Realist Theories and European Integration
European integration has been one of the most significant political projects in modern history. From the formation of the European Coal and Steel Community in 1951 to the creation of the European Union, the process of European integration has evolved over decades. At the heart of the academic debate on why states choose to integrate are theories such as realism and intergovernmentalism. These theories, often aligned with the broader tradition of state-centric analysis in international relations, have provided important insights into European integration. However, the end of the Cold War, along with other global political shifts, revealed key weaknesses in these theories. In this post, we will examine the explanatory weaknesses of realist and intergovernmental theories in explaining European integration after the Cold War, and explore how these theories have been vindicated in some respects.
Realist theories of international relations are grounded in the belief that the international system is anarchic, and states, as the primary actors, act primarily in their own self-interest to maximize power and security. In this context, European integration after World War II was largely seen as a way for European states to manage security threats and balance power, especially in light of the ongoing Cold War tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union.
During the Cold War, realism offered a convincing explanation for the emergence of the European Communities (EC) and later the EU. The threat posed by the Soviet Union and the desire for economic recovery after WWII encouraged European countries to form closer economic and political ties. Realists argued that states, particularly Germany and France, were motivated by security concerns and a desire to balance power in the face of global superpowers. Realism also emphasized the importance of national sovereignty and the centrality of state power in international relations.
The Weaknesses of Realist Theories after the Cold War
However, the end of the Cold War in the early 1990s fundamentally changed the European political landscape. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergence of new geopolitical realities, several weaknesses in realist theories became apparent.
1. Diminished Security Threats
One of the primary assumptions of realism is that states act to maintain their security in an anarchic international system. For much of the Cold War, European states were motivated by the need to counterbalance Soviet power. However, after the Cold War, the direct security threat from the East vanished, and Europe was no longer divided into clear-cut blocs. With NATO already in place and the threat of Soviet expansion gone, the security rationale for further integration became less compelling.
In this new era, European integration increasingly focused on other issues—such as economic growth, human rights, and democratic values—which realism, with its emphasis on power and security, struggled to explain. This shift highlighted a key limitation of realist theories: their inability to fully account for the non-security motivations behind integration, such as the spread of liberal democracy or the pursuit of economic prosperity.
2. Economic Integration Beyond Power Politics
Realism places heavy emphasis on the pursuit of power and military security, but the post-Cold War integration of Europe focused more on economic cooperation and creating a single market. The creation of the Euro, the enlargement of the EU to include former communist countries, and the expansion of the European Single Market were largely motivated by economic rather than purely political or security concerns.
Realism’s emphasis on power politics couldn’t fully explain why European states, some of which were initially reluctant to join the EU, chose to integrate so deeply in economic terms. These developments seemed to be driven more by the logic of mutual benefit and economic interdependence than by the power struggles that realism often emphasizes.
3. Supranationalism vs. State Sovereignty
Realism’s focus on the primacy of state sovereignty also became increasingly problematic in explaining European integration. While national governments have always played a crucial role in EU decision-making, institutions such as the European Commission and the European Parliament gained more influence in the post-Cold War period. The EU began to develop a structure in which decisions were increasingly made at the supranational level, with the European Court of Justice (ECJ) playing an important role in ensuring the primacy of EU law over national law.
For realists, this erosion of state sovereignty in favor of supranational institutions presented a significant challenge. The very idea that states would voluntarily cede authority to EU institutions went against the realist assumption that states would act to protect their sovereignty at all costs.
4. The Role of Normative and Ideological Factors
Realism has also struggled to account for the rise of normative and ideological factors in European integration. The EU’s focus on promoting human rights, democracy, and the rule of law, particularly in its eastward expansion, was a key feature of integration after the Cold War. Realist theories, which focus on power and security, have limited explanatory power when it comes to understanding the growing emphasis on these principles.
The EU’s normative goals—such as spreading democracy in Central and Eastern Europe—were not driven by any tangible security threat but rather by a shared belief in the value of liberal democracy and human rights. This shift toward ideational and normative concerns was difficult for realism to explain because it moved beyond state interests and traditional power dynamics.
Intergovernmentalism and Its Weaknesses
Intergovernmentalism, another theory of European integration, similarly emphasizes the role of state power and national interests. Intergovernmentalism suggests that European integration is driven by the decisions of national governments, who come together to cooperate in specific policy areas but retain their sovereignty. Unlike realism, which focuses on power and security, intergovernmentalism focuses more on cooperation between states to achieve mutual benefits.
While intergovernmentalism provides a useful explanation for some aspects of European integration, such as the role of national governments in the early years of the EU, it also faced significant challenges after the Cold War. The increased involvement of supranational institutions and the growing role of non-state actors like the European Commission, the European Parliament, and civil society organizations went beyond the scope of intergovernmentalist explanations.
Vindication of Realist and Intergovernmentalist Theories
Despite these weaknesses, realist and intergovernmentalist theories have not been entirely invalidated. While their explanatory power was limited in some respects, they have been vindicated in certain situations.
1. The Case of Brexit
While the EU’s deepening integration after the Cold War could not be fully explained by realist or intergovernmentalist theories, certain events such as Brexit serve as reminders of the importance of state interests and sovereignty in European politics. The UK’s decision to leave the EU in 2016, driven largely by concerns over national sovereignty, immigration, and economic independence, highlights the enduring relevance of realist ideas. The desire to reclaim control over borders and national policy-making resonated with intergovernmentalist themes of protecting state sovereignty.
2. EU Enlargement and National Interests
Realist and intergovernmentalist theories have also been vindicated in the context of EU enlargement. The accession of Central and Eastern European countries after the Cold War was largely driven by national interests and security concerns. Countries such as Poland, Hungary, and the Baltic states sought to integrate with the EU as a way to secure their position within the West and to avoid potential instability in the post-Soviet space. While economic and ideological factors played a role, the desire for security and political influence was a key motivator.
3. EU Foreign Policy
Finally, realist and intergovernmentalist perspectives have found some vindication in the area of EU foreign policy, where member states continue to play a dominant role. The EU’s foreign policy decisions, especially in areas like defense and relations with neighboring countries, often reflect the interests of powerful member states like France and Germany. The EU’s external actions in the Balkans, Eastern Europe, and Africa, for instance, are frequently influenced by national interests and state-led diplomacy.
Conclusion
Realist and intergovernmentalist theories of European integration have undergone significant scrutiny since the end of the Cold War, especially as new motivations for integration have emerged. While these theories struggled to explain the deeper, non-security motivations driving European integration, they were not entirely without merit. Realist theories, particularly those emphasizing national interests and power, found vindication in events such as Brexit and the EU’s handling of foreign policy and enlargement. Similarly, intergovernmentalism, which emphasizes the role of state power, continued to explain much of the EU’s decision-making process, even as supranational institutions gained prominence.
Ultimately, while European integration has evolved in complex ways that challenge traditional realist and intergovernmentalist frameworks, these theories remain valuable tools for understanding key aspects of EU politics, particularly in areas where national interests and sovereignty continue to play a significant role.
Enjoy The Best Experience with Us
The Legal Empowerment Blog
