Has Neofunctionalism Been Superseded By A New 'Liberal Intergovernmentalism" As Currently The Most Convincing Theoretical Explanation of European Political Integration?
Has Neofunctionalism Been Superseded By A New 'Liberal Intergovernmentalism" As Currently The Most Convincing Theoretical Explanation of European Political Integration? From an ambitious project originally envisaged to remove the catastrophe of war from such a war-torn continent, the European project has proceeded in 'fits and starts'. Since its inception, there has been much debate regarding what forces drive the integration process forward. Why now, when interstate war in Europe seems impossible, do member states continue to 'pool' their sovereignty in so many areas? Two theories have dominated previous attempts to answer the question of "how and why states cease to be wholly sovereign, how and why they voluntarily mingle, merge and mix with their neighbours, so as to lose the factual attributes of sovereignty."1 Neofunctionalism, the idea that the integration process, once started, develops its own momentum for further integration, saw the height of popularity in the 1960s, following the initial success of the ECSC/EEC and the hugely influential theoretical explanation by Ernst Haas. The second theory, Liberal Intergovernmentalism, surfaced in the 1990s and was championed by Andrew Moravcsik. It saw flaws in neofunctionalist thinking and instead offered an alternative account in which the integrative process was always, and remains, in the hands of national governments;
Why Did The First World War Break Out in 1914?
Why Did The First World War Break Out in 1914? The First World War was the most terrible war ever known due to the number of deaths that took place each day on the gory battlefields of the war. Altogether eight million soldiers lost their lives fighting in the trenches. The system of trenches stretched across Europe from the English Channel to Switzerland and soldiers faced their foe across a few hundred metres of churned up ground with barbed wire known as 'No Man's Land'. The grounds in and around the trenches were turned into a huge ocean of mud because of the rain and exploding bullets. It was impossible to attack the other side's trenches effectively because they were so greatly secured. Twenty million people were wounded and there was an extensive destruction, which ravaged cities and their civilian populations. The First World War lasted for four whole years and broke out in 1914 due to a number of reasons. The reasons that led the nations of Europe and later the world to go to war in 1914 are complex, and it is impossible to say the war started because of one single cause. There are a series of events, which derived in the early 19th century, which engulfed most of Europe by 4th August 1914. Some causes of the war were long-term whereas others were short term. One reason for the outbreak of the war in 1914 was the competition for colonies between the European
To what extent was the alliance system responsible for the outbreak of World War One in 1914
To what extent was the alliance system responsible for the outbreak of World War One in 1914? In the Treaty of Versailles after World War One, the Triple Entente immediately placed blame on Germany's aggression and scheming tactics for the outbreak of war. However, over time, the causes behind the war began to become more obviously complex. One of the most commonly citied reasons is the alliance system. Prior to the war, the countries of Europe had formed complex alliances and, with their empirical statuses, this apparently created a chain that a single trigger (the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand) would set into inevitable motion. But how important was the pre-1914 alliance system in causing World War One? Firstly, we must come to understand exactly what the alliance system comprised of. Indeed, many of these 'alliances' were not really alliances at all, but mutual agreements in relation to trade or colonial territories. One of the most prominent and important alliances was that of Russia to Serbia. Russia had promised to protect the Serbian people and their rights. Austria-Hungary had control over areas where Balkan people were prominent, conflicting Russian policy and ultimately leading to war. Another vital alliance was that of Austria-Hungary and Germany. In July, 1914, Germany had given a Carte Blanche to Austria-Hungary, promising unconditional support in
How significant was Chinas intervention in deciding the course and outcome of the Korean War?
How Significant was China’s intervention in deciding the course and outcome of the Civil War? China’s intervention in the Korean played a significant part in deciding the course and outcome of the Civil War in a variety of ways. Among the most significant of these factors are the role played by the Chinese ‘volunteer’ army in pushing the UN forces back to the 38th Parallel and then South Korea, which prolonged a conflict which was seemingly going to be won by the UN. Without this intervention, the stalemate that led to the eventual Armistice would never have happened. Also, if China hadn’t intervened, then General MacArthur may not have been sacked by Truman, as part of the reason for his sacking was his failure to prevent the advance of the PRC; this would have been academic if the PRC hadn’t intervened in the war. If China had not intervened, MacArthur could have still been in control of the army ( as Truman would have had less reason to dismiss him), and as a result the US could have held a more aggressive stance towards attacking mainland China, as this is what MacArthur wanted in order to end the conflict quickly. Chinese intervention also meant that the damage and cost to all sides increased, as well as the significant impact China had on the eventual peace terms. One of the main factors that demonstrate the significance of the Chinese intervention was the
Compare the presentation of the psychological effects of war on the individual in 'Regeneration' and 'Journey's End'.
Amy Best English Literature - Comparative Coursework Compare the presentation of the psychological effects of war on the individual in 'Regeneration' and 'Journey's End'. Journey's End by R.C. Sherriff, and Pat Barker's Regeneration show many interpretations of the psychological effects of war on the individual. The different genres of literature, the time the texts were written and the diverse styles created by each writer together provide a contrast, helping to show many different presentations of the effects of the First World War. Barker includes the disturbing nightmares that soldiers often had, recounting the horror of death so common in the war and shows how soldiers could even become psychosomatic, becoming paralysed through mental illness. She concentrates on Rivers' attempts to help soldiers psychologically, and through this shows many different characters, both real and imagined, suffering and coping with their own individual psychological effects of war. Sherriff portrays the alcoholism that effected many soldiers involved in the war, and the ways in which men 'coped' psychologically, focusing on trivial things to escape the reality of death. I will study the ways in which the two writers present these effects and how their styles and intentions differ or show similarities. Throughout Journey's End, Sherriff shows the different methods used by the soldiers in
How significant a role did Britain play in the war against Germany, 1939-45?
How significant a role did Britain play in the war against Germany, 1939-45? On the 3rd September 1939, Britain declared war on Germany after they invaded Poland because Britain and France had made an agreement to defend Poland from a German attack. Despite this declaration of war, Britain and France did very little to defend Poland and no combat by the French or British took place for nine months to follow. This period of time was nicknamed the 'Phoney War'. In April 1940, the Germans invaded Norway; Britain attempted to defend Norway but after their defeat, Neville Chamberlain, the British Prime Minister was forced to resign; Winston Spencer Churchill was appointed Prime Minister and formed a National Government. On the 10th June 1940, France was invaded and defeated by Italian-German forces; this resulted in Britain being alone against GermanY. Germany came up with a plan to invade Britain called 'Operation Sealion' because Churchill refused to negotiate with the Germans. For this plan to work the German Luftwaffe would have to have air superiority. The Luftwaffe had an advantage over the RAF of 2300 more aircraft overall, but they had an equal number of fighter planes. Also, the fighter planes from Germany could only spend 30 minutes over South-East England before having to return to refuel, this sometimes resulted in Bombers being left behind and then destroyed by
How far was the Boer War, 1899-1902, a turning point in the history of the British Empire
How far was the Boer War, 1899-1902, a turning point in the history of the British Empire? (20) The Boer War symbolizes the climax of imperial tensions and excitement of the late 19th century, and can be viewed as a turning point in the history of the Empire, precipitating widespread changes. The first of these is a change in the attitudes towards the ideology of empire; the second is a change in terms of future administration of the empire; and the third is a change in the role of Britain as a dominant world power. The combination of these changes caused the beginnings of a series of transformations concerning the British Empire. The first significant turning point was in terms of attitudes to empire. At the end of the 19th century Britain was experiencing enormous prosperity, characterised by imperial expansion and dominance. Owing to her industrialisation and resulting wealth, Britain became a strong and influential world power, monopolising trade in Africa, India and Asia. Through her 'Open Door' policy in China, Britain controlled 70% of world trade, reaping enormous profits. Moreover, she controlled extremely profitable gold and diamond mining regions in Africa, and capitalised on trade in India which was a source of cheap materials and labour, as well as a huge and profitable market for British goods. Therefore, Britain's imperial position was strong and dominant,
''Without the First World War British women would not have gained the right to vote in 1918.'' Do you agree or disagree with this interpretation?
''Without the First World War British women would not have gained the right to vote in 1918.'' Do you agree or disagree with this interpretation? British women over 30 got the vote with the 1918 Representation of the People Act. The law was being changed, to ensure that soldiers coming home from the trenches were able to vote, if they hadn't been changing the law anyway, women were unlikely to have got the vote in 1918. There are many reasons why women got the vote, including: their work during WW1, Lloyd George being a supporter of women's suffrage, the suffragists' campaign of propaganda, the suffragettes' terrorism, the desire of MPs to not alienate potential voters, society's gradually changing attitudes and the fact that Britain did not want to be seen as old-fashioned. During WW1, women undertook jobs that needed doing while men who previously did the jobs were away fighting. They worked in factories making things for the war, like uniforms and shells and took over jobs men had done before the war, like working on farms, driving lorries and delivering coal. This work in factories and other jobs gave women more money and confidence. This confidence meant that women were seen differently, and more able, by many men. This confidence and respect from men helped to gain women the vote in 1918, and was an important contributing factor. The work of women during the war and
How does Wilfred Owen portray the horrors of war through his use of language in Dulce et Decorum Est?
How does Wilfred Owen portray the horrors of war through his use of language in Dulce et Decorum Est? Dulce et Decorum Est, a poem by Wilfred Owen, explores the many horrors and cruel ordeals of World War One. Through his use of linguistic techniques, vivid imagery and dramatic descriptions, Owen seeks to convince the reader that it is far from honourable to die for ones country, as the title of the poem in fact suggests. He does so successfully, presenting his opinion through a series of images designed to obliterate the misconception that war is admirable, as well as differentiating and varying his techniques throughout the poem. In the first stanza, Owen describes the state of the soldiers to allow the reader to visualise the cruel reality that war was for them. Their situation is made more realistic through the use of first person plural as displayed in the line "we cursed through the sludge". Unexpected and contrasting descriptions of the soldiers such as referring to them as "bent double, like old beggars under sacks", and associating them with animals by referring to them as "blood shod", also changes the reader's perception of what conditions were like during the war. In relation to their harsh portrayal, Owen uses similes such as "coughing like hags" to help produce a pitiful sense of anguish for the soldiers, as well as, for emphasis on their weariness, and both
Using these four passages and your own knowledge, asses the view that the US policy of Marshall in 1947 was motivated mainly by the altruistic desire to help the economic recovery of Europe
Using these four passages and your own knowledge, asses the view that the US policy of Marshall in 1947 was motivated mainly by the altruistic desire to help the economic recovery of Europe. The situation in Europe after the Second World War was truly desperate; many states were in ruins due to the devastation that caused unimaginable poverty and distress. At the surface, the US's plans to help Europe through the Marshall Plan are altruistic; however, looking deeper, the benefits that the US receives are high and rewarding. So much so, that it could be construed that the US had ulterior motives within their altruistic attempt on rebuilding the European Economy and thus benefiting themselves. During the interwar period, the US had based its foreign affairs on a "policy of glorious isolationism" - a policy that would have separated the US from the affairs of the world that did not concern them. At the end of the Second World War, the US's view had changed considerably in that they now wanted to help the European Community through 'the offer of aid through Marshall's new programme...'1 it was 'made available to all European countries without distinction,'2 making it seem that the US were being all inclusive within their scheme to help. At the surface, this would have been altruistic in that Marshall was helping Europe because he saw the devastation left behind from the Second
