An Intergovernmental Organization or Supranational Federal Entity-From the view of quit mechanism①

【Abstract】 It is controversial that whether EU is an intergovernmental organization or supranational Union since both parties have their own basis. The Treaty of Lisbon provides quit mechanism for the first time. Combining with Greece thinking of quitting Euro and the practice of United Kingdom adhered to \"Splendid Isolation\" policy， the EU is more like an intergovernmental organization after introduced a mechanism for withdrawal.

【Key words】 Intergovernmental Organization Supranational

【中圖分類號】G321.2 【文獻(xiàn)標(biāo)識碼】A 【文章編號】1009-8585(2011)06-0-02

1 Introduction

Any analysis of the Laws of International Organization must take place in the context of an ongoing discussion as to what type of entity the European Union (EU) is and what it should be. Some politicians and academics favor an intergovernmental form for the EU， a structure in which all vital decisions must be agreed to by each Member State. This approach would entail a substantial amount of unanimous voting on the Council. Other commentators urge a supranational federal arrangement in which the Union serves as an independent and powerful central government that stands above the national governments. The supranational model would involve， in most instances， the use of majority voting on the Council. Since the quit clause appears on the Treaty of Lisbon， there exists a new channel to look through the nature of EU.

2 Nature of EU

2.1 The EU as an Intergovernmental Organization

From 6 to 27， like all intergovernmental organizations (IGOs)， the European Union was created by treaties， and it exists today by virtue of successor treaties among its Member States. Structurally， the Union is an IGO(intergovernmental organizations) that can add new Member States and suspend the voting rights of those that violate its core principles. From Clause 2 of Article 7 of the Treaty of Amsterdam (amending the Treaty of the European Union)， the majority voting can decide to suspend the voting right of those after the affirmative of Council. Furthermore， under the Lisbon Treaty， a Member State will be able to withdraw if it so chooses. Member States have demonstrated the ability to opt out of certain key programs such as the common currency and the Schengen arrangements.

2.2 The EU as a Supranational Federal Entity

Despite its origins as an IGO， the European Union possesses a number of characteristics that are distinctly state-like， resembling those of a national government. Included among these is its status as a permanent entity that has legal personality， legal capacity， and privileges and immunities. It has legislative， executive， and judicial institutions quite like those found in a national government. It possesses its own budgetary resources， a right not enjoyed by most IGOs. In addition to its internal activities， it engages in external relations with other countries. Significantly--and the primary focus of this Article--many legislative decisions within the EU are made by majority vote. Since these characteristics exist separately from their counterparts in the Member State governments， it is fair to describe them as supranational elements in a dual-level federal system. Underscoring the idea of the Union as the central government in a federal setup is the fact that the Union's legal acts have primacy over Member State law.

2.3 Something in Between

The reality of the EU is that it is a system containing both intergovernmental and supranational elements. The debate about what to call the EU may be of little practical consequence， but the balance between intergovernmental and supranational elements determines the influence of the Union's Member States within the system， and it does impact their national sovereignty. At the heart of this balancing act is the matter of majority voting. A nation that has agreed to majority rule has accepted the fact that it may find itself subject to legislation that it does not want. Its objections may be to no avail， and thus it will have yielded to outsiders its right as a sovereign nation to manage certain of its affairs. After the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon， the quit mechanism brings changes for the nature of EU.

3 The challenge by Treaty of Lisbon

3.1 Treaty of Lisbon

The European Union's Treaty of Lisbon entered into effect on December 1， 2009， (in accordance with its Article 6) and this significant amendment to the European Union's foundational treaties marks yet another step in the “process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe.”

Does the Lisbon treaty envisage a specific mechanism for closer defence of co-operation or permanent structured co-operation? The Lisbon treaty does not provide for major changes in economic and monetary policy， the Euro-group or the workings of the European Central Bank (ECB). Instead it confers formal recognition on policy objectives and bodies. Financial crisis makes certain country think of leaving Euro and even EU since they lost the power of economic and currency control.

3.2 Financial crisis calls for thinking of quit mechanism

Greece's ambitious decision to climb aboard the Euro Express in 2001 looks more ill-starred by the day. The Mediterranean country， always an unlikely candidate given its fiscal woes， is now so deeply mired in debt that it has turned into the currency union's Achilles heel. The euro， some claim， is destined for breakup， with not only Greece but also possibly Portugal， Spain and other members heading for the exit.

For profoundly uncompetitive and over-indebted countries， the idea of quitting the single currency does in fact have some superficial appeal. Normally countries that are in a downward economic spiral can devalue their currency to bolster exports and regain external competitiveness. Sterling's 25pc slump over the past two years is a classic example.

According to Article 51 of the Treaty of Amsterdam (signed on October 2， 1997)， the EU exists forever and it is not possible for a member state to quit by itself. Indeed for the first time ever， the new treaty also includes a “voluntary withdrawal” clause. Any member， of course， could always quit the EU if it so chose， which is the first time the quitting option has been explicitly written into a EU treaty. This makes the EU more like an IGO. Though there is not precedent， it is free if any member state wants to leave the union.

3.3 Case of Britain

Britain seems to be increasingly isolated from Europe. DEM does not exist while Great Britain Pound travels all over the world. On Gordon Brown’s first foray into Europe since becoming prime minister， he travels to Berlin that evening to talk with President Sarkozy in Paris. They are being talked about as the new “dream team”， a troika of leaders in the big EU countries cooperating on a post-Blair， post-Iraq， post-special relationship Europe.

At the 2007 June summit， Britain secured exclusion from a new charter of fundamental rights， meaning that the European court of justice is empowered to rule on social and labour legislation in 26 EU countries， but not in Britain. The Blair government， in its last act， also obtained exemptions from common European policy-making in the crucial areas of police and criminal justice.

The Blair government famously promised to put Britain at the heart of Europe. The Brown government comes into office arguably more isolated than before. Cameron is the same. Britain was already outside the single currency zone， and outside the continent's expanding border-free travel zone. Now it is also outside the charter of rights， and reserving the right to steer clear of a growing body of common policy-making.

It remains to be seen how Donald Cameron and his foreign secretary， Jeremy Brown， reputed to be a bit of a Europhile， will handle their European in-tray. According to the first clause of Article 7th of the Treaty of Amsterdam， the member state maybe abolished the position if its actions belong to the situation under Article 6th. Will Britain use the quit mechanism in future?

4 Conclusion

The difficulty with the intergovernmental ideal is that the EU has in fact moved beyond its roots. The European Commission， in its 2001 White Paper on European Governance， agreed that the EU is evolving. While careful to avoid using the terms “federal” or “supranational，” the Commission asserted that “it is time to recognise that the Union has moved from a diplomatic to a democratic process， with policies that reach deep into national societies and daily life.”

However， the quit clause make EU more like an intergovernmental organization. The true intergovernmentalist believes that the EU must remain as such， thus ensuring that the Member States retain their essential sovereignty. The British strongly identify with this position and are said to champion a “club of sovereign nation-states.” Joseph Weiler has called this approach “Thatcherism” and sees its vision of the European Union as “an arrangement， elaborate and sophisticated， of achieving long-term maximisation of the national interest in an interdependent world.” This school of thought， according to Weiler， measures the EU's value “ultimately and exclusively with the coin of national utility and not community solidarity.”

Reference

[1] Ian Traynor，Continental drift，Guardian News Media Limited (July 16，2007).

[2] Treaty of Lisbon Amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty Establishing the European Community，Dec.13， 2007 O.J. (C 306)

[3] George A. Bermann，The European Union as a Constitutional Experiment，10 Eur. L.J. 363，363 (2004).