AVRUPA ENTEGRASYON TEORİLERİ ÜZERİNE BİR TARTIŞMA: LİBERAL HÜKÜMETLERARASICILIK NE ÖLÇÜDE AÇIKLAYICI?

Avrupa Birliği kuruluşundan beri Ululararası İlişkiler alanında çalışan birçok akademisyen için önemli bir araştırma sorusu oluşturmuştur. Bu nedenle Avrupa Birliğinin oluşumu ve evrilmesini açıklama amacı akademsiyenler için önemli bir araştırma gündemi sunmuştur ve farklı seviyeden yaklaşımları karşı karşıya getirmiştir. Kimileri devletlerin süreçteki öncü rolüne vurgu yaparken kimileri de devletler tarafından kurulmuş olmalarına rağmen birlik kurumlarının “istenmeyen sonuçlar” ya da “dönülemeyen yollar”nedeniyle bağımsız rol oynamalarına odaklanır. Bu makale bu yaklaşımlardan “Liberal Intergovenrmentalizm”e (Liberal Hükümetlerarasıcılık) odaklanarak her ne kadar son derece tutarlı ve açıklayıcı gücü yüksek bir yaklaşım olsa ve bu nedenle mevcut baskın konumunu hakettiği söylenebilirse de resmin tamamını açıklamaktan uzak göründüğünü iddia edecektir.Böylece makale Avrupa entegrasyon teorileri üzerine yararlı bir tartışma sunarak farklı faktörlerin gözönüne alınmasını cesaretlendirmeye çalışacaktır

Anahtar Kelimeler:

AB, Avrupa Entegrasyon Teorileri, Liberal Intergovernmentalism

A Discussion On The Theories Of European Integration: Does Liberal Intergovernmentalism Offer A Satisfactory Answer?

Construction of European Union has puzzled the students of International Relations since its launch. Explaining European integration process has been a key research agenda for many academics. It brought approaches from different levels against each other. Some focus on the role of states as the main actors driving the process while others focused on the autonomous impacts of European Institutions built by the states as a result of “unintented consequences” or “path dependence”. This paper aims to focus on one of such approaches namely “Liberal Intergovernmentalism”. The paper aims to demonstrate that even though it provides a rigorous approach and seems to explain a great deal of the process hence arguably deserves its dominant position among theories on European integration, it is far from explaining the whole picture as it is impossible to explain a multi-level process via only state level factors. Hence the paper will provide a usefull discussion on European integration theories to encourage students of Europeanisation literature to grasp multi-level factors constructing the ever evolving European Union

Keywords:

-,

PDF

___

BULMER, S: J. (1993). “The Governance of the European Union: A New Institutionalist Approach”, Journal of Public Policy, 13 (4), 351-380.
CAPORASO, J. A. (1998). “Regional Integration Theory: Understanding Our Past and Anticipating Our Future”, Journal of European Public Policy: 5 (1), 1-16
CAPORASO, J. A. (1999). “Toward a Normal Science of Regional Integration”, Journal of European Public Policy, 6 (1): 160-164.
CINI, M. (2007). European Union Politics, New York, Oxford University Press.
FORSTER, A. (1998). “Britain and the Negotiation of the Maastricht Treaty: A Critique of Liberal Intergovernmentalism”, Journal of Common Market Studies, 36 (3): 347- 368.
GARRETT, G. AND TSEBELİS, G. (1996). “An Institutional Critique of Intergovernmentalism”, International Organization, 50 (2): 269-299.
HIX, S. (2005). The Political System of the European Union, Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
HOOGHE, M. AND MARKS, G. (1996). “’Europe with the Regions’: Channels of Regional Representation in the European Union”, The Journal of Federalism, 26 (1):73-91.
LEWIS, J. (1998). “Is the ‘Hard Bargaining’ Image of the Council Misleading? The Committee of Permanent Representatives and the Local Elections Directive”, Journal of Common Market Studies, 36 (4): 479-504.
MORAVCSIK, A. (1993). “Preferences and Power in the European Community: A Liberal Intergovernmentalist Approach”, Journal of Common Market Studies, 3:1 (4):473- 523.
MORAVCSIK, A. (1995). “Liberal Intergovernmentalism and Integration: A Rejoinder”, Journal of Common Market Studies, 33 (4):611-628.
MORAVCSIK, A. (1998). The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State Power from Messina to Maastricht, UCL Press, London.
MORAVCSIK, A. (1999). “The Choice for Europe: Current Commentary and Future Research: a Response to James Caporaso, Fritz Scharpf, and Helen Wallace”, Journal of European Public Policy, 6 (1): 168-179.
PETERSON, J. (2001). “the Choice for EU Theorists: Establishing a Common Framework for Analysis”, European Journal of Political Research, 39: 289–318.
PIERSON, P. (1996). “The Path to European Integration: A Historical Institutionalist Analysis”, Comparative Political Studies 1996; 29: 123-163.
POLLACK, M. A. (1997). “Delegation, Agency, and Agenda Setting in the European Community”, International Organization, 51 (1): 99-134.
POLLACK, M. A. (2001). “International Relations Theory and European Integration”, Journal of Common Market Studies, 39 (2): 221-244.
PUCHALA, D. J. (1971). “Of Blind Men, Elephants and International Integration”, Journal of Common Market Studies, 10 (3) 267-284.
RISSE-KAPPEN, T. (1996). “Exploring the Nature of the Beast: International Relations Theory and Comparative Policy Analysis Meet the European Union”, Journal of Common Market Studies, 34 (1): 53-80.
ROSAMOND, B. (2000). Theories of European Integration, Palgrave, New York.
SANDHOLTZ, W. AND SWEET, A. S. (1997). “European Integration and Supranational Governance” Journal of European Public Policy, 4 (3): 297-317.
SCHARPF, F. W. (1999). “Selecting Cases and Testing Hypotheses”, Journal of European Public Policy, 6 (1): 164-168.
WALLACE, H. (1999). “Piecing the Integration Jigsaw Together”, Journal of European Public Policy, 6 (1), Review Section: 155-160.
WINCOTT, D. (1995). “Institutional Interaction and European Integration: Towards an Everyday Critique of Liberal Intergovernmentalism”, Journal of Common Market Studies, 33 (4): 597-609.