jueves, 29 de mayo de 2014

National Interest, Legality and Legitimacy

“Government loses its claim to legitimacy when it fails to fulfill its obligations” – Martin L. Gross. Therefore can we argue that our European leaders are legitimate?
For decades after the creation of the European Union, the member states have lived in a period of integration, excitement and economic prosperity. All this economic growth and optimism came to an end when the economic crisis arose in 2008. Since 2008, Europe has been involved in a pessimistic environment. Scepticism appeared regarding the Euro zone. A political gap has been opened between citizens and their politicians. Distrust increased between the countries of the north and south of Europe. Moreover, a growth in euro scepticism and re nationalism of politics seems to have appeared.

Suchman (1995, p. 574) considers that "Legitimacy is a generalized perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions." Some may argue that this is what we are missing nowadays. The democratization process, which takes place in Brussels, has become more and more distant towards citizens of the European Union. People don’t feel that they the politicians at Brussels represent them and neither do they think the decisions taken are appropriate. Therefore, this creates discomfort and unrest among Europeans.

We can say that nowadays the legitimacy of the European Union leaders has been questioned. A sentiment of distance and disappointment fills the streets of every European city. The economic crisis has a lot to do with the rise of these feelings on the society. Therefore, we can say that the economic crisis has lead to a political crisis as well.

We can also explain this lack of legitimacy to a lack of communication between institutions and citizens. Politicians and representatives in the E.U. should have evolved together with this new mentality which belongs to a new Europeanized generation and which plays a very important role in the public opinion. However, we can argue that citizens don’t see themselves as an actor in European politics anymore. This also leads to the fact that the vast majority of the European population has low level of knowledge about the European institutions. How can we as Europeans, take action on the political life, if we don’t know the basics of European politics?

A very good example that explains the concept of legitimacy is the case of Ukraine.
In November 2013, the President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych withdrew from the negotiations on the trade agreement with the E.U, the so called, the Association Agreement seeking closer ties with Russia. The rejection of the agreement, which would bring modernization, liberalization, rule of law to Ukraine and greater integration with the West, provoked a numerous mass protests. This was a sign that a big part of the Ukrainian population wanted prosperity and closer political and cultural ties with Europe. After weeks of revolts where over 70 people were killed, the revels took control of the government in Kiev and stabilised the Ukrainian 2004 constitution. Moreover, Yanukovych needed to go and his removal from office upset the country’s internal politics. Regarding this we also have to take into account that this new government established in Kiev is not representative of all the Ukrainians. Unlike the former Yanukovych government, the new-formed political leaders have not been elected in a democratic election; there hasn't been any legitimate democratic process. They took the power by force. Therefore, some people argue that although for some Ukrainians, the Kiev government may be legitimate, for other Ukrainians, it may be not.

The current situation in Ukraine is characterized by the Russian military intervention in the southern part of Ukraine (Crimea). Russia argues that they invaded the territory because they wanted to restore the constitutional order and protect the rights of Ukraine’s Russian-speaking citizens. However, is Russia the legitimate authority? It can also be argued that the Russian government is not legitimate for those pro-Europeans.
In today’s uncertain situation, we need to take into account the interconnectedness between the concept of legality and legitimacy in order to reach to an agreement, which would comply with the will of the Ukrainian population.

Legitimacy needs law as much as law needs legitimacy — law cannot be respected if seen as illegitimate, while appeals to legitimacy must be based in law to prevent opportunismWe can explain this with the example of the 1999 Kosovo intervention in which we can clearly see that legitimacy and legality don’t always go together. Most legal experts say that the Serbian airstrikes were illegal because the operation was not authorised by the Security Council. On the contrary, some experts regarded this military intervention as a legitimate action. According to the international law, (Article 53 of the UN Charter): “no enforcement action shall be taken under regional arrangements or by regional agencies without the authorization of the Security Council”. Therefore in order to stop the ethnic cleansing in the area, NATO decided to take further action, regarded as legitimate not as legal and intervene militarily bombing Kosovo.

Another concept which is closely related with legitimacy is sovereignty. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, sovereignty is defined as the supreme power or authority. In international politics, sovereignty is based on two main principles: the doctrine of non-intervention and the doctrine of legal equality.

This concept was born in the Peace of Westphalia (1648), which ended the Thirty Years War. The idea of non-intervention was later applied in multiple international law documents for instance, in the Article 2 of the United Nations Charter: "Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll." Moreover, one of the main principles of the United Nations is based also on the principle of sovereign equality of all its members (legal equality), which is also expressed in the Article 2 of the U.N. Charter. Due to the Peace of Westphalia, the modern notion of state and the international system were created. The idea of sovereignty for European states changed with the creation of the European Union after WWII. This unique institutional hybrid has created a new system in which member states give up part of their sovereignty in order to achieve the goal of stability (economically, socially, culturally…), in other words: to avoid war. This is a revolutionary approach in which states are not fully sovereign inside their territory. The E.U. does not act as a state and does not work like a state either. It is a hybrid political structure between a state and an international organization.

 The E.U. started as a trade agreement but it has evolved and it has become a supranational authority. On the one hand, the elements that may relate the E.U. with a federation are the supremacy of the European law over the national law, the common citizenship, the common currency (Euro), the qualified majority voting and the supranational judicial review with the existence of institutions such as the European Parliament, the European Commission, the European Court of Justice, the Council of Europe, the European Central Bank… On the other hand, the lack of a common government, common military, common fiscal policies, common debt and a common constitution make the E.U. closer to an international institution.

The main question regarding the European Union and the concept of sovereignty is: Where does the sovereignty reside? As mentioned before, the states are completely sovereign over their territories in some aspects, for instance in fiscal policies, unlike in other aspects like in monetary issues the member states are not sovereign. This can create confusion in the European society specially regarding foreign affairs. Should every state follow their foreign affair’ strategy? Or should the European Union act as a unity regarding foreign affairs? Some experts argue that in today’s globalized world where new big economical and political powers are arising such as China, Brazil or India, the European Union states can’t act separately, because they would be extremely insignificant and cant be compared with the new emerging powers. However, if the E.U. commit to integration and act united, the E.U. may have better chances when competing with these emerging powers.

There are two possible hypotheses which explains the future path of the E.U.: more integration among E.U. members, renouncing to more sovereignty and giving it to the E.U. or disintegration of the E.U. Due to the economic and political crisis, states are more reluctant of giving more sovereignty to the E.U. and are beginning to think about the negative consequences of being part of the system. A big distrust have arisen between the northern countries and the southern countries of Europe, some of the reasons for the creation of the E.U. are no longer considered as important as they were for instance the rehabilitation of Germany, the soviet threat or the memory of WWII. There is no longer optimism and a feeling of union between member states and this can damage the stability of the institution.
Therefore in order to preserve order and stability, we should carefully think about the European sovereignty and what Europeans want for their future.
Talking about what the Europeans want for their future, we can also explain the importance of the concept of national interest. National interest is a very complex concept, which can be defined as the political will of the state previously analyzed and formulated by the statesman (leader) who has interpreted the opinion of its citizens (the population of its state). In international politics, it’s often used in political discourses in order to justify their decisions or trying to make those decisions more legitimate, arguing that they are necessary for the state.

The interests of a nation-state are not fixed not permanent, they may vary over time. We can take the example of the Middle East. We can divide the countries in three groups depending on the resources, interests, alliances or geography. First we can have the group of countries, which share common interests with the E.U., they have low resources and they have no other offers of alliances with other big powers. Therefore, the alliance between these countries and the E.U would not be balanced because they need the European alliance. Morocco or Tunisia are examples of this first group of countries. The second group of countries like Algeria or Libya is characterized by having some interests in common with the E.U., a lot of resources inside their frontiers and the only possible deal with the Europe would be economic integration, establishing economical relations. The third group of countries are the ones who have  a lot of interests in common, a lot of resources on their own and other offers form other big powers. This balance is not beneficial for the E.U. because its influence will be less.

International politics are moulded according to the national interest of the countries. For instance, for the last decades, Turkey has tried to become part of the E.U. because the Turkish government considered the European union as an opportunity to have economic prosperity and a closer relation with the West. This has provoked different reactions in the European arena, where some states rejected the idea of letting Turkey become a member state and others who supported the Turkish candidacy. Among those against the entrance of turkey in the European Union we have the former presidency of Sarkozy in France or the current presidency of Merkel in Germany. The main arguments for the opposition are based on identity issues. They argue that Turkey does not have the values of the E.U. they are questioning the adequacy of Turkey as a candidate.

During the last few years, people have argued that Turkey doesn’t have the interest of becoming a member any more after watching the euro nearly collapse and the economic crisis that Europe is suffering. It is believed that Europe is now not on the national interest of Turkey anymore.

To conclude, all these three concepts are interconnected and are crucial in order to understand today’s international politics. Legitimacy depends on legality as well as national interests depend on legitimacy.



SOURCES:

Darden K., (01.03.2014), “Ukraine’s Crisis of Legitimacy”, Foreign Affairs. Council of Foreign Relations, retrieved from: <http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/140987/keith-darden/ukraines-crisis-of-legitimacy>. [16.03.2014]

Roberts J., n.d.,“Sovereignty”, Towson University, retrieved from: <http://www.towson.edu/polsci/irencyc/sovreign.htm>. [16.03.2014]

Legault A., (2000), “NATO Intervention in Kosovo: the Legal Context”, Canadian Military Journal, retrieved from: <http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo1/no1/doc/63-66-eng.pdf>. [16.03.2014]


Paula Padrino Vilela
This is a university project for the course of Concepts of IR.

No hay comentarios:

Publicar un comentario