ReferatFolder.Org.Ua — Папка українських рефератів!


By common agreement, CFSP was one of the major disappointments of Maastricht. After all, Maastricht proposed not only a common foreign and security policy, but declared the eventual aim to be a common defence. This has inevitably lead to the relationship between the EU and the defence alliance, the Western European Union (WEU), being put at stake. This has become even more challenging since the founding treaty of the WEU expires in 1998. However, the EU does not seem to be willing to take control in this area, as it is felt that the EU is being backed up by its major defence partner – the United States. The US has always been able to act (and this is what happened when the war in former Yugoslavia broke out) as a \'saviour of Europe\' in defence and peace-keeping matters.

Similarly, JHA pillar which includes issues of combating international crime and fraud, and issues related to a common approach to immigration policy is a hard nut to crack for the EU because of the national sensitivity to these. However, there has been some progress in this respect in Maastricht and further in Amsterdam – at least the workable mechanism was set out. Besides, it is a very fertile area of co-operation between the EU and the US.

On the whole, the EU since Maastricht has failed to live up to the peoples\' expectations. The existing structures are further challenged by the prospects of further integration eastwards: a number of countries in Central and Eastern Europe, plus some of the successor states of the Soviet Union are striving to modernise economically and politically, and the EU is an important magnet for them, whether as a market, a political system seeking to uphold democratic norms and values, or a putative defence system. The queue for membership has lengthened. But the Union is not as attractive from the inside as it may look from the outside. It seemed that the \'Monnet-method\', i.e. a closer interaction of national elites as a means for European integration has reached its limits. Indeed, the EU has experienced serious internal problems in the aftermath of Maastricht. One of the most obvious was the ratification crisis. In the narrow sense it meant a \'petit oui\' vote in French referendum for the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty and the initial \'no\' vote in Danish referendum. In a wider sense it meant a lack of political support of the EU, widening of the gap between the governments and the governed, and the lack of leadership in the EU. As the involvement of the EU and its institutions has expanded, but without any complementary shift in the sense of involvement and identification of the electorate, the questions rose about its very legitimacy.

Limits of European Integration?

Legitimacy and Democracy

\'The EU as a scapegoat is hardly a new concept; the problem lies in the fact that the EU has moved into an ever-wider range of policy areas, including, with Maastricht, areas previously very closely identified with the prerogative of the nation state\'vii. The traditional concept of legitimacy cannot be fully applied to the institutions of the EU simply because a \'single European nation\', or European demos in its traditional sense does not exist as such and is not likely to appear within foreseeable future. \'The integration is not about creating a European nation or people, but about the ever closer Union among the peoples of Europe\'viii. A parliament is a traditionally democratic institution not because \'it provides a mechanism for representation and majority voting, but because it represents ... the nation, the demos from which it derives its authority and legitimacy of its decisions\'ix. If we follow the logic of this no-demos clause, the European Parliament cannot be legitimate and democratic by definition, and, therefore, the increase of powers of the EP at the expense of the Council (the voice of the Member States) is a step in the wrong direction. I cannot agree to this. The demos is traditionally seen though the ethno-cultural prism. Can\'t we imagine a \'polity whose demos is defined, accepted and understood in civic, non-ethno-cultural terms, and would have legitimate rule-making democratic authority an that basis\'x? Can\'t we separate nationality from citizenship? Can\'t people unite on the basis of shared values, a shared understanding of rights and duties, and shared rational, intellectual culture which transcends ethno-national differences? This appears to be the concept of introducing EU citizenship. According to this viewpoint (which is I personally share, too), the directly elected European Parliament is a democratic and legitimate institution for EU citizens, and therefore its powers must be increased. But the problem lies in misunderstanding. During the Danish referendum for the ratification of Maastricht, some Danes feared that when acquiring EU citizenship they were losing their national citizenship. Indeed, \'...there was a failure to put across the idea that citizenship of the Union is not intended to replace the national citizenship but actually to complement it\'xi. In some cases the perception was the opposite. Thus, the European Union should be brought closer to its citizens which will allow the disputes on legitimacy to be resolved in future. To do this, the following issues must be addressed.

Transparency of the legislative process

Over twenty separate complex systems are now used to adopt legislation in the EU, and there is a lack of logic in the choice of the various procedures. \'Although willing to share sovereignty, governments retain as much political control as possible.\'xii Hence the complexity of institutional structure and number of decision-making procedures which sometimes \'render the Union\'s modusoperandi extremely obscure\'xiii. Simplification is, therefore, considered necessary and the pressure is growing to reduce these procedures to three. The tendency is to move from unanimity to qualified majority voting in the Council of Ministers, and to extending co-decision powers of the European Parliament which, in turn, will increase the legitimacy of the latter. Maintaining unanimity requirement could, indeed, paralyse a larger Union and prevent future Treaty reform.