway became member states. Finland joined in 1995, Portugal in 2000, Greece and Luxembourg in 2005, and the Czech Republic in 2008. Thus, currently, it has 18 member states: all the EU member states before 2004, plus Czech Republic, Norway and Switzerland. Further, Canada has had the special status of a Cooperating State under a cooperation agreement since 1979. ESA is likely to expand in the coming years with the countries which joined the EU in both 2004 and 2007. Thus, Estonia, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Slovenia have already signed a European Cooperating State (ECS) Agreement; Cyprus, Latvia and Slovakia have signed Cooperation Agreements with ESA; and finally, Lithuania and Malta have also announced its intention to join ESA.

SELF ASSESSMENT EXCERCISE

What do you understand as the Bologna Declaration and the Schengen zone?

3.2 Membership in European Union Agreements

A small group of EU member states have joined all European treaties, instead of opting out on some. They drive the development of a federal model for the European integration. This is linked to the concept of Multi-speed Europe where some countries would create a core union; and goes back to the Inner Six references to the founding member states of the European Communities. At present the formation of a formal Core Europe Federation ―A federation within the confederation‖ had been held off at every occasion that such a federation treaty had been discussed. Instead supranational institutions are created that govern more areas in ―Inner Europe‖ than the existing European integration provides for. Among the 27 EU state members, nine states have signed all integration agreements. These are Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Spain.

The agreement considered include the fifth stage of economic integration or EMU, the Shengen agreement, the Common Security and Defense Policy, and education initiatives such as the ERASMUS programme or the European Higher Education Area. They are also members of the European Space Agency and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Thus, among the 27 EU countries, 16 have joined the Euro-zone, 25 have joined Shengen, and 25 compose the European Military.

Furthermore, some countries which do not belong to the EU have joined several of these initiatives, albeit sometimes at a lower stage such as the Customs Union, the Common Market (EEA), or even adopting unilaterally the euro; by taking part in Shengen, either as a signatory state, or de-facto; or by joining some common military forces. Thus, six non-EU countries have adopted the euro unilaterally, three the Shengen agreement officially and another three ones as de-facto, and other countries have joined common military corps. Some territories of EFTA member states also have a special status in regard to EU laws applied as is the case with some European microstates. For member states that do not have special status territories the EU law applied as is the case with some European microstates. For member states that do not have special status territories the EU law applies fully with the exception of the optouts in the European Union.

SELF ASSESSMENT EXCERCISE

What is the ERASMUS programme of the EU?

3.3 Euro-Mediterranean Partnership

The Euro-Mediterranean Partnership or Barcelona Process was organized by the European Union to strengthen its relations with the countries in the Mashriq and Maghreb regions. It started in 1995 with the Barcelona Euro-Mediterranean Conference, and it has been developed in successive annual meetings. The European Union enlargement of 2004 brought two more Mediterranean countries (Cyrus and Malta) into the Union, while adding a total of 10 to the number of Member States. The Euro-Mediterranean Partnership today comprises 43 members: 27 European Union member states, and 16 partner countries (Albania, Algeria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Monaco, Montenegro, Morocco, Syria and Tunisia as well as the Palestinian Territories). Libya has had observer status since 1999.

The Euro-Mediterranean Free Trade Area (EU-MEFTA) is based on the Barcelona Process and European Neighborhood Policy (ENP). It will cover the EU, the EFTA, the EU customs unions with third states (Turkey, Andorra, San Marino), the EU candidate states, and the partners of the Barcelona Process. There is no fixed end result of the process of integration. Integration and enlargement of the European Union are major issues in the politics of Europe, both at European, national and local level. Integration may conflict with national sovereignty and cultural identity, and is opposed by Euro skeptics.

Conclusion

Summary

Discussions in this unit have focused on the Institutions of the EU, their membership, functions and when they were established. Thus, among the EU countries, some have joined the Euro-zone, some have joined Shengen, and some compose the European Military. Thus, Integration may conflict with national sovereignty and cultural identity, and is opposed by Euro skeptics.

Tutor-marked assignment

Mention the members of the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership and discuss the significance of the partnership.

References/further reading