What is the nature of the EU as a political entity?

As a political entity the EU has evolved massively over time, beginning with a series of treaties and the creation of the'European coal and steel community' (ECSC) by five member states. A few years later the European community was created by the merging of the ECSC with the EEC (European economic community) and Euratom (European atomic energy community). At this point the 'EU' was little more than a loosely made community, and a first attempt at economic integration in Europe. More member states continued to join the EC, and in the late 80s it began to expand into a monetary union. It did this through SEA (single European act) which prepared for the establishment of a common market, as well as well as the Maastrict treaty which made the EC into an official institution (the EU), and further paved the way for the creation of a single currency. National currencies were replaced with the Euro in 2002 for some member states, while others such as the UK chose to opt out. At this point the EU had evolved from a first attempt at economic integration to a fully fledged institution with international law making abilities. The next step was to create a constitution however this failed in 2004 when referendums in France and the Netherlands indicated the public were not in favour of its ratification. Instead, the Lisbon treaty was created, implementing many of the constitutions changes in the form of amendments to existing treaties. This came into force in December 2009.

As a result of widening and deepening integration, the EU has been seen by some as a European superstate, going further than the idea of  federalised Europe and ultimately destroying state sovereignty. Such people also view the EU as a rival superpower to the US, in terms of its economic and potential military power. While I would argue that the EU is no longer the intergovernmental institution of independent states that it once was, I would disagree with the idea that the EU has become a superstate. The sovereignty of member states is enshrined in the Luxembourg compromise of 1966, which gave each member state a veto on matters threatening vital national interests. However, it cannot be ignored that the ability of the EU to create laws that its member states must abide to does erode some state sovereignty, as does the introduction of qualified majority voting.

Despite the increasing centralisation within the EU there are checks in place to ensure it cannot be described as truly 'federal' - it is more accurate to talk of a federalising Europe. An example of this is the principle of subsidiarity, which ensures decisions are made as close to citizens as possible, essentially devolving power from the centre outwards.

The current nature of the EU as a political entity is an institution of economic, (and to a lesser extent, political) governance. While it is no longer confined to intergovernmentalism, it cannot be said to be a purely supranational body and as such is a blend of the two. It extends far beyond other intergovernmental institutions in that European citizens have free movement (as a result of the Schengen agreement) and many share the euro as their currency, but does not go as far as to completely erode state sovereignty or to have a common security and defence policy. While the EU has become more than the confederation of independent states it once was, it has not and may never become the 'united states of Europe' as visualised by Churchill.

ARE NATION STATES STILL THE MOST SIGNIFICANT ACTORS IN GLOBAL POLITICS?

When the Nation state was established in 1648, it was the most significant global actor and remained so for some 300 years. A nation state is an autonomous (independent) political community bound together by citizenship and nationality, meaning that political and cultural identity coincide. 'Nation state' has been used as a synonym for 'state' or 'country' although this is not necessarily true. The first and second world wars were very much wars of and between nation states however by the end of WW2 and the start of the cold war, emerging globalisation and the rise of NGOs and TNCs have brought into question whether or not nation states are still the most significant actors in global politics.

The growing importance of global governance institutions such as the UN suggests that nation states are not as significant as they once were. The UN has 193 member states and is able to deploy peacekeepers to state territory after a conflict, in an attempt to maintain newly established peace. It's members (general assembly) and more significantly its security council and the P5 can approve or condemn invasions and wars - a recent example saw P5 members deciding to work together to defeat ISIS (another non state actor) which has ultimately led to airstrikes in Syria. The UN security council is also able to impose sanctions and embargoes on nation states if it feels they have acted 'illegally', as with Russia's annexing of the Ukraine.

However, the UN as well as other significant global governance institutions (the three sisters), are made up of nation states and so cannot exist without the pre established member states. If significant nations states withdrew their UN membership, the UN's legitimacy and authority as a global governance institution would be severely diminished. Additionally the UN has no real sovereignty or law making power (it cannot make laws that apply to all nation states, but it can pass resolutions which have power over member states only), whereas nation states have governments with full law making power and the authority to impose these laws. The UN had no say over the US' 2003 invasion of Iraq which it saw as an illegal war, implying the US as a nation state is more powerful than the UN.

Regional institutions like the EU and NAFTA are arguably more significant than nation state actors. While the EU is made up of nation states, its members pool their state sovereignty. This effectively results in the EU having more sovereignty than its combined members and being able to assert its opinions as an influential global actor. It is able to influence trade and even fishing regulations and so has influence over the economies of nation states. The EU could be seen as an erosion of state sovereignty but its members are able to opt out and so its power is limited.

The growth of TNCs (which have become supranational in some cases) has seen corporations having enormous wealth and as a result, power as actors on the world stage. Some companies have a GDP higher than that of a nation state  - Wal-mart, for example, has a higher GDP than Austria and South Africa. Moreover, TNCs create jobs wherever they decide to open stores or offices, and so the governments of nation states are forced to give them tax breaks to prevent them moving to an area which will make them more profit. TTIP, a trade deal which is currently being negotiated, would allow companies to sue national governments for imposing laws which do not allow them to optimise their profits, and would be a huge blow to state sovereignty. Additionally corporations are able to lobby governments as they have enormous wealth which can be used to influence lawmaking.

Nation states, however, provide the conditions of social order and security which TNCs need to operate so can be seen as significant actors in this way.

Informal forums like the G20 are also significant global actors, with the G20 influencing the world economy arguably more than any individual nation state would be able to. The G20 is made up of the governments of major economies (Finance Ministers) as well as Central Bank Governors and so is partly separate from the nation state.  It formulated the response to the 2007-9 financial crisis and as such can be seen as having a huge influence on global politics.

The rise of terrorist organisations like ISIS and Boko Haram is another factor which suggest nation states are no longer the most significant actors in global politics. ISIS has control over vast territories in Iraq and Syria, controlling areas with 2.8 million and 8 million people, despite not being a nation state. It has gathered huge wealth and economic power as a result, with nation states such as Turkey buying its cheap oil and essentially funding the operation. The lack of success of nation states such as the US, Russia and now the UK in taking down ISIS is a testament to its power as a global actor and has worrying implications for the fate of the nation state in global politics.

ARE LIBERAL AND REALIST VIEWS OF INTERNATIONAL POLITICS STILL APPLICABLE?

                                  REALISM AND LIBERALISM - WHAT ARE THEY?

Realism and Liberalism are the two main political theories which help us to understand international politics. Within each are different schools of thought (classical realism, neorealism, offensive realism and defensive realism are some examples of variation within a theory). 

For realists, politics is about power and self interest, and realists often refer to the theory of  'power politics' to explain what happens in the world of global politics. Realists insist that humans are essentially selfish and that egoism is the defining characteristic of human nature - this means that not only humans, but states as a whole are self seeking since states are run by/ on the behalf of human beings . Realists also claim that the international system operates in a state of anarchy in that there is no authority higher than the state - realists believe that a global government can never be established. This means that global politics operates in a state of nature and therefore is unstable. 

Liberals, by comparison, are relatively optimistic. They believe in balanced harmony amongst competing interests  and while they acknowledge that humans and states are inherently self seeking, they claim a natural equilibrium asserts itself. Liberals also argue that non governmental organisations facilitate co operation between states and keep the peace internationally - if this was the case however, then the EU would have succeeded recently in encouraging countries like the UK to take on a fair amount of refugees, most of whom are fleeing war torn Syria.

                                CAN THIS BE APPLIED TO THE MIGRANT CRISIS?
 Unfortunately Liberal theory cannot be applied here as many countries in the EU are refusing to take their fair share of refugees or are refusing to allow any 'migrants' into their country at all. Realist theory is more relevant here, as the self interested nature of states (state egoism) and humans has been revealed. It would not be in the national interest for most states to take on refugees as they would have to provide for them in terms of housing, food and education - this is why countries such as Slovakia, Hungary, Denmark and the Czech Republic have refused to take the proposed numbers of migrants while Germany has taken a large number of refugees - its population is dwindling and migrants are useful for expanding its workforce.

Saudi Arabia, Qatar (the richest country in the world) and other gulf countries have also refused to take a single migrant, although they are not part of the EU. This supports the realist notion that states are self interested and undermines Liberal theorists assertion that NGOs such as the EU promote peace and harmony - global governance does not appear to be working.

Worryingly, Hungary's prime minister Victor Orban cites religion as his main concern regarding refugees - he fears that Muslim refugees will make it even harder to 'keep Europe Christian'.

To conclude, I think that realist theory can still be loosely applied to international politics in that international politics appears to be state centric (and these states are strictly self seeking) and it does not appear that global governance can or will be effective in the near future. Ideally the Liberal view of international politics would show the EU being successful in relocating Syrian refugees to safer countries but currently this is not the case  - the realist theory of power politics has prevailed with most able countries such as the UK, Hungary and Qatar refusing to take on a fair amount of refugees and getting away with doing so, while smaller countries like Jordan and Lebanon have taken on a huge amount of refugees regardless of whether they can afford to do so.