Today, the state of the world is such that cooperation between nations is a requirement for sustaining global health. It can be argued that each of the three IR theories have elements of agreement with this strategy.
From the realist point of view, working with other nations is in a country’s self-interest. Collaborating and having positive relations with a multitude of other countries achieves self-preservation by the country. Employing partnerships increases safety, as countries that work together are unlikely to fight. The specific benefits of the EU for countries far outweigh the costs, and realists would argue this is partially why countries have stayed involved. Smaller countries gain a broader and more powerful international persona, as well as protection from other EU countries should anything happen.
Liberals advocating mutual benefits would see supranational integration as a means for collaboration between countries positively impacting each of the participants. In the EU, countries have the benefits of a common currency, common social policies, and common international policy. Also, each country is protected by the number of other European countries that form the EU.
Constructivists, of course, see the EU as a necessary adaptation to the world we live in today. In the cold war era, for example, this kind of supranational integration was not needed—there were distinct divides between nations (such as the US and Russia), which worked well for each nation involved. Now however, if there were such a divide, the nations would not be benefited by establishing and perpetuating this conflict.
You have nicely listed what the three IR theories could possibly argue in favor of a supernational entity. However, when an argument is about a group of self interested states, it gets very complicated, because like you said, they could see supernational organization to be crucial to their survival or just the opposite, a threat to their national security. So what I wanted to ask you is this: does the benefits a state reaps through supernational organization such as EU outweigh the cost of having to go through a painfully inefficient decision making process that might deter a state from achieving some other crucial items on its agenda?
ReplyDeleteI would say yes, the benefits far outweigh the costs. First of all, we assume states that join the EU are in fact rational thinkers, and would compare the costs and benefits before becoming a member, and if that balance shifted not in their favor, the state is able to dissolve its membership in the EU. Aside from that, the benefits nations receive are fundamental. Security is essential for a country to have before even thinking about tackling another issue on their agenda. If a country is not secure, and does not have positive international standing, it is difficult for them to accomplish anything. In this sense, the EU provides nations with 'building blocks' if you will, that are crucial to establish before moving on to other national affairs.
ReplyDeleteEven if a state is not a rational thinker, they will at least take some aspect of cost and benefit into the account when joining a supernational entity, because it will not join an organization that would be harmful to the nation. Secondly, you mention that supernational entity such as EU provides "building blocks" which are security, and some aspect of international standing. It is certainly true if you take a look at EU and other supernational organizations and this could potentially outweigh other costs of such organizations. However, security does not necessarily have to come through international organizations as it can be achieved through bilateral agreements or even alone if a states is capable. So, if the fundamental building block is the security which doesn't necessarily have to come through international organizations, do you still believe that EU and other supernational organizations are ncessary?
ReplyDelete