If regionalism undermines the sovereignty of states, why do so many

states join regional organisations?

Anthony
Wiggins

It is hard to dispute that regionalism is now an integral component of

international relations, indeed as (Baylis et al, 2008, p.436) point out;

‘by July 2005 only one WTO member – Mongolia – was not party to any
regional trade agreement’.

However this has not always been the case, as Breslin et al (2002, p.4) argue, it
was not until the late 1950s that we saw the emergence of regionalism. This was
followed up in the 1980s and 1990s which saw a revival and growth of regional
organisations within international relations. There are now a plethora of regional
organisations including the EU, NAFTA, ASEAN and BRICS to name but a few. To
some, however, the rise of these organisations has led to an;

‘undermining [of] the traditional role of the state and conventional notions
of sovereignty’ (Moon and Chun 2003; cited in Narine, 2005, p424).

If this assertion is taken to be true, then the question must be asked; why would
a state want to join a regional organisation? This essay will attempt to answer
that question; it will examine the impact of regional organisations on state
sovereignty. It will explore how the type of region and its history has resulted in
different types of regional organisation emerging, with particular attention paid
to the European Union and ASEAN. It will also draw on some on the most
prominent regional integration theories and through comparing and contrasting
will show how there is no obvious universal answer to this question.

Since the Treaty of Westphalia 1648 the premise of the state and its sovereignty
has been one of the most prominent concepts within the study of international
relations, indeed Baylis et al describe it as the ‘founding covenant of world
politics’. (2008, p24) In describing state sovereignty Max Weber infamously
defined the state as;

a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the

legitimate use of physical force within a given territory. (Beetham, 1974,
p.24)

However as Axford et al point out; ‘[the state] cannot maintain authority through
force alone’. (2008, p.330) Therefore state sovereignty can also be defined as
‘the institutionalization of public authority within mutually exclusive jurisdictional
domains’. (Ruggie, 1983, p.275) What is integral to the concept of state
sovereignty, in regards to this essay, is its external aspect, as Laski describes;

[the sovereign state is] independent in the face of other communities. It

may infuse its will towards them [its citizens] with a substance which need
not be affected by the will of any external power. (1967, cited in Beeson,
2003, p.259)

1
It is this principle that has been the subject of a great deal of controversy,
whereby it has been argued that regional organisations can cause a dilution of
sovereignty to the state. A prominent proponent of this argument was Margaret
Thatcher, who outlined her position on the European Union in an infamous
address to the College of Europe in 1988. Thatcher argued that;

willing and active cooperation between independent sovereign states is

the best way to build a successful European Community.... We have not
successfully rolled back the frontiers of the state in Britain, only to see
them re-imposed at a European level with a European super-state
exercising a new dominance from Brussels. “ (Thatcher Foundation, 2009)

However, this position is countered by others who believe that that any state
sovereignty that is sacrificed through membership of a regional organisation is
outweighed by the benefits. In his role as UK Foreign Secretary in 2001, Jack
Straw took this position;

In today's world, by sharing sovereignty, a people may end up with more,

not less, independence of action; more, not less internal self-government
and more, not less, control over their lives." (Independent, 2001)

In order to establish why states would want to join a regional organisation it is

important to look historically at how they came to exist, this is well illustrated by
looking at the Association of South East Asian Nations and the European Union.

Following the failure of a universal organisation in the shape of the League of

Nations to prevent World War II, it was felt by many that a new approach to
international relations, involving stronger regional ties, was necessary to
preserve peace in Europe. As the European Union itself says;

The historical roots of the European Union lie in the Second World War.
Europeans are determined to prevent such killing and destruction ever
happening again. (Europa, no date)

In 1951 the European Coal and Steel Community was created with the intention
of establishing deeper integration between European states on this functional
issue. It was anticipated that through common management of the materials
necessary to make weapons the threat of war between these nations would be
diminished. (Europa, no date)

David Mitrany, was an influential advocate of this approach, he felt that a

functional form of regional organisation was the most effective way of dealing
with trans-national issues. It was his opinion that;

Nations can be bound together into a world community only if we link

them up by what unites, not by what divides. (Mitrany, 1948, p.359)

Therefore, for Mitrany, it was important for nations to come together on specific
issues in which they agreed, as seen with the European Coal and Steel
Community, as opposed to any overarching federation involving political union,

2
for it was his fear that with; ‘any political arrangement [any] divided choice
would obviously not be tolerable’ (Mitrany, 1948, p.358). For Mitrany, then, it
was important for a state to retain its sovereignty and he argued that by using a
functional approach;

It is not a matter of surrendering sovereignty, but merely of pooling so

much of it as may be needed for the joint performance of the particular
task. (Mitrany, 1948, p.358)

Clearly then Mitrany would not have been a great supporter of the kind of
European Union we see today with its own parliament, commission and courts,
some however saw this as inevitable. Ernst Haas, a neo-functionalist, felt that it
was impossible for nations to integrate on a strictly economic basis without a
spill-over into deeper political union. Hass defined this spill-over as;

[where] policies made pursuant to an initial task and grant of power can
be made real only if the task itself is expanded, as reflected in the
compromises among the states interested in the task. (Haas, 1961, p.368)

It can be argued that Haas’ theory is well evidenced with, for instance, the
transcendence of the Schuman inspired ECSC spilling over into other economic
areas and becoming the EEC, which in turn has developed into the EU as we
know it today (Europa History, no date). There can be no denying that the EU is,
to at least some extent, a political and social union as well as an economic one,
indeed the EU describes itself as; ‘a unique economic and political partnership
between 27 democratic European countries.’ (Europa, no date)

It would therefore be hard to refute that there has not been at least some loss of
sovereignty to the member states comprising the EU. However, the flaws of neo-
functionalist theory, born out of the slowdown of regional integration in the
1960s and 70s, should not be ignored. Haas himself was amongst the critics, in
his book “The Obsolescence of Regional Integration Theory” (1975) Haas
concedes two main problems with the theory, firstly that the role of the state and
nationalist sentiment has not faded as expected and that the European model of
regionalism has not been replicated in other regions. A major rival theory, in the
shape of intergovernmentalism had shown that the power and national interest
within states, in many cases, still overrides that of regional integration. (Breslin
et al, 2002, p.6) A good example of this is highlighted in the case of the
Association of South East Asian Nations.

Just as the end of World War II saw the rise of European integration, the end of
the war also indirectly instigated South East Asian integration due to the end of
European colonial power in the region. What followed is a desire for distinct
national identity and it is perhaps for this reason that since ASEAN was created
in 1967 it has fiercely defended the sovereignty of its individual states.
(Dalrymple, no date) Indeed ASEAN declares its fundamental principles to
include;

3
 mutual respect for the independence, sovereignty, equality, territorial
integrity, and national identity of all nations; the right of every State to
lead its national existence free from external interference, subversion or
coercion and the non-interference in the internal affairs of one another.
(ASEAN, no date)

Although this is clearly an important principle of ASEAN it did not stop the South
East Asian nations integrating in the first place, there are a number of reasons
for this. One of the most important aims of ASEAN was to ensure security for its
members following a three year period of regional instability or Konfrontasi
which involved various territorial disputes in the region. This security would be
achieved by creating mutual economic benefits, in turn alleviating tensions
between the nations, creating stability within those nations and through group
strength alleviating the threat of external powers influencing the region,
particularly in the shadow of the regional hegemon in the shape of China.
(Narine, 1998, p.196)

However, as Greve (2004, p.210) points out political and economic integration
has not developed to anywhere near the depth of the European Union, primarily
due to its position on sovereignty;

ASEAN is likely to remain a weakly-formalized intergovernmental regime

with limited
effectiveness due to the member states’ deeply-felt concern with the
preservation
of internal and external sovereignty. (Greve, 2004, p.210)

As mentioned, its colonial history has had a major bearing on the reluctance of
ASEAN’s members to allow a pooling of sovereignty and consequently deeper
integration akin to the EU, there are however a number of other reasons.

One of the most obvious factors which has eased the integration of the European
Union is the homogeneity of its member states, which is not apparent in ASEAN.
Every nation within the EU has a similar political system, indeed the European
Union Accession criteria stipulates that candidate countries must have;

stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy [as well as] the existence

of a functioning market economy as well as the capacity to cope with
competitive pressure and market forces within the Union. (Europa, no
date)

This is clearly not the case with ASEAN, where three of the countries; Vietnam,
Burma and Laos still operate under dictatorship regimes. There is also the
obvious difference in the stages of nation building that exist between the two
regional organisations. Until recently, the majority of EU member states were all
established nations with fully fledged democratic systems and developed
economies. As Manolo points out, the same cannot be said for ASEAN;

The factors working against supranationalism in East Asia include the fact
that nation-building is still in its relatively early stages for many countries
in the region; there exists lingering bilateral animosities among various

4
 neighbours; and there are differences in political systems among these
states. All these make a political union impossible for the moment.
(Manolo, no date, p.6)

Despite these differences in levels of integration both regional organisations

have had major relative successes. In terms of security neither the European
Union nor ASEAN has had any internal military conflicts since their inception. As
Jayakumar points out;

One of ASEAN's most important achievements is that it changed Southeast

Asia from a region of conflict and poverty to a region of peace and
prosperity. (Jayakumar, 1997)

The EU and has also had considerable success economically since its creation. As
Joaquín Almunia, the EU Economic & Monetary Affairs Commissioner, stated;

The European Union is the world’s biggest economy and since the creation
of the euro has the world’s second most important international currency.
(Almunia, 2009)

ASEAN, too has had significant economic growth since its inception, it currently
has a GDP of US$1.3 trillion dollars and from 1990 to 1996, ASEAN was the
second fastest-growing U.S. export market after China. (Jayakumar, 1997)

However, there are also serious criticisms that can be made of ASEAN’s
economic competence primarily due to its policy of non-interference, as Ruland
discusses in relation to its handling of the East Asian financial crisis;

[ASEAN’s] tendency of hiding problems behind euphemisms and symbolic

action as well as its ad hoc type of institution building ‘as and when the
need arises’, leaves little time for concerted reaction when the
organization is subjected to external shocks. (Ruland, 2000, p.444)

ASEAN’s policy of non-integration has also found criticism in relation to how it

has dealt with human rights abuses by its member states. The most prominent
example of this is in Burma, where ASEAN’s failure to intervene in relation to
Burmese riot police attacking pro-democracy campaigners meant that;

ASEAN may have lost a key defining moment in its development as a fully
fledged regional organization to protect and promote human rights.
(Forum Asia, 2007)

This is in contrast to the EU’s position on human rights which is uniform across
the organisation and protected by the European Convention on Human Rights.

Clearly then, in the case of ASEAN, it can be argued that intergovernmentalism

has been proven as a valid explanation of regional integration. However, at first
glance it would appear a theory born out of neo-realism, such as
intergovernmentalism, is at odds with the premise of regionalism, because for
neo-realists;

The international system is regarded as anarchical, therefore even if

cooperation could be achieved, it could not be maintained. [and because]
Neo-realist states are also assumed to be rational [and therefore] if each

5
 state thinks the others willingness to cooperate indicates a relative power
gain for the other then cooperation can never occur. (Brooks, 2006, p.5 &
6)

The reason that intergovernmentalism can explain regional integration is

because it works on the realist premise that the state is the main actor within
regional organisations and therefore maintains the balance of power. In
theorising European integration , from this perspective, Keohane and Hoffman
argue that;

successful spill-over requires prior programmatic agreement among

governments, expressed in an intergovernmental bargain...these
interstate bargains remain the necessary conditions for European
integration. (Keohane and Hoffman, 1990 cited in Sevilla, 1995, p.27)

It should be mentioned, though, that following the revival of European

integration in the 1980s and 90s, in the form of the single market, neo-
functionalism also had a revival of its own. Haas’ predictions seemed to be well
evidenced through spill-overs from the single market into further economic,
political and monetary union. (Tranholm-Mikkelsen, 1991, cited in Breslin et al,
2002, p.7).

However Moravscik countered this approach with his liberalist

intergovernmentalist theory and rejected the notion of inevitable sovereignty
loss and supranationalism made by Haas. He accepted the intergovernmentalist
premise of the state as the key and rational actor in international relations
however he moved the theory forward. Moravscik also acknowledged the
influence of non-state actors on a state’s actions within a regional organisation
and hence emphasised the two level game character of international negotiation.
(Breslin et al, 2002, p.7)

Governments have an incentive to delegate authority only when there is

little probability that the cumulative distributional effects of delegated or
pooled decisions will be biased in an unforeseen way against the interests
of any national government or major domestic group. (Moravscik, 1993,
p.511)

This essay has examined the impact of regional organisations on state

sovereignty and shown how the reasons for integration can vary in different
regions as shown by Europe and South East Asia. It has also analysed and
contrasted some of the dominant theories in regional integration. Ultimately, this
essay has shown that it is very difficult to pinpoint any one theory as the uniform
reason for why states join regional organisations. However, it would seem that in
the case of the EU and ASEAN security has been the primary reason for creation
and any further integration has developed from that point. In terms of
integration theories, some regard a loss of sovereignty to be more necessary
than others. The neo-functionalist approach takes this view by highlighting the
spill-over from functional alliances into political ones and there have been
examples in Europe, throughout the last 60 years, that would seem to back this
up. However the case of ASEAN, where deep political union is rare, has shown
the reverse to be true in that region and therefore it can be criticised for its
inability to be replicated outside of Europe. The other issue that neo

6
functionalism, as well as intergovernmentalism, fail to take into account is how
domestic matters can affect a state’s actions. It must be acknowledged that
when a state acts within the international arena, it is going to behave according
to the pressure and expectations it is receiving domestically. For Europe this is
especially true, for it should not be ignored that every EU nation is democratic
and therefore is subject to regular changes in government formed from parties
with different political beliefs. Consequently the prospect of full political
integration amongst states with different political ideologies and domestic
pressures seems unlikely. It is for this reason, together with the need of state
self preservation and security, that the more realist perspective of liberal
intergovernmentalism seems to be the most persuasive in explaining why states
join and how they behave in regional organisations.

Word Count: 2750 (not including references)

Bibliography

Almunia J, (2009) European Union: Delegation of the European Commission to

the USA (Online) Available from: http://www.eurunion.org/eu/index.php?
Itemid=48&id=43&option=com_content&task=view [Accessed on 22/03/2009]

ASEAN (no date) Overview: Association of South East Asian Nations (Online)
Available from: http://www.aseansec.org/64.htm [Accessed on 20/03/2009]

ASEAN (2008) Selected Basic ASEAN indicators (Online) Available from:

http://www.aseansec.org/stat/Table1.pdf [Accessed on 20/03/2009]

7
Axford B, Browning G, Huggins R and Rosamond B (2002) Politics: An
Introduction, 2nd Edition, Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon

BAYLIS, J., SMITH, S., & OWENS, P. (2008). The globalization of world politics: an
introduction to international relations. New York, N.Y., Oxford University Press.

Beeson, M (2003) ‘Sovereignty under Siege: Globalisation and the State in South
East Asia’, Third World Quarterly, 24 (2): 357-374. (Online) Available from:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3993517 [Accessed on 20/03/2009]

BEETHAM, D. (1974). Max Weber and the theory of modern politics. London,
Allen & Unwin.

BRESLIN, S., HIGGOTT, R., & ROSAMOND, B. (2002). Regions in comparative

perspective. (Online) Available from:
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/csgr/research/workingpapers/2002/wp10702.
pdf [Accessed on 20/03/2009]

Brook D, (August 2006). The Rise of Regionalism: A Neo-Utilitarian Approach

(Online) Available from: http://ssrn.com/abstract=923108 [Accessed on
21/03/2009)

Council of Europe (no date) About the Council of Europe (Online) Available from:
http://www.coe.int/T/e/Com/about_coe/ [Accessed on 23/03/2009]

Europa, (no date) European Commission Enlargement: Accession Criteria (Online)

Available from:
http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/enlargement_process/accession_process/criteria
/index_en.htm [Accessed on 23/03/2009]

Europa, (no date) The History of the European Union (Online) Available from:
http://europa.eu/abc/history/index_en.htm [Accessed on 23/03/2009]

Europa, (no date) What is the European Union? (Online) Available from:
http://europa.eu/abc/panorama/index_en.htm [Accessed on 23/03/2009]

Forum Asia, (2007) Sizing up ASEAN’s role on Burma (Online) Available from:
http://www.forum-asia.org/index.php?
Itemid=42&id=1286&option=com_content&task=view [Accessed on
22/03/2009]

Greve M, (2004) ASEAN Down the 'EU Way'? Cooperation and Conflict 39: 207-
212 (Online) Available from: http://cac.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/39/2/207
[Accessed on 21/03/2009]

Haas E, (1961) International Integration: The European and the Universal

Process, International Organization, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 366-392 (Online) Available
from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2705338 [Accessed on 22/03/2009]

Independent, The (2001) Britain must pool more sovereignty in EU, says Blair,
(Online) Available from: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/britain-

8
must--pool-more-sovereignty-in-eu-says-blair-617701.html [Available from
19/03/2009]

Jayakumar S, (1997) ASEAN at Thirty: Accomplishments and Challenges (Online)

Available from: http://www.lawac.org/speech/pre%20sept
%2004%20speeches/jayakum.html [Accessed on 22/03/2009]

Manolo R, (no date) OPPORTUNITIES FOR AND OBSTACLES TO EAST ASIAN

INTEGRATION LESSONS FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION (Online) Available from:
http://www.policy.aim.edu.ph/downloads/ASEAN_Charter/6_Lessons_from_the_Eu
ropean_Integrations_Manalo_Speech.pdf [Accessed on 24/03/2009]

Mitrany D, (1948) The Functional Approach to World Organization, International

Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 350-363
(Online) Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3018652 [Accessed on
21/03/2009]

Moravscik A, (1993) Preferences and Power in the European Community: A

Liberal Intergovernmental Approach. Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 31,
pp. 473-524 (Online) Available from:
http://courses.essex.ac.uk/gv/gv546/Moravcsik%20preferences%20and
%20power.pdf [Accessed on 22/03/2009]

Narine S, (1998) ASEAN and the Management of Regional Security. Pacific

Affairs, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 195-214 (Online) Available from:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2760976 [Accessed on 22/03/2009]

Narine S, (2005) State sovereignty, political legitimacy and regional

institutionalism in the Asia-Pacific. Pacific Affairs, Vol. 17. No. 3, pp. 423 – 450
(Online) Available from:
http://pdfserve.informaworld.com/436965__748087071.pdf [Accessed on
22/03/2009]

Ruggie J, (1983) Continuity and Transformation in the World Polity: Toward a

Neorealist Synthesis. World Politics Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 261-285 (Online) Available
from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/2010273.pdf [Accessed on 21/03/2009]

Rüland J, (2000) ASEAN and the Asian crisis: theoretical implications and
practical consequences for Southeast Asian regionalism. The Pacific Review. Vol.
13, No. 3, pp 421-451 (Online) Available from:
http://pdfserve.informaworld.com/700777_751308121_713778462.pdf [Accessed
on 22/03/2009]

Sevilla C, (1995) Explaining the September 1992 ERM Crisis: The Maastricht
Bargain and Domestic Politics in Germany, France and Britain (Online) Available
from: http://aei.pitt.edu/7014/01/sevilla_christina.pdf [Accessed on 22/03/2009]

Thatcher Foundation, (2009) Speech to the College of Europe ("The Bruges

Speech") (Online) Available from:

9
http://www.margaretthatcher.org/speeches/displaydocument.asp?docid=107332
[Online 19/03/2009]

10