- 13. The Specifics of European Integration. The Essence of

Lecture

Это окончание невероятной информации про международное сотрудничество.

...

sovereign states came from the supranational character of integration, which entailed
the formation of a bipolar power structure at the European level, in which EU institutions and
the member states share authority. Another, no less difficult problem to
solve turned out to be the immigration of people into European countries from other regions of the world. Immigration
is accompanied by an increase in illegal drug trafficking
and the spread of terrorism, requiring the ensuring of the safety of citizens of the united
European community while respecting the rights of migrants from third countries – legal residents
of EU states. Emigration and migration processes found themselves at the center of humanity's attention
as a result of their unexpectedly grand scale, their direct and indirect
impact on all spheres of life in both sending and receiving countries of migration flows. At
the same time, immigration flows fundamentally affect the demographic and ethnic situation in
receiving countries, requiring constant monitoring and direction from the authorities.
Thus, political processes in receiving countries increasingly encompass
immigration issues, and immigrants themselves become active participants in political
processes. All this, as already mentioned, erodes European identity, which could lead
to irreparable consequences for the European integration process.
The most complex issue in the chain of achievements and victories of European integration,
in our view, has turned out to be finding a balanced ratio between state
sovereignty and elements of supranationality in European structures. Elements of
supranationality can be observed not only in the mechanism of operation (the consideration of issues,
the decision-making procedure, the presidency of the organization, the distribution of funds, and, ultimately,
lobbying for the passage of issues, etc.) of certain European institutions. The question arises: to what extent
are these elements compatible with such a feature of the state as sovereignty? Sovereignty in this
context acquires a specific form of the relationship between the competence of the state and of European structures
through the delegation of part of the state's competence to an international organization, or the joint
exercise of the said functions. It should be noted that from a legal point of view sovereignty
is manifested in the complex of the state's competence, understood as the unity of territory,
population, power, independence, ethnicity, the monetary system, etc. Today the state's sovereignty
in all its manifestations exists only as relative, limited by both domestic and
international law. Therefore, to the question of where the boundary lies beyond which the limitation of sovereignty
would lead to the cessation of a state's existence as a subject of international law, the current
development of legal thought and the experience of international organizations have not yet provided an answer.

It is known that international organizations, as a form of multilateral cooperation
among states, are formed by them out of necessity and arise from the objective needs of international
relations. The legal personality of an international organization depends on the will of the member states, on the definition of its purpose, competence, powers, the nature of the
decisions it adopts, the structure of its organs, and other parameters.
In creating an international organization, states act as sovereign and
equal, forming a company on the basis of an international contract. At all stages
of this process, the interaction of states has a coordinating, horizontal nature and is an interaction
among subjects of equal standing. The entry into force of an organization's charter leads to rather
serious consequences, the main one of which is the emergence of a new subject of international law, not
identical to the states that created it. An organization formed by states begins its
own life, often independent of the will and aspirations of its individual participants, yet at the same time this
organization does not possess sovereignty. It has only the scope of powers necessary for its
functioning.

Leading international organizations, relying on the consent of states, make use of
means that restrict state sovereignty (for example, in making decisions on certain
matters binding on all states regardless of their opinion). Enforcement
measures and sanctions are applied. In addition, they often require the provision of information on matters of
a country's internal life, etc. Although in practice most coercive obligations
are applied rather rarely, they nonetheless exist. Thus, to certain international
organizations states have handed over the authority to make binding decisions or act in
certain spheres, thereby depriving themselves of freedom of action. This shows that states do not
cede part of their sovereignty but voluntarily limit it,
transferring certain capacities to an international structure. However, the voluntary nature of the limitation
does not affect the outcome – the supranationality, or elements of supranationality, of the organization,
which entails the absence of the right of states to take action where the competence
of the international organization exceeds the country's own capabilities.
The modern European Union is not a classical international organization owing to its
supranational character. The EU's founding bodies are empowered to create rules,
regulations, and directives that become binding on all member states.
At the same time, the EU has created a special structure to monitor compliance with these rules –
the European Court – which has the authority to enforce their execution. From a formal-legal
standpoint, among the features of supranationality inherent to the EU one can single out: the right to
intervene in matters belonging to the internal competence of states, according to the constitution;
the assignment of broad powers over rule-making and monitoring their implementation to
international officials; the right, through its decisions, to bind and to grant rights to physical
and legal persons in the member states, and so on.
The question of the incompatibility of the supranationality of international organizations with
the principles of respect for state sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of member states is still debated today. Scholars have reached consensus that there will be no contradiction between
the basic principles of international law and a state's membership in supranational
organizations, provided the organizations' charters allow for voluntary withdrawal from the
organization. Note that throughout recent history no state has ever withdrawn from the EU.
Over time the concept of state development has undergone a certain evolution, and changes have appeared in the
interpretation of the concept of sovereignty. The recognition of the legitimacy of the supranationality of certain
international organizations also has concrete consequences for the state that recognizes them. Given
the above, the democratization of Ukrainian society (and the state) presupposes a deep
restructuring of the entire legislative and judicial system, the social sphere, as well as
the implementation of economic reforms.

Regarding the EU, let us note that the community pays particular attention to
the implementation of political and economic reforms and to bringing candidate countries' legislation closer to European norms. The institutional component of the process of European integration
confirms that the development of the EU's political system occurs through its accumulation of
consensual features as opposed to majoritarian ones.
Among the remaining features of a majoritarian system are a parliament relatively weak in terms of the weight of its decisions, an
administration (the Commission) that is insufficiently accountable to it, and the absence
of a European constitution, replaced for now by quasi-constitutional treaties, and the European
Council, which as a collective head of state actively intervenes in the political process and thereby
compensates for the weakness of the supranational administration. Among the consensual
(closer to unitary) features one can list constitutional oversight of the activity of
EU bodies, exercised by the Court; the proportional system of elections to the European Parliament;
the multiparty composition of Parliament; and the embryonic beginnings of bicameralism. According to some assumptions,
the European Council, as a legislative body, may gradually turn into the upper
chamber of parliament. One might also suppose that the Committee of the Regions will gradually take shape
as one of the chambers of the European Parliament – a third one, and perhaps in significance even a second chamber
alongside the parliament itself and the current Council of the EU, should the intergovernmental Council
lose in the future the special significance it holds today within the EU system.
The phenomenon of any civilization lies in its creative potential, manifested
above all in scientific discoveries, technical achievements, and the development of fundamental
science, etc. What is the EU's scientific-technical phenomenon?
In short – the wager was placed on science and technology. In more detail,
(1) the EU managed to unite developers and producers of information technologies (in the 1970s
of the 20th century, in this field Europe was significantly outpaced by Japan and the US). The first
Framework Programme for scientific-technical development, in 1982, aimed at research
not intended to lead to a finished product. Its goal was to solve general scientific-technical problems so that a manufacturer, using these technologies,
could develop its own modifications. This filled the gap between fundamental and
applied science. At the same time, copyright was respected: every author could
develop and modify a finished product.
(2) Private capital (50%) was drawn into financing the work carried out, which
significantly increased the interest of contractors in the results of the work.
(3) The programme was aimed at overcoming the individualism and isolationism
of national research centers. Applications were accepted only from contractors from two or
more countries. The list had to include both companies and research centers. The selection and
processing of applications was carried out by an independent competitive commission. The results obtained
became the property of all EU countries, including those that did not take part in the development.
(4) In the early 1980s a reorganization of the national scientific-technical
programmes of the EU countries took place, from which those meeting the Community's strategic interests
were selected (an idea of Etienne Davignon and Paolo Fasella). By this means,
interaction among national scientific-technical centers was achieved, which contributed to increasing the effectiveness
of inventions and developments.
(5) Criteria of importance were developed (the «Riesenhuber criteria»). Priority was
given to research that required large expenditures, since a single country was not
able to carry it out on its own; that could bring economic benefit only through
multilateral cooperation; that was capable of producing a more effective result; that contributed
to the creation of a single EU market; to social and economic unity; and that stimulated
the mobility of scientific-technical personnel and the coordination of relevant policy.
As a result, (6) the range of research was expanded: to the scientific-technical developments in
the field of nuclear research, ongoing since the establishment of Euratom, were added
programmes on ecology, healthcare, fisheries, raw materials, the textile
industry, and so on.
All the above ideas were embodied in the subsequent four-year Framework Programmes (7).
We will not list all of them. Let us recall that the sixth EU Framework Programme (2002–
2006) became the main mechanism and the first practical stage in creating a unified
European research area. The programme's budget for 2003–2006 amounted to 17.5 billion
euros, exceeding the previous programme's budget by 17%.
8. The programme's main overarching goals were to create a unified European research
area, achieve European scientific advantages, increase competitiveness and
innovative activity, and integrate European science at all levels – local,
regional, national, and international. The programme consisted of two parts:
integration and intensification.
9. The seventh EU Framework Programme began in 2007 (2007–2013).
10. Its funding amounts to 54.582 billion euros. The programme unites all
of the European Union's research initiatives and is aimed at increasing the competitiveness
of European research, education, and innovation spheres. The programme consists of
four blocks: "Cooperation", "Ideas", "People", "Capacities". A rather interesting one turned out to be
the information direction – CORDIS12, under which new technologies are researched, security
issues, the enhancement of the safety of citizens, infrastructures, internal and external security,
ensuring survival under crisis conditions, improving the integration of information-security
systems, introducing a unified information-security grid, security and society, and security
research coordination and structuring.
The programme's main goal is to increase the competitiveness of European
industry by supporting advanced scientific and design developments,
technological development, and the rapid introduction of these developments into industry. An important
role in the programme is played by international cooperation: participation in projects requires
the involvement of organizations from different countries, including from states outside the European Union. For
this there exists a special type of project – Specific International Cooperation
Actions. Like its predecessor, the seventh Framework Programme consists of
four components: Cooperation, Ideas, People, Capacities. Cooperation
accounts for around 63% of the programme's total budget.
Under the Marie Curie programme: development of human resource potential, training, and career development – 10%
of the budget; Ideas – the development of fundamental scientific research through the specially created
European Research Council (ERC) will account for 17%; and Capacities – around 10% of the total budget is directed toward the development of research
infrastructures and small and medium-sized enterprises, and international cooperation with third countries.
At the center of scientific research are the themes of health, food
products, agriculture and fisheries, biotechnology; information
technologies; nanotechnologies, materials, and new manufacturing technologies; energy;
challenges of climate change; transport, aeronautics included; socio-economic and
humanities disciplines; space; security, etc. Medical research alone (106 projects)
received 610 million euros.
It is not by chance that the EU has paid attention to the development of scientific-technical research.
The community leads the world in space research, the search for alternative
energy sources (solar power in deserts), aircraft construction, and the creation of new powerful energy
systems. On September 10, 2008, at the European Organization for Nuclear Research in Geneva,
known by its French acronym CERN, the world's largest
accelerator of charged particles (the Large Hadron Collider, LHC) was launched, in which protons are accelerated
almost to the speed of light, their kinetic energy 7,500 times greater than their rest energy.
The protons are accelerated and travel inside two closed tubes running under
the ground in a tunnel 27 km long, the tunnel passing right beneath the border between Switzerland and
France, with the protons crossing the border back and forth 20,000 times per second. The air inside the
tubes is pumped out to a level of rarefaction comparable to the air on the airless Moon. In four
places the beams from the two tubes intersect and protons collide with energy 7
times higher than the previous record, achieved at the Tevatron accelerator in the US.
Both the accelerator itself and the surrounding detectors at the collision points, the size of a large
multistory building, are a marvel of engineering thought, at the leading edge of modern technology.
The cost of the invention amounted to 8 billion euros. Contributions to the budget of the Large Hadron Collider
were made by all the European CERN member states, as well as by the US and Japan. The collider
will help humanity understand the origins of our Universe and uncover other mysteries.
Another phenomenal scientific achievement, above all of the scientists and engineers
of the European Union, is considered to be the development of the project for an international experimental
thermonuclear reactor – ITER, whose construction site – the research center at
Cadarache (French: Cadarache) – is in southern France, 60 km from Marseille. The name ITER arose from
an English abbreviation. Now, the official name ITER is no longer considered
an abbreviation: it is linked to the Latin word iter, meaning path. ITER's tasks
consist in the commercial use of a thermonuclear reactor, and in solving the physical and
technological problems that arise along the way. In the event of ITER's successful launch
(which requires deuterium, present in water, whose reserves on Earth are inexhaustible), humanity
will secure for itself cheap energy.
Thus, the scientific searches and discoveries of the European community's leading scientists
are aimed at overcoming the modern challenges to the security of humanity's existence.
Among the EU's successes as an economic integration structure we count
the mastery of transnational corporations. The activity of giants such as «Royal
Dutch/Shell», «BP Amoco», «DaimlerChrysler», «Nestlé», «Nokia», «Siemens»
has had a strong influence on the development of the economies of European Union countries. A positive
mark was also left by the enrichment of EU member states, which, owing to the development of trade,
stimulates the formation of other regional trade blocs. Also counted as an EU success is
its extensive system of electronic money.

Difficulties of the EU. At the same time, despite what would seem to be the phenomenal achievements
of the European community, this union today suffers from a multitude of problems, the development and
deepening of which could bring about a profound crisis (not only economic) of the entire
integration system and lead to collapse. Let us name the problematic issues of the EU that are rarely
mentioned by either the European or the domestic media. First and foremost is the absence of a security component
in the EU, as demonstrated by the Yugoslav crisis. With the tacit consent of Europeans (and not only
of Eurocrats), a shameful war was unleashed, one that struck first and foremost at civilian
populations. Now, in their information bulletins and reports, European officials write that
the EU did not interfere in the events in Yugoslavia, did not participate in the Yugoslav war. But it gave it the
opportunity to happen. That is, we define the failure of EU policy as an inability to solve problems,
interference in a state's internal affairs, and a trampling of sovereignty.
The complexity of the issue, the threat to the security of other European peoples, including
the Community, lies not only in the fact that Serbia's economic infrastructure was bombed, but
in the fact that a precedent was created: the Kosovo problem. Thus, the Yugoslav crisis
gave birth to another – the Kosovo crisis. According to the Kosovo scenario, variants are already being played out for
imposing pro-state models, for dividing sovereign states in whatever way seems
best, in this case, to the «civilized Europeans». The experience of Kosovo has been well studied by
Turkish security structures, Russian generals, and Chinese strategists have also taken interest in it. In
the first and second variants, initial steps have already been taken to consolidate the success achieved
in dismembering peoples and their states.
Russia successfully carried out a military operation in Georgia, dismembering the country. Ukrainian
Crimea caught fire. It is conducting military operations against the territory of the sovereign state of Ukraine, in
the Ukrainian Donbas…
To the question of why Europe, the European Union, kept silent in the Georgian case,
the answer was: we bear no responsibility for the security of Georgia and other
post-Soviet countries.
It is admirable that the European Union responded to Russia's aggressive actions against Ukraine.
It introduced sanctions. How long can EU countries hold out? Are all the countries ready to sacrifice
in order to defend the sovereignty of other states, let us stress, states that are neither EU members nor
NATO members?
The Cyprus problem has also long been a permanent crisis. All the settlement plans
proposed by the international community have consistently been rejected,
mainly by the Greek side, which considers them too pro-Turkish. Another
important circumstance hindering the unification of the island is the EU's unclear position regarding
Turkey itself as a potential candidate for membership. It is obvious that a positive signal
to Ankara on membership would give the TRNC additional incentives to prolong
the settlement negotiations. Consequently, the TRNC will continue to exist as a state with problematic
sovereignty. The Republic has existed de facto for fifty years, and given long-term support
from Turkey, as well as a softening of the EU's and the UN's position on ending its
economic isolation, it could turn into a model Mediterranean Taiwan.
Another problem we count among the EU's tangible drawbacks is lobbying, which in other
words means bribery not in monetary equivalent, but in the equivalent of ideas, corresponding
laws, the distribution of EU funds, etc. The greatest activity in lobbying within
the European Parliament is shown by representatives of organizations engaged in protecting
the environment, social rights, and consumer rights. The greatest

effect comes from direct influence on Members of the European Parliament and, above all, on the rapporteur or
the chair of one or several committees, especially at the initial stage of work on a report.
Analyzing the activity of lobbyists from various EU member states, one can trace the following trends:
an ever-growing number of lobbying groups, mainly from decentralized governments and
business structures, constantly visiting Brussels or having already opened
their offices there. The lengthy procedure of coordinating actions within a country forces business structures
to join European federations and engage in lobbying relying on their own strength.
By being participants in European federations and acting through them, lobbyists gain not
only information about the activities of EU institutions, but also the opportunity to present a
consolidated position, counting on greater success than in the case of acting
independently.
A problematic issue is connected with the distribution and duplication of functions between the Council of Europe
and the EU, and in some cases there is outright competition. There is an observable restriction of the Council of
Europe's actions, which some are trying to turn into a kind of «waiting room» for the EU. At the same
time, let us recall that the two structures are dependent on each other: one third of the Council of
Europe's member states are full members of the EU. Moreover, leading European countries are the main
donors to the Council of Europe, on whose contributions its existence depends.
Among the EU's drawbacks we also count the growing illegitimacy felt by EU citizens toward
their own creation. The EU is not fulfilling the Lisbon Strategy for economic, social, and
environmental renewal (LS), adopted in 2000 and designed to run through 2010. The goal of the
strategy was to turn the EU into the world's leading union, surpassing the US in the main
development indicators.
Conclusions that can be drawn:
The EU works worse and less than needed. The Lisbon Strategy is not being fulfilled.
It is not becoming more competitive, and the mechanisms for implementing the strategy have been blocked either by
national governments or by Brussels. After the Strategy was adopted, the EU experienced
stagnation, recession, and a rapid growth in budget deficits.
EU indicators lag behind the average world economic growth rate of the
pre-crisis state of 2009.
The EU spends more than it earns.
The budget deficit has grown, EU countries have increased their debts, and payments continue for
unemployment, a program whose effectiveness has been deemed inadequate.
The retiree population is paralyzing political will.
By 2050 it will amount to 55 years.
European countries are trying to raise the retirement age but are running into social
protests.
The deficit of private investment in science and innovation is growing.
Under the strategy, the share of private capital in research expenditure was supposed to reach
a third by 2010. Unlike in the US, budget transfers are increasingly used
for direct aid to selected private companies (from 10 to 70%).
High taxes and aggressive bureaucracy.
They are trying not only to revise tax rates but also to eliminate tax competition in the new
EU member states and in Ireland. In Germany, total taxes on wages amount to 52%,
in France – 48%, in the Netherlands – 43%, while in the US and Japan they are, respectively, 29% and 27%.

Compared with the US (even taking into account Obama's so-called «social populism»),
European leaders are more inclined toward more active state intervention in
the regulation of interbank operations at the international and national levels.
At the same time, they are trying, within the framework of Bretton Woods II, to limit American control over
the IMF, the World Bank, and the GATT-WTO system as a whole.
From the American point of view, the EU's drawbacks are:
1. The EU is an ineffective structure, since it is unable to create a common defense
policy.
2. It is a closed structure with obstacles to entry for rich countries, while poor countries remain
outside it.
3. Uneven development among EU countries: Great Britain and France spend 85%
on military needs, and these countries' GDP accounts for 80% of Europe's GDP.
The EU's crisis-exit plan of November 26, 2008, drew attention. The European Commission
announced a «stimulus package» for industry in the largest EU economies
totaling 130 billion euros, or about 1% of the eurozone's GNP.
These were discussed for quite a long time, until everyone understood that Europe had chosen its own particular way
out of the crisis. This meant significant financing of the banking sector, more nationalization,
less infrastructure spending, and the stability of the euro.
(about $165 billion), or 1% of the eurozone's GNP.
each country's share in the total GNP was taken into account (Germany's package was set at about 25
billion euros, and France's at 20 billion). Thus, the lion's share of the 2009 stimulus package in the EU
went to the financial sector, and far less to tax cuts.
the EU economy's need for support is only slightly less than that of the US and China.
Britain, Belgium, France, the Netherlands, as well as Switzerland, which coordinates its own policy
with EU policy, showed that in Europe the mechanism of nationalizing private companies
is used more actively than in the US. In the EU, the largest banking structures have already been
partially or fully nationalized. To improve the financial system, according to the president
of the European Central Bank, Mr. J.-C.
transparency of financial markets, instruments, and institutions.
future liquidity crises, since the lending sector suffers from a lack of mutual
trust. The international economy cannot be stable without proper regulation, and
the importance of internationally coordinated action is growing.
Consequently, European integration is driven by objective trends in the
internationalization of economic life, as a result of which, on the European
continent, after the end of the Second World War, the most dynamic
integration union in the world formed, one without equal.
Taking into account all the successes and failures of the European community, let us emphasize that
he who goes ahead makes mistakes, and he who stands still perishes.
Self-preparation questions:
1. Analyze the main theoretical approaches to the study of integration processes.
2. Identify the main forms of integration.
3. Characterize the main forms of integration.
4. Reveal the theoretical approaches to the study of disintegration processes.
192
5. Describe the level of integration and disintegration processes at the regional and
subregional level.
6. Identify the features of integration processes in Western and Central Europe.
7. Trace and characterize the dynamics of integration and disintegration processes
on the territory of the former USSR.