Between national interests and European values: towards the theory of Principled Intergovernmentalism

The aim of the article is to theorise on the role of principles as important variables influencing European politics. Recent European-related events, including but not limited to the immigration crisis, international economic and political competition on a global scale (as well as relations with third parties such as Russia and the United States), prompt us to revise liberal intergovernmentalism as proposed by Andrew Moravcsik at the beginning of 90s last century. The study is based on the analysis of four cases: immigration crisis, posted workers directive, multiannual financial framework post-2020, and relations with Russia concerned energy security. The article puts forward an idea that principles, which European institutions and national governments refer to (such as the principle of solidarity or the principle of the rule of law) have been successfully instrumentalised by a range of actors (major governments, as well as European Commission acting on their behalf) to the greatest benefit of the most powerful governments in Europe

Four Types of Japanese Regional Policy in the Perspective of Liberal Intergovernmentalism

What are the determinants of Japan’s regional policies? This article argues that Japan’s regional policy is the result of the government’s strategic choice made through processes of domestic and international bargaining. Based on liberal intergovernmentalism, this article focuses on the level of domestic preferences for East Asia and the threat of China. In the first stage, the preference of the Prime Minister and political winning-coalition groups matter. In the second stage, the level of the threat of China is a pivotal variable. In combining these two variables, the article proposes the following four types of ideal regional policies for Japan: (1) pro-East Asia policy; (2) expanded-Asia policy; (3) interactive policy; and (4) reactive policy. To substantiate this idea, the article traces Japan’s regional policy trajectory from the Yoshida Cabinet to the Hatoyama Cabinet. An in-depth case study shows that Japanese cabinets vary in their regional policies in the way this article expected from each ideal type based on liberal intergovernmentalism.

The Northern Dimension as a Promising Model of Interaction between the European Union and Great Powers in Times of Aggravation of Disintegration Processes in the European Space

The article discusses the Northern Dimension — the four-lateral policy of the Russian Federation, the European Union, Norway and Iceland — in two instances. On one hand, the Northern Dimension has established itself as an effective instrument of meeting specifc challenges of the northern part of the European continent. On other hand, the article discusses the Northern Dimension as a model of relationship between the EU and its potent neighbours, comparable with Russia in terms of their military power, size of the economy and the scale of political ambitions. The United Kingdom, which is fnishing its exit from the European Union, and which is starting building a new system of relationship with it, has recently emerged as such potent neighbour of the European Union. The article presents the results of analysis based on a dialogue between major theories of European integration: namely neo-functionalism and liberal intergovernmentalism. Combining the two theories allows analysing the roles of individual EU member states — the article focuses on Finland in that context — and of European supranational institutions in the formation of the Norther Dimension; among supranational institutions, the article focuses on the European Commission. The article concludes that Ireland can play a crucial role in the building of future relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom. The Irish role is comparable with the role that Finland has played in the building of the relationship between the EU and Russia and in developing of the Northern Dimension into an effective and promising model of relationship between the integration union and its great power neighbours.

Assessment Of EU’ Economic and Health Response to the Covid-19 Pandemic Within the Framework of Liberal Intergovernmentalism And Neofunctionalism Theoretical Approaches

The principle aim of this article is to analyze EU’s response to the covid-19 pandemic within the ambit of measures incorporated to tackle the economic fallout and health-related problems. The article makes use of two important theories of European integration, i.e., liberal intergovernmentalism and neofunctionalism in its explanatory capacity to describe actions taken by both the member states and the supranational institutions in mitigating the adverse effects of the pandemic. The article argues that while no one theory completely explains the European response to the pandemic, both the theories offer different perspectives in how the EU member states reacted, within the power of their national capabilities and the collective response measures initiated at the level of EU supranational institutions.

Neoliberalism, Liberal Intergovernmentalism and EU–Turkey Relations

This chapter investigates and explains EU–Turkey relations from the perspective of Liberal Intergovernmentalism (LI). After setting out the main premises of neoliberalism in International Relations (IR) and the three-step approach to integration espoused by LI, the chapter focuses on EU–Turkey relations over time, and by the use of concrete forms of cooperation, ranging from the Customs Union to Turkey’s membership application and the EU–Turkey Statement on migration. Based on this analysis, I argue that the transactional, issue-specific character EU–Turkey relations have assumed are unlikely to go away any time soon. Neither Turkey’s full EU accession nor a complete breakdown of relations is likely to happen, given the set of powerful economic interests binding the two sides, as well as the diversity of member states’ preferences regarding Turkey’s EU vocation.

2. Theorizing EU Policy-Making

This chapter surveys seven decades of theorizing about European Union policy-making and policy processes. It begins with a discussion of theories of European integration, including neo-functionalism, intergovernmentalism, liberal intergovernmentalism, institutionalism, constructivism, and postfunctionalism. It then considers the increasing number of studies that approach the EU through the lenses of comparative politics and comparative public policy, focusing on the federal or quasi-federal aspects of the EU and its legislative, executive, and judicial politics. It finally explores the vertical and horizontal separation of powers in the EU and concludes by looking at the ‘governance approach’ to the EU, with emphasis on multi-level governance and EU policy networks, Europeanization, and the question of the EU’s democratic deficit.

Liberal Intergovernmentalism

Liberal Intergovernmentalism (LI) is the contemporary “baseline” social scientific and historiographic theory of regional integration—especially as regards the European Union. It rests on three basic assumptions, which in turn support a three-stage theoretical model of integration and the elaboration of numerous distinctive causal mechanisms. Considerable historical and social scientific evidence supports the LI view, but room also remains for scholars to extend and elaborate its framework in promising ways. Three prominent criticisms of LI exist. Some scholars of “administrative politics” charge that it applies only to treaty-amending decisions and other rare circumstances. “Historical institutionalists” charge that it overlooks endogenous feedback from previous decisions. “Post-functionalists” and “constructivists” revive discredited claims from the 1960s that functional theories neglect the central role of identity claims and ideology in explaining national interests. While each criticism contains some truth, LI possesses rich theoretical resources with which to address them fruitfully and musters compelling evidence to support its empirical claims. This confirms LI’s preeminent role in scholarly debates and suggests a soberly optimistic future for European and regional integration.

Intergovernmentalism: Old, Liberal, and New

European integration theories help us understand the actors and mechanisms that drive European integration. Traditionally, European integration scholars used grand theories of integration to explain why integration progresses or stands still. Born out of assumptions that are prevalent in realist international relations theories, intergovernmentalism was first developed as a theory in opposition to neofunctionalism. In a nutshell, intergovernmentalism argues that states (i.e., national governments or state leaders), based on national interests, determine the outcome of integration. Intergovernmentalism was seen as a plausible explanatory perspective during the 1970s and 1980s, when the integration process seemed to have stalled. Despite the fact that it could not explain many of the gradual incremental changes or informal politics, intergovernmentalism—as did various other approaches—gained renewed popularity in the 1990s, following the launch of liberal intergovernmentalism. During that decade, the study of European integration was burgeoning, triggered in part by the aim to complete the single market and the signing of the Maastricht Treaty that launched the European Union (EU). Intergovernmentalism also often received considerable pushback from researchers who were unconvinced by its core predictions. Attempts to relaunch intergovernmentalism were made in the 2010s, in response to the observation that EU member states played a prominent role in dealing with the various crises that the EU was confronted with at that time, such as the financial crisis and the migration crisis. Although intergovernmentalism is unable —and is not suited—to explain all aspects of European integration, scholars revert to intergovernmentalism as a theoretical approach in particular when examining the role of member states in European politics. Outside the EU, in the international arena (such as the United Nations), intergovernmentalism is also observed when studying various forums in which member states come together to bargain over particular collective outcomes in an intergovernmental setting.

Multilevel governance or multilevel government?

The commentary returns to the beginning of the career of multilevel governance as a distinct perspective on the European Union and European integration. At the time, multilevel governance allowed a generation of students to overcome the stylised debates between Liberal Intergovernmentalism and Neofunctionalism on how to best capture the ‘nature of the beast’. At the same time, multilevel governance still privileged the role of public authorities over economic and societal actors. While subsequent studies broadened the focus to include the social partners or public interest groups, Hooghe and Marks have retained their public authority bias. The commentary argues that the focus on multilevel government rather than multilevel governance has increased the scope or applicability of Hooghe and Marks’ approach, both within the European Union and beyond. At the same time, the government bias has prevented the multilevel governance approach from unlocking its full explanatory potential.