ABSTRACT
This foundational chapter explores the divergent theories and approaches that have been employed to the study of EI and attempts to situate the EU within key theories of integration. The EU has been described as a multi-level governance system; a postmodern polity; a confederation; a quasi-federal system featuring pre-federal institutions; a sui generis legal order; an intergovernmental organisation; more than an intergovernmental organisation, but not quite a federation; globalisation agent. This chapter examines the terms and theories that have been associated with the EI experience, chief among which intergovernmentalism, neo-functionalism and federalism. It outlines the shortcomings of traditional theoretical analysis and the limited success in classifying the EU according to established theories of political science and legal positivism. It argues for the adoption of a multi-disciplinary and ‘inclusive’ theoretical approach to EI, an approach that acknowledges both the material and the ideational in the construction of a constitutional reality. Introduction The contemporary EU has, for some time, been confronted with many analytical questions of a constitutional nature. Does it need a written constitution? If so, when should a constitution be drafted and ratified and pursuant to what process? Does it already have a constitution, albeit not one in the traditional sense? Does a model already exist for a future European polity (e.g. federalism), or is there a need to create one? These normatively oriented questions frame the constitutional discourse, which increasingly invokes a European process of constitution-building as Europe’s destiny, a fait accompli. The convocation of the Convention on the Future of Europe in 2002 is illustrative of the impetus towards constitutional determination, although enthusiasm for this process amongst the élites may not be matched at the popular level. A number of deceptively simple questions, apparently amenable to empirical inquiry, can inform the process of constitutionalisation by suggesting answers to the normative questions posed. Thus, what, exactly, does the EU want? Does it want an integrated continent,
despite a discernable impulse towards fragmentation? As the collection of data and other material pertinent to these issues is an ongoing process, and the often marginal results subject to individual interpretation and analysis, as well as being sensitive to a range of shifting circumstances, events and policies, conclusions will be difficult to formulate. Once formulated, they will almost certainly be contested by proponents of differing views. Moreover, Greven, referring to Hedetoft,2 describes the regular Eurobarometer polls, which tend to show ‘a majority of Europeans … has a generally positive reaction to the EU [as] not relevant in this regard’.3 In criticising ‘the usual interpretation of Eurobarometer-based data’,4 these studies call into question the value of casual empirical research, which purports to gauge the public’s orientation towards the EU, and thus renders the task of analysis infinitely more difficult. Similarly, the results of referenda on the constitutional question are potentially obscured if voters, after years of neglect, are disposed to providing answers to a web of questions that underlie the specific question upon which the referendum is framed. This state of affairs exemplifies the variability of solutions to the constitutional question. It highlights the pitfalls of poll-led solutions and the necessity for a conceptual underpinning of the constitutional discourse. The conceptual imperative is advanced through meaningful classification of the EU polity, which is best achieved through interdisciplinary study. Analysts have pointed out that ‘an interdisciplinary politico-legal approach is particularly useful
1 The Presidency conclusions of the Copenhagen European Council, 12-13 December
2002 suggest a positive answer to this question. The conclusion of accession agreements with Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, the Slovak Republic and Slovenia was said to testify ‘… to the common determination of the peoples of Europe to come together in a union that has become the driving force for peace, democracy, stability and prosperity on our continent’: clause 3 Presidency conclusions SN 400/02. The EU’s membership was enlarged to 25 states on 1 May 2004 with further enlargement to the east, southeast and Turkey probable. It remains to be seen whether increasing public anxiety over further enlargement in core EU member states will derail this process.
