Shared sovereignty and denationalisation of statehood in the European Union

Contents

1. Introduction
1.1 Reasons and aim of the paper
1.2 Structure of the paper

2. Theoretical background
2.1 Theorizing the EU: supranational, intergovernmental or none at all?
2.2 The paradox (?) of shared sovereignty in the European Union
2.3 Denationalisation of statehood: from the Westphalian order to the ‘competition state’?

3. The ‘Governance’ approach
3.1 Governance in the European Union
3.2 European governance and legitimation: a missing link?

4. The “Government” approach
4.1 Government in the European Union
4.2 Do political parties link society to European governments?

5. Conclusions: has ‘governance’ eclipsed ‘government’?

References

1. Introduction.

1.1 Reasons and aim of the paper.

Globalisation has produced substantial changes in the organisation of nation-states and domestic economies^[1]. It has transformed the political geography of the world, leading to a course, in which countries have became ever more interdependent and economies have exceeded the national borders (cf. Taylor/ Flint 2000).

From this perspective, globalisation has the quality of a “macro-phenomenon” (cf. Osterhammel/ Petersson 2006:9-10), which involves the affected actors differently according to the domain of reference. As the following table shows, the process of globalisation does not follow a single trajectory with a univocal development, but it shows a multifaceted progression with different implications^[2].

Figure 1: Aspects of “Globalisation”.

illustration not visible in this excerpt

(Juergensmeyer 2002:6 and Taylor/ Flint 2000:3).

Although the process of globalisation is an old-dated phenomenon, which can be settled back to the first intercontinental commercial exchanges (cf. Streeck 2005), only recent events have modified the traditional relation among nation-states. The collapse of the Berlin wall and the downfall of the USSR, the growth of the Pacific Asian economies and the expansion of new communication systems have dissolved the conventional threefold partition of the globe in the idea of a “one world” structured on an axis organised in three principal regional blocks: North America, Western Europe, and Pacific Asia (cf. Taylor/ Flint 2000:4-5).

Nation-states have been faced with the rise of cross-border mergers^[3], which were usually controlled within the domestic borders by governments (cf. Wallace 1999:515). Consequently, national governance has become inter-dependent, or completely reliant, from international legislation^[4] (cf. Zürn 1998:329-360). In the description of Buzan and Segal (1996):

“There is so much capital moving independently in international money markets that governments have become relatively minor players in the complex process. Deregulation has empowered global money markets while leaving states holding only the weak controls of interest rates and fiscal policy” (p.1).

Globalisation has altered all core tasks of the nation-state concerning territoriality, taxation and citizenship. The formulation of policies has shifted from the national context to a complex environment, which embraces the regional and international dimension. These circumstances have affected the representative role of the state as decisional system and have led to a situation, in which sovereignty is shared among multiple actors, who have to deal with new sources of legitimisation beyond the domestic environment (cf. Luhmann 1994:15-20). Thus, traditional foundations for the political order are destabilized due to the fact that “vertically organised national cultures and national economies are gradually being replaced by new horizontal and global networks” (van Ham 2001:37-8).

From this angle, the European Union (hereafter also EU or Union) could be conceived as a regional answer to the process of globalisation, in which European integration is adapting European societies, economies and political organisations to a globalised competitive rule system (cf. van Ham 2001).

Nevertheless, if the understanding of the EU as a regional variant to globalisation explains the necessity of European integration, it leaves ground for questions regarding the changes in the relationship between governance and government. Moreover, assumed that European integration, owing its intergovernmental bias, is chiefly managed by national executives (cf. Moravcsik 1993), a multi-level system of governance undermines the core functions of governments as principal linkage between the institutional level of decision-making and the society (cf. Poguntke 2000).

In this dissertation I will evaluate, at the example of the European Union, the hypothesis that governance has eclipsed government. The intention is to analyse if the European decisional system has destabilized the role of national governments and eroded the classical link between national institutions and society. Furthermore, I will analyse to which degree these supposed changes are to be ascribed to the institutional configuration of the European Union.

1.2 Structure of the paper.

The paper is organised in three chapters. A first part (chap. 2) provides a theoretical background on the issues behind the question of the dissertation. Subsequent to a political theorization of the European Union, I will discuss the sense of sovereignty in the EU in order to classify afterwards the nature of the Union as a form of state.

In the third chapter, I will approach the subject, adopting a “governance” stance by exploring the procedures and actors, which form the European system of governance. After a brief review concerning the analysis of the multi-level structure of European governance, I will outline its principal features at the example of the “Open Method of Co-ordination” (hereafter OMC). This will guide to the discussion pertaining to the lack of legitimacy frequently attributed to European governance.

In the fourth chapter, I will carry on the analysis by adopting a government approach to the thematic. In this sense, I will firstly provide an outline of the principal characteristics regarding the EU as government system. I will restrain the focus on the role played by political parties concerning the formulation of policies in the public space. The examination will be oriented to inspect if political parties in the European Union still hold the primary function to link societies to governments and if they provide a source of legitimacy for the governing apparatus at European level.

In the conclusions, I will outline the findings deriving from the analyses in order to discuss and answer the hypothesis advanced by the paper. The comparison of both approaches adopted in the paper will point to highlight to which extent the traditional relation between ‘governance’ and ‘government’ has been transformed by the processes of globalisation and/or europeanisation.

2. Theoretical background.

2.1 Theorizing the EU: supranational, intergovernmental or none at all?

Over the last decades, theories on European integration have focussed on the interpretation and classification of the EU as political system, examining the implications for the member states. The neo-functional and intergovernmental readings have positioned themselves at the top of the interpretative patterns with reference to the EU.

The neo-functional argument proposes a lecture of the EU based on the assumption that spills-over in the areas of European policies are the main sources for domestic changes (cf. Wolf 2006)^[5]. This transfer of competences from the national to the European level is estimated to increase irreversibly, encouraging a supra-national configuration of the Union over time^[6].

The liberal intergovernmental lecture proposed by Moravcsik (1993)^[7] has a more sceptical position regarding the transfer of competences from the nation states to the European level. According to the intergovernmental approach, national executives remain the central actors in the bargaining process of the European decision making. Therefore, a supranational tendency of the EU is to be excluded.

Even if the neo-functional and the liberal intergovernmental discourses differ in the final conceptualisation of the EU, both perspectives adopt a top-down approach to European integration. The starting point of analysis pertain to the impact and relevance of European politics for the national context, while the resulting interpretations stem from the idea that European integration is predominantly oriented to economical accomplishments. Both readings share the same conception of the state, that is:

“They implicitly adhere to a Weberian notion of the state as a hierarchical structure of authoritative decision-making enjoying external and internal sovereignty. ‘Supranationalism’ which neofunctionalism tries to explain and intergovernmentalism dismisses, is based on such an understanding. Moreover, neofunctionalism and intergovernmentalism do not differentiate between domestic structures, i.e. the nature of political institutions, of society, and of state-society relations” (Risse 1996:57).

[...]

^[1] An accurate analysis of the process of globalisation goes behind the aim of this paper. Notwithstanding that, it is important to define roughly the properties covered by term in order to conceptualise its use in the dissertation. Scholte and Robertson (2007) distinguish four tendencies in the process of globalisation: “(…) When understood as internationalisation, globalisation refers to a growth of transactions and interconnectedness among countries. (…) As liberalisation … globalisation entails the removal of officially imposed restrictions on cross-border flows among countries. (…) Tacking a third tack, globalisation as universalisation depict a process whereby increasing numbers of objects and experiences are dispersed to people in all habitable locations across the Earth. (…) Finally, in its fourfold typology of definitions, the idea of planetarization regards globalisation as a trend whereby social relations increasingly unfold on the scale of the Earth as a whole” (p.527).

^[2] For a detailed discussion about new global trends deriving from the process of globalisation see Debiel, T./ Messner, D./ Nuscheler, F. (2006): Globale Trends 2007. Frieden, Entwicklung, Umwelt. Bonn: Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung.

^[3] As in the case of financial services, telecommunications and energy supply

^[4] The academic research and literature on the topic “global governance” is overwhelming. For a brief outlook on the meanings of global governance and its implications for the nation-state see Risse 2007 and Zürn 1998.

^[5] See also: Haas, Ernst B. (1970): The study of regional integration: reflections on the joy and anguish of pretheorizing. In: International Organisation, 24:4, 607-646; Tranholm-Mikkelsen, Jeppe (1991): Neo-Functionalism: Obstinate or Obsolete? A Reappraisal in the Light of New Dynamism of the EC. In: Millennium, 20:1, 1-22.

^[6] According to Ernst Haas: “Political integration is the process whereby political actors in several distinct national settings are persuaded to shift their loyalities, expectations and political activities toward a new centre, whose institutions possess or demand jurisdiction over pre-existing national states” (Haas as quoted in Wolf 2006:70).

^[7] See also: Moravcsik, Andrew (1998): The choice for Europe. Social Purpose and State Power from Messina to Maastricht. Ithaca:Cornell University Press.