The European microstates Andorra, Liechtenstein and the Holy See have only been partially integrated into the multi-level framework of the European Union (EU). What is puzzling to academics...Show moreThe European microstates Andorra, Liechtenstein and the Holy See have only been partially integrated into the multi-level framework of the European Union (EU). What is puzzling to academics specialized in European Integration is the stark contrast to the degree of integration into the European Union experienced by Malta and Luxembourg which have both fully integrated into the European community in comparison to these microstates. The resultant regulatory and political discrepancies between each of these microstates is investigated in this paper with an investigation into the possibility of further integration for the unincorporated microstates. The different routes to integration of economic, political, and diplomatic arrangements follow in line with the 2013 Association Framework agreement established by Brussels which this paper will use to conceptualize an analysis into wider microstate integration. This paper assumes that intergovernmental agreements between microstates and their EU member state neighbors reduce the incentives for integration into the European Union. Other assumptions rely on an investigation into the value that European microstates have in maintaining their sovereignty at the expense of gains through European integration. It also investigates economic development of these microstates to their degree of integration as a control variable, of which there is less of an impact than intergovernmental agreements. The findings of this paper highlight the importance that microstates show towards intergovernmental agreements over supranational integration.Show less
European defence and security cooperation has largely remained intergovernmental in nature. Other issue areas such as the common market have been integrated and are primarily governed through EU...Show moreEuropean defence and security cooperation has largely remained intergovernmental in nature. Other issue areas such as the common market have been integrated and are primarily governed through EU institutions as a result. This is puzzling since the earliest efforts of European integration occurred in the field of defence and security. These efforts ultimately proved a failure and stifled further attempts at integration in this policy field for decades to come. In academic discussion, a common approach to European security and defence policy is the analysis of outcome. The pace and nature of European defence and security policy has been analysed and critiqued on frequent occasions, pointing to the still great reliance of the EU on NATO in security matters. Considering both of these aspects, this analysis aims to deliver an analysis that focusses on the process of EU defence and security policy making itself in order to investigate the puzzle of why it has remained intergovernmental. Hypothesising that it is a policy of deliberate non-decision, „gatekeeping”, by one or more actors within EU policy-making that is responsible for the intergovernmental outcome, process tracing is conducted. The findings of this analysis do not, however, corroborate the hypothesis and an alternate explanation is developed that points to a non-decision being motivated by passive factors, namely inopportune situations of the individual actors capable of propelling an integration effort forward. This analysis is, however, also able to observe that the recent push in the implementation of PESCO came about as a result of political hurdles being overcome and, in principle, a road towards integration may open up in the future.Show less
In light of the recent revival of the Franco-German Axis (Macron-Merkel) and advances in EU Security & Defence policy through PESCO, this thesis provides both a historical and political...Show moreIn light of the recent revival of the Franco-German Axis (Macron-Merkel) and advances in EU Security & Defence policy through PESCO, this thesis provides both a historical and political analysis of the special Franco-German relationship within the EU and its impact on integration by focussing on the policy area of Security & Defence in particular. It uses the theory of rational neo institutionalism to explain the process of EU integration in Security & Defence and the institutionalisation of bilateral relations between France & Germany. It moreover provides a case study in which the actual impact of the Franco-German order will be studied through process tracing of the integration process in security & defence after the Maastricht Treaty. In this case study the dysfunctionalities of the Franco-German engine and the lack of leadership in the area of security & defence is demonstrated in detail. However, the level of influence that both countries can exercise when they act together has been highly significant in the process of European Integration. The qualitative research that upholds this thesis consists of a vast number of academic sources including books, articles, and empirical studies. Next to that a number, of official EU documents and transcripts is used as part of the cases study.. However, this thesis does not fully analyse the vast number of other factors playing a role in the integration process concerning its scope.Show less
The main research question that this thesis will try to answer is: “Who dictated the European Community policy concerning migration for Third Country Nationals during the 1970s and 1980s: the...Show moreThe main research question that this thesis will try to answer is: “Who dictated the European Community policy concerning migration for Third Country Nationals during the 1970s and 1980s: the European Commission or the member states?”.This thesis is divided into three parts. Firstly, it examines the relationships inside the European Community and member states from a theoretical perspective to propose several hypotheses to explain who dictated European migration policy. To test these hypotheses based on empirical research, chapters 2 and 3 will look at the positions of the European Commission and the European member states respectively.It seems more likely that when considering our hypotheses, the perspective of member states dictating European Community policy was more likely. Even though this paper established that the European Commission had received a competence in migration policy, the ones ultimately in power were the member states themselves.Show less
The utilization of information as a weapon is not a phenomenon new to the 21st century. The intergovernmentalist nature of the European Union has been a crucial factor, fostering and constraining,...Show moreThe utilization of information as a weapon is not a phenomenon new to the 21st century. The intergovernmentalist nature of the European Union has been a crucial factor, fostering and constraining, the efforts of developing coherent and unified strategies to counter information warfare tactics. The Union has been challenged by Russia’s aggressive information warfare throughout the course of the Ukraine Crisis. The political theater has been undermined by the spread of disinformation and pro-Kremlin propaganda as a result of the conflict in Ukraine mainly aimed at weakening Western powers.Show less
This thesis approaches the founding fathers of the Eurasian Economic Union (EaEU) through liberal intergovernmentalism, a theory of regional integration originally used to analyse European...Show moreThis thesis approaches the founding fathers of the Eurasian Economic Union (EaEU) through liberal intergovernmentalism, a theory of regional integration originally used to analyse European integration. The aim of this thesis is to show how this theory can help answering the question as to why the founding members of the EaEU chose to establish this union. This thesis focuses on the national preferences of the three founding members, as well as their effectiveness during interstate bargaining negotiations. By doing so, this thesis adds its own conclusions to the ongoing discussion regarding the nature of the EaEU.Show less
