THEORY & HISTORY OF EU INTEGRATION
Class 1. Introduction to the course
european integration: a working definition
a catch-all term for cooperation between european countries, usually but not exclusively referring to eu member
states
more integration implies greater shared decision-making, shared laws, and shared legal and political systems
cooperation is a more broad term while integration is more specific
a specific thing abt eu integration is the supranational character of parts of it
europeanization of:
1. politics
2. policy
3. polity (the political system itself)
… it is impossible to understand the contemporary politics of eu member states without understanding the process of
european integration
european (dis)integration as dependent variable
independent variables influence dependent ones → we look at the process of eu integration as well as
disintegration
actors ——???——> widening vs deepening
widening & deepening happens bc of actors’ decisions
→ actors: eu institutions (eu coucil; eu commission; eu parliament) national governments, political parties, societal
actors
→ also about the context: international & socio-economic
widening: from 6 (ecsc, 1951) to 27 (2024) member states (ms)
deepening: competence to eu, since 1990s there has been a claim that 80% of national legislation has eu basis
(depends on how u calculate it)
+ a reverse causality (i guess that the widening & deepening also impact actors & the context)
number 1 problem in eu studies: eu is a sui generis beast
→ its often claimed that eu integration is sui generis → the story of an elephant and blind men: some blind men are
trying to figure out what animal is in front of them, come to different conclusion based on where they stand
→ the prof doesnt like this perspective of sui generis
“history does not repeat itself but it often rhymes” - mark twain
“u cant understand what lays ahead if u dont understand the past” - rise against
1
,thei part 1: history
the german problem → discussed in yalta by churchill, roosevelt & stalin →
why do we focus on treaties (and crisis)?
1. they r outcomes of political processes
2. codification of power relations
3. they r the determinants of future power relations → they determine who does what, they might change
power relations
+ they offer the context in which they came about
theories of european integration
scientific theories are analytical frameworks for:
● description
● explanation
● prediction (not rlly a theory that encompasses the complexity of the world)
● evaluation (normative) (political philosophy & theory)
→ theory is what we use to connect the independent variable with the dependent one
→ some of the theories were gonna discuss seem to say sth about one part of the elephant but not about the other,
depends on the question u want to ask
graph 1.1 in the notebook → putnam’s 2-level game
Q: who are the actors driving eu integration? → descriptive question
A: (i think it has sth to do with the president of eu comission bc ursula von der leyen is on the pic)
Q: what are the mechanisms of eu (dis)integration?
A:
Q: how should we judge process of eu integration? → we will not discuss this in this course
A: (the pic says “more democracy in eu” so i think we can judge by the fact that that has always been eu’s purpose
or at least in theory)
the grand theories of eu integration aim to say something the integration as a whole (thats why its “grand”) but over
the course of the decades, some theories have become more specific abt certain process instead of the general
the exam:
● written exam with closed & open ended questions (online on-campus)
○ history
2
, ○ theory
○ using b) to explain a)
● u need to register for the exam & the resit!!!
● lecture + readings
Class 2. The German question and the treaties of Paris (1914-1952)
eu is not the 1st attempt at unification: (1st picture shows the extent of the roman empire in 117 ad; 2nd pic is
napoelonic french empire)
our point of departure: 19th century
● 1815: prussia, austria, russia & great britain defeat napoleon
● 1814-1815: congress of vienna, balance of power “restored” (they restored the borders of the eu countries)
○ what is the balance of power? what is its aim?
■ tried to create a situation in which there was no state that was powerful enough to
conquer other states without those other states being able to contain it
■ after the congress, uk was acting as a holder of the balance, the most powerful state but
not on the continent, if there was a conflict on the continent, the uk would throw its
weight to contain it; never an ally of a certain country
○ how did it work in the 19th c?
■ not between fixed states, it was flexible → if there is one state on the verge of becoming
too powerful, other states will join forces to contain that state
■ peculiar bc uk was the holder of the balance of power
○ did it work to maintain peace in europe?
■ depends on how u look at it →
the rise of the german problem
after the congress of vienna, old borders were restored BUT there were a lot of conflicts → 1870-71 war
1870-1: franco-prussian war → france defeated; unification of germany (under bismarck & wilhelm I), becomes
leading eu land power
→ then ww1 (trenches, gas)
→ then ww2
lesson of 3 franco-german wars in a row in a span of 70 years (the one above + ww1 + ww2): france cannot
contain germany without foreign support (russia, uk or us had to come to the rescue) → yalta conference in 45 →
what was their answer to the german question?
1. “temporary” partitioning of germany (east / west germany + its different sectors)
1. foreign control of german territories was done to help rebuild it & stabilise it as well as a way to
control the country
3
, 2. non-eu holders of the balance of power (i guess russia + the us from the pics)
3. spheres of influence (nato vs warsaw pact) → no intrusion of one power in the zone of the other power was
tolerated
even though there were wars after ww2, the balance of power (between the us & ussr) remained in tact bc these
countries r still the biggest powers, their countries were not destroyed → the order of the system remained intact but
it created a lot of unnecessary violence
→ u could say it solved the german problem BUT it did not immediately lift europe out of ruins
situation in france (poverty, unemployment, felt that germany will invade them again):
“make men work together, show them that beyond their differences & geographical boundaries there lies a common
interest” - jean monnet
the mood in 1949
1. partitioning not sufficient (esp for france)
1. bc germany was partitioned, the countries supervising their sectors helped rebuild it, but that was
not the case for other destroyed eu countries so they feared that germany would get too strong &
invade them again
2. weak economies (esp france) need access to german resources
3. but… allow germany to rebuild (war) industry?
the road to a european coal & steel community
the ecsc - why?
1. how can another war in Europe (i.e. nationalism) be prevented?
2. how can the European economy be restored?
3. how can the rise of communism be stopped?
pictures: jean monnet (loves europe) & robert schuman (foreign minister) → schuman was convinced by monnet →
key people bc
1950: the schuman declaration → it was about world peace (”world peace cannot be safeguarded without the making
of creative efforts proportionate to the dangers which threaten it”); idea of needing institutions that enable
collaboration & ensure a fair use of resources, equal opportunities; open up to other contries than just germany &
france
→ why “just” coal & steel?
picture: hitler & steel company ceo’s → these companies supported hitler during the war → putting a
shared authority over these resources meant that germany would lose its grip on these industries
● feasible! bc there was a shared interest
4
Class 1. Introduction to the course
european integration: a working definition
a catch-all term for cooperation between european countries, usually but not exclusively referring to eu member
states
more integration implies greater shared decision-making, shared laws, and shared legal and political systems
cooperation is a more broad term while integration is more specific
a specific thing abt eu integration is the supranational character of parts of it
europeanization of:
1. politics
2. policy
3. polity (the political system itself)
… it is impossible to understand the contemporary politics of eu member states without understanding the process of
european integration
european (dis)integration as dependent variable
independent variables influence dependent ones → we look at the process of eu integration as well as
disintegration
actors ——???——> widening vs deepening
widening & deepening happens bc of actors’ decisions
→ actors: eu institutions (eu coucil; eu commission; eu parliament) national governments, political parties, societal
actors
→ also about the context: international & socio-economic
widening: from 6 (ecsc, 1951) to 27 (2024) member states (ms)
deepening: competence to eu, since 1990s there has been a claim that 80% of national legislation has eu basis
(depends on how u calculate it)
+ a reverse causality (i guess that the widening & deepening also impact actors & the context)
number 1 problem in eu studies: eu is a sui generis beast
→ its often claimed that eu integration is sui generis → the story of an elephant and blind men: some blind men are
trying to figure out what animal is in front of them, come to different conclusion based on where they stand
→ the prof doesnt like this perspective of sui generis
“history does not repeat itself but it often rhymes” - mark twain
“u cant understand what lays ahead if u dont understand the past” - rise against
1
,thei part 1: history
the german problem → discussed in yalta by churchill, roosevelt & stalin →
why do we focus on treaties (and crisis)?
1. they r outcomes of political processes
2. codification of power relations
3. they r the determinants of future power relations → they determine who does what, they might change
power relations
+ they offer the context in which they came about
theories of european integration
scientific theories are analytical frameworks for:
● description
● explanation
● prediction (not rlly a theory that encompasses the complexity of the world)
● evaluation (normative) (political philosophy & theory)
→ theory is what we use to connect the independent variable with the dependent one
→ some of the theories were gonna discuss seem to say sth about one part of the elephant but not about the other,
depends on the question u want to ask
graph 1.1 in the notebook → putnam’s 2-level game
Q: who are the actors driving eu integration? → descriptive question
A: (i think it has sth to do with the president of eu comission bc ursula von der leyen is on the pic)
Q: what are the mechanisms of eu (dis)integration?
A:
Q: how should we judge process of eu integration? → we will not discuss this in this course
A: (the pic says “more democracy in eu” so i think we can judge by the fact that that has always been eu’s purpose
or at least in theory)
the grand theories of eu integration aim to say something the integration as a whole (thats why its “grand”) but over
the course of the decades, some theories have become more specific abt certain process instead of the general
the exam:
● written exam with closed & open ended questions (online on-campus)
○ history
2
, ○ theory
○ using b) to explain a)
● u need to register for the exam & the resit!!!
● lecture + readings
Class 2. The German question and the treaties of Paris (1914-1952)
eu is not the 1st attempt at unification: (1st picture shows the extent of the roman empire in 117 ad; 2nd pic is
napoelonic french empire)
our point of departure: 19th century
● 1815: prussia, austria, russia & great britain defeat napoleon
● 1814-1815: congress of vienna, balance of power “restored” (they restored the borders of the eu countries)
○ what is the balance of power? what is its aim?
■ tried to create a situation in which there was no state that was powerful enough to
conquer other states without those other states being able to contain it
■ after the congress, uk was acting as a holder of the balance, the most powerful state but
not on the continent, if there was a conflict on the continent, the uk would throw its
weight to contain it; never an ally of a certain country
○ how did it work in the 19th c?
■ not between fixed states, it was flexible → if there is one state on the verge of becoming
too powerful, other states will join forces to contain that state
■ peculiar bc uk was the holder of the balance of power
○ did it work to maintain peace in europe?
■ depends on how u look at it →
the rise of the german problem
after the congress of vienna, old borders were restored BUT there were a lot of conflicts → 1870-71 war
1870-1: franco-prussian war → france defeated; unification of germany (under bismarck & wilhelm I), becomes
leading eu land power
→ then ww1 (trenches, gas)
→ then ww2
lesson of 3 franco-german wars in a row in a span of 70 years (the one above + ww1 + ww2): france cannot
contain germany without foreign support (russia, uk or us had to come to the rescue) → yalta conference in 45 →
what was their answer to the german question?
1. “temporary” partitioning of germany (east / west germany + its different sectors)
1. foreign control of german territories was done to help rebuild it & stabilise it as well as a way to
control the country
3
, 2. non-eu holders of the balance of power (i guess russia + the us from the pics)
3. spheres of influence (nato vs warsaw pact) → no intrusion of one power in the zone of the other power was
tolerated
even though there were wars after ww2, the balance of power (between the us & ussr) remained in tact bc these
countries r still the biggest powers, their countries were not destroyed → the order of the system remained intact but
it created a lot of unnecessary violence
→ u could say it solved the german problem BUT it did not immediately lift europe out of ruins
situation in france (poverty, unemployment, felt that germany will invade them again):
“make men work together, show them that beyond their differences & geographical boundaries there lies a common
interest” - jean monnet
the mood in 1949
1. partitioning not sufficient (esp for france)
1. bc germany was partitioned, the countries supervising their sectors helped rebuild it, but that was
not the case for other destroyed eu countries so they feared that germany would get too strong &
invade them again
2. weak economies (esp france) need access to german resources
3. but… allow germany to rebuild (war) industry?
the road to a european coal & steel community
the ecsc - why?
1. how can another war in Europe (i.e. nationalism) be prevented?
2. how can the European economy be restored?
3. how can the rise of communism be stopped?
pictures: jean monnet (loves europe) & robert schuman (foreign minister) → schuman was convinced by monnet →
key people bc
1950: the schuman declaration → it was about world peace (”world peace cannot be safeguarded without the making
of creative efforts proportionate to the dangers which threaten it”); idea of needing institutions that enable
collaboration & ensure a fair use of resources, equal opportunities; open up to other contries than just germany &
france
→ why “just” coal & steel?
picture: hitler & steel company ceo’s → these companies supported hitler during the war → putting a
shared authority over these resources meant that germany would lose its grip on these industries
● feasible! bc there was a shared interest
4
