Supranationalism v Intergovernmentalism Flashcards
examine the differences between supranational and intergovernmental organs of regional governance
how decisions are made
the impact that they have on sovereignty
how effective they can inevitably be
how decisions are made: intergovernmental
the main difference between supranational and intergovernmental organs of regional governance relates to how decisions are made
decisions in intergovernmental organisations require unanimity and for all states to work together, so all member states essentially have a veto or blocking vote
this type of decision making is still used in the EU in some areas, although it has declined over the years
for example, EU foreign policy still requires unanimity and all current members must agree in order for a new member to be admitted to the EU and for treaties to be adopted or amended
how decisions are made: supranational
on the other hand, supranational organisations make decisions that are binding on all member states
rather than having states work together in order to achieve unanimity, as in intergovernmental bodies, supranational bodies act above the state
they make decisions that must be adopted by all members, even if some disagree
the EU is the only truly supranational regional body in the world, with supranationalism being seen in the European Commission and the European Court of Justice
a key requirement of EU membership is to acknowledge that decisions made by these bodies are binding – for example, rulings by the European Court of Justice can override the laws of national governments
the impact that they have on sovereignty: supranational
the way that decisions are made inevitably leads to another difference between such organs of regional governance: the impact that they have on sovereignty
supranational organs of regional governance have a huge impact on state sovereignty, as ‘supranational’ literally means ‘above the nation’
in other words, they function above the state and wield a form of higher authority than national governments
in order for this to happen, states must hand some sovereignty over to these bodies and accept that decisions are binding
this restrains their freedom of action and limits the decisions they are realistically able to take, which is huge factor behind the UK’s decision to leave the EU in 2016
for example, in the 1970s, German authorities introduced a rule stating that all fruit liqueurs must be at least 25% alcohol, which the French liqueur Cassis de Dijon was not (at only 16%)
therefore, it was prohibited from being sold under German law
the case was taken to the ECJ, which ruled that the action was unlawful and considered it to be a protectionist move on behalf of Germany in order to preserve the market for their own fruit liqueurs and Schnapps
the ECJ concluded that it could not be banned in Germany, which demonstrates the binding nature of supranational decisions and illustrates how they challenge state sovereignty by taking away ultimate authority from states and giving it to bodies like the ECJ
the impact that they have on sovereignty: intergovernmental
contrastingly, intergovernmental bodies do not have the same impact on state sovereignty
decisions are not binding and member states actually wield a veto, meaning they are able to strike down actions that they do not agree with and are not under obligation to adopt any decisions
not only do such bodies not restrict state sovereignty, they arguably give states more sovereignty
by pooling sovereignty into intergovernmental bodies, member states can be said to exert more influence and power on the international stage and are better equipped to tackle global problems together, which they would not be able to tackle alone
how effective they can inevitably be: intergovernmental
finally, another difference between intergovernmental and supranational organisations is how effective they can inevitably be
within intergovernmental bodies, where action must be agreeable to all members and unanimity is required for decisions to pass, consensus can be difficult to achieve
this is particularly the case when there are a wide variety of members, with differing national interests and cultural backgrounds which may mean cooperation is often unlikely
such bodies may even become a mechanism through which rivalries are played out or states seek to promote and defend their own national interests, often at the expense of other states and the end goal of cooperation
for instance, in 2016, Belgium threatened to veto the EU-Canadian free trade deal known as CETA
the trade deal went ahead, but this still illustrates the ability of one state to threaten to derail the whole process of decision making, demonstrating that the overall effectiveness of such bodies is always under threat
realists argue that this is exactly how intergovernmental bodies will always function, as states will always act selfishly and place themselves above the ‘common good’
as a result, the overall effectiveness of intergovernmental bodies is hampered and they may even find themselves paralysed, unable to act in certain situations
how effective they can inevitably be: supranational
contrastingly, supranational bodies have the capacity to be significantly more effective than intergovernmental bodies as unanimity is not required
consequently, even if states are at loggerheads and unable to cooperate, action can still be taken and a decision can ultimately be reached, despite disagreements and possible divisions
this means that such bodies are often able to tackle issues that other bodies are unable to and settle disputes
without such a supranational approach in the EU, the single market would be open to abuse from member states, who would be free to choose what rules they do and don’t adhere to
in fact, supranational bodies can be said to be more effective because they arguably encourage cooperation
states recognise that they may be compelled to accept a decision that they do not completely agree with, unlike in intergovernmental bodies where they can rely on the decisions being non-binding
this may encourage them to cooperate in order to reach a compromise, so that the final decision is at least partly in their own interests
