top of page
Search

Under the Tip of the Iceberg – European Integration in the Twenty-First Century

Updated: 41 minutes ago


What does the term ‘European integration’ encompass? Undoubtedly, it is a frequently used phrase, the meaning of which naturally changes in the course of development. In principle, it retains the same essence that gave rise to European integration in the first place. However, the content has significantly snowballed, although the snowballing occurs gradually and is many times not visible - similar to an iceberg, of which only a tip protrudes above the surface of water.

At the time of its inception, European integration was rightly referred to as a unique, one-of-a-kind project, built on the desire for joint peaceful cooperation. The foundations of this cooperation, based on the requirements and conditions of the six founding states,[1] assumed development and progress would be favourable.[2] The original institutional framework (the High Authority, the Council, the Assembly and the Court) was also based on an adequate representation of the member states; the individual institutions of the European Communities[3] counted on such representation of the member states that would allow them to exercise the powers conferred on them and control them within a specific community.[4] There was little to complain about with this historical concept, as evidenced by the fact that the accession efforts of other European countries began to appear relatively early.[5] At the same time, somewhere, the base of the iceberg began to form contours, initially visible both above and below the surface.

The essence of integration was (and still is) economic cooperation. And in connection with the initial failure in the area of political integration, economic cooperation had, for a long time,[6] been the only developing form of European integration.

Development of integration can also be divided by centuries. This is because integration had a different dynamic in the twentieth century, when new member states kept joining gradually (1973 - Denmark, Ireland, Great Britain; 1981 – Greece; 1986 – Portugal, Spain; 1995 – Finland, Austria, Sweden). We can consider a 100% increase in the number of the member states of the European Union of that time as a certain milestone. The year 1992 marked 40 years since the establishment of the European Coal and Steel Community, i.e., since the beginning of integration. At the same time, however, it reflected a shift in development of the community in both legal and factual terms. The emergence of the so-called ‘three-pillar structure’ of the European Union’s legal system[7] was a clear sign that the mass of the iceberg below the surface was growing exponentially. At that time, the first pillar, the so-called ‘Community law’, was a set of laws emerging as a result of the functioning of three separate European Communities. However, it also included the relatively numerous case law of the Court of Justice of the EU (then the European Court of Justice), which in some places achieved a not very desirable effect in an attempt to strengthen the position of the legal system of the European Communities. It was the role of the Court of Justice of the EU that played a significant role in the growth of the legal system of the European Communities and later the EU. The general jurisdiction of the Court of Justice (as defined in Art. 220 of the Treaty Establishing the European Community) was determined quite simply – “the Court of Justice guarantees compliance with the law in the interpretation and application of the Treaty.” From the above sentence, the court gradually derived a relatively strong position of a creator of law, by filling in the gaps in the founding and revision treaties, which naturally did not cover all the relevant legal facts.

Constant case law and the so-called ‘breakthrough decisions’[8] have thus resulted in the national legal systems being directly or indirectly exceeded. The countries most affected by this phenomenon were the countries of the so-called ‘large-scale enlargement’ of the EU in 2004 (the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Hungary, Slovenia, Malta, Cyprus, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia), when they had to incorporate the relevant court decisions into their law together with the respective rulings. After joining the European Union, the countries that had used the continental system of written law had to deal with elements of the Anglo-American legal system, which again expanded the imaginary iceberg below the surface of European integration. The paradox remains that the only country that naturally uses the Anglo-American legal system (Great Britain) is no longer an EU member state. It is indeed the enlargement of the EU in 2004 that is informally perceived as one of the reasons for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU (fear of the so-called ‘Eastern Bloc’ countries).

The iceberg of European integration expanded not only in relation to the acceding countries, but also in the area of integration. In the area of economic integration, which seems to be the most stabilised, there are modifications through secondary sources of EU law (regulations and directives) and the aforementioned case law of the Court of Justice of the EU. A rather demanding examination of judicial case law is required to navigate the given area. Its availability in the digital environment is undoubtedly an advantage today, yet it does not increase the clarity of the EU legal system.

The issue of the common defence and security policy, or the defence community, which represents the so-called political integration, was still topical and open. Developments in this area are more progressive than in economic integration. However, it still remains the domain of the member states and requires unanimity to take decisions. Due to tense geopolitical context, the Lisbon Treaty (effective since 2009) began to develop the common foreign and security policy, both from a political and institutional point of view. Among other things, this revision treaty introduced a European policy in the field of capabilities and armaments (Article 42 para. 3 TEU) and the function of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (Art. 17 TEU).

At the end of 2021, the Strategic Compass for Security and Defence was created as a policy document setting out the EU Security and Defence Strategy for the next 10 years. A certain significant shift occurred in this area in connection with the invasion of Ukraine in 2022, when Denmark also abolished its exception (obtained in 1992) in defence policy. Subsequently, the Strategic Compass was also revised and approved by the European Council. Based on the Resolution of the European Parliament of 28 February 2024 on the implementation of the Common Security and Defence Policy (Annual Report 2023),[9] it can be concluded that this is one of the priority EU policies in the framework of the iceberg’s growth.

The EU accession process involving other candidate countries that are approaching the EU at their own – more or less fast pace – is also in the spotlight (and it is difficult to say for sure whether this spotlight shines on the fringe). The Union officially registers nine candidate countries (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Moldova, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Serbia, Turkey, Ukraine) and one potential candidate country (Kosovo). The longest-waiting country has been Turkey, which applied for EU membership in April 1987 and became a candidate country in December 1999. The fastest accession negotiations occurred in connection with Ukraine, which applied for EU membership in February 2022 and became a candidate country in June 2024. Therefore, it is possible that the number of EU member states will soon expand; the only question is how many new member states will be admitted.

Progress in development of European integration can hardly be unequivocally assessed. It is certain that in the twenty-first century, the number of member states increased by 450% compared to the original six founding states. Proportionally, however, the way in which European integration works, including a binding legal system, should also have changed, and the question remains whether this has also happened. The pillars on which the EU has been built (e.g., the Schengen area and open borders, the internal market) are becoming debatable within individual countries (Germany, Austria, Poland).[10] Nevertheless, it is still possible to conclude that even in the twenty-first century we can consider European integration a unique project. However, its uniqueness can no longer be perceived only as a visible integration. In the process of development, there has been both a great increase in the number of member states but, at the same time, an exponential increase in the scope of integration. Resulting above all from the case law of the Court of Justice of the EU and its binding nature is the fact that the “width and depth of the imaginary iceberg” spreads, which, by becoming an invisible part under the surface, does not diminish its content in any way.


[1] France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg

[2] The treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), i.e., the Treaty of Paris, was signed on 18 April 1951 and entered into force on 23 July 1952. The treaty establishing the European Economic Community (EEC) and the treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community (EAEC, formerly known as Euratom), i.e., the Treaties of Rome,

were signed on 25 March 1957 and entered into force on 1 January 1958.

[3] European Coal and Steel Community, European Economic Community and European Atomic Energy Community.

[4] Thus, for example, the largest body was the Assembly (the predecessor of the European Parliament) with 78 members. Through its national parliaments, each state delegated a set number (Germany, France and Italy each had eighteen members; Belgium and the Netherlands each had ten and four members each had Luxembourg). Originally, the Assembly exercised a controlling power.

[5] Greece and Turkey applied for accession in 1959.

[6] After signing of the Treaty of Paris, René Pleven proposed the creation of a European army, although France was against the restoration of German armed forces. The European Political Community (EPC) was to be added to the European Defence Community (EDC), agreed in 1952. Both projects were cancelled after the ratification of the treaty was rejected by the French National Assembly on August 30 1954. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/ftu/pdf/sk/FTU_1.1.1.pdf

[7] The first pillar – Community Law, the second pillar – Common Foreign and Security Policy, the third pillar – Cooperation in the Field of Justice and Home Affairs.

[8] For instance, Judgment of the Court of Justice of 5 February 1963 - NV Algemene Transport- en Expeditie Onderneming van Gend & Loos v Nederlandse administie der belastingen; Judgment of the Court of Justice of 15 July 1963 - Plaumann & Co. v Commission of the European Economic Community; Judgment of the Court of Justice of 15 July 1964 - Flaminio Costa v E.N.E.L.. etc.

 

Comments

bottom of page