Future Stability in the European Union: Realism, Constructivism, and Institutionalism

Abstract

INTRODUCTION After experiencing the devastation of WWI and WWII within Europe's borders, Eu-ropean citizens and statesmen sought a way to prevent war from re-emerging on European soil. As a result, they formed a European community to act as a safeguard against war. As the European Union (EU) developed over the last sixty years, membership has expanded to twenty-seven states and no full-scale war has emerged within EU borders. However, realists argue that states face constant security threats and cannot escape the possibility of war as a result of the security dilemma and the uneven distribution of power in the international system. Thus, the question arises: do EU member states still have the potential to go to war against one another in the future? In this paper, I examine realist, constructivist, and insti-tutionalist perspectives on the issue and assess which theory best explains present stability among EU member states. I do not seek to promote policy prescriptions for the EU. Instead, I simply try to evaluate the different theoretical approaches and consider which approach best explains the probability of maintaining long-standing peace within the EU. Ultimately, I conclude that, despite criticisms of the neo-liberal institutionalist perspective, the theory is most applicable for predicting the future stability in the EU. I begin this paper with a description of the realist perspective, focusing on John J. Mearsheimer's prediction of the conditions that prevent or enable peace within the EU. I then point out that, in the case of the EU, realism poses several problems: it is pessimistic in nature; it ignores the role of institutional mechanisms and norms; and it only recognizes states as the main actors in influencing the international system. In the following section, I exam-ine the constructivist explanations focusing on the role of norms, identity, and socialization as driving actions in the European Union. I then expand upon a major flaw in constructivist theory: it lacks the ability to explain why agents may or may not be successful in changing norms over time and what makes these norms stick. In the next section, I inspect the neo-liberal institutionalist theory proposed by Bruce Russett, John Oneal, and Michael Berbaum based on the Kantian theory of peace. I show that neo-liberal institutionalist theory poses a problem because it does not address the role of short-term relative gains, which is an impor-125