Language
Country/Area
No result found
How does ‘liberal intergovernmentalism’ explain the secret power of the EU’s evolution?
In current international relations research, liberal intergovernmentalism is undoubtedly a compelling theoretical framework. Since its introduction in 1993 by Andrew Moravcsik, this theory has not only provided insight into the process of European integration, but has also challenged other theories such as neoliberalism and realism. It emphasizes the rational choices of countries in the process of cooperation and highlights the close relationship between domestic interests and international relations.
Liberal intergovernmentalism believes that explaining the evolution of the EU cannot rely on a single factor, but must combine multiple different theories to understand its complexity.
Liberal intergovernmentalism puts forward three basic viewpoints: first, the state, as the main political actor, seeks to achieve national goals through negotiation and consultation in an international disordered environment; second, it recognizes the role of domestic social groups in The role in policy choices, especially preferences, is influenced by specific interest groups; finally, it states that states delegate or combine sovereignty in regional institutions to coordinate policies and build credible commitments.
Moravchik mentioned in his book "Choose Europe" that EU integration can best be understood as a series of rational choices made by leaders of various countries.
According to Moravchik, these choices are driven by a combination of economic interests and relative power. He believes that the interdependence and different economic strengths of EU member states have led to a reconfiguration of power in the process of promoting integration. "The inequality caused by interdependence makes the game of power and interests between countries a daily routine." He emphasized.
While liberal intergovernmentalism has done an excellent job of explaining the evolution of the European Union, it has also been criticized. Critics point out that the theory focuses too much on large-scale negotiation processes and important decisions, and does not explain enough the decision-making process of day-to-day policy. Some scholars often regard liberal intergovernmentalism as a benchmark theory and believe that most empirical research is conducted within the framework of this theory. This makes liberal intergovernmentalism a theoretical model that does not encompass all areas of society.
Many criticisms have been directed at Moravchik's early research for focusing solely on economic interests at the moment of treaty revision, rather than truly reflecting the day-to-day policy agenda.
Regarding these criticisms, Moravchik said that liberal intergovernmentalism is also practical in explaining daily decision-making. Today, the European Council and the Council of Ministers are considered the most important decision-making bodies of the EU, so the starting point for analyzing the behavior of these institutions is to understand the preferences expressed by countries and their influence. This view gave rise to the rise of new intergovernmentalism, and liberal intergovernmentalism has gained some traction even in the face of some criticism.
As European integration continues to deepen, the framework of liberal intergovernmentalism has gradually been given new connotations. With the changes in the global political environment, the application of this theory is no longer limited to the economic field, but also extends to society and culture. It is worth noting that although liberal intergovernmentalism has shown considerable maturity and effectiveness in explaining the evolution of the European Union, there is still a lack of in-depth discussion of the power of the European Court of Justice.
The emergence of new intergovernmentalism demonstrates the importance and relevance of liberal intergovernmentalism in current discussions.
In summary, liberal intergovernmentalism provides a framework for analyzing the behavior of states actively participating in multilateral scientific, technological and economic cooperation. Despite some criticism, it continues to evolve, showing its importance for understanding the process of change in the EU. In the future, it remains to be seen and thought whether this theory can more comprehensively cover the legal, social and economic changes in Europe. Can it give us a deeper understanding of this confusing integration process?
