Instituto de Estudios Políticos y Derecho Público "Dr. Humberto J. La Roche"
de la Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Políticas de la Universidad del Zulia
Maracaibo, Venezuela
Esta publicación cientíca en formato digital es continuidad de la revista impresa
ISSN-Versión Impresa 0798-1406 / ISSN-Versión on line 2542-3185Depósito legal pp
197402ZU34
ppi 201502ZU4645
Vol.41 N° 76
Enero
Marzo
2023
Recibido el 14/11/22 Aceptado el 28/12/22
ISSN 0798- 1406 ~ De pó si to le gal pp 198502ZU132
Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas
La re vis ta Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas, es una pu bli ca ción aus pi cia da por el Ins ti tu to
de Es tu dios Po lí ti cos y De re cho Pú bli co “Dr. Hum ber to J. La Ro che” (IEPDP) de la Fa-
cul tad de Cien cias Ju rí di cas y Po lí ti cas de la Uni ver si dad del Zu lia.
En tre sus ob je ti vos fi gu ran: con tri buir con el pro gre so cien tí fi co de las Cien cias
Hu ma nas y So cia les, a tra vés de la di vul ga ción de los re sul ta dos lo gra dos por sus in ves-
ti ga do res; es ti mu lar la in ves ti ga ción en es tas áreas del sa ber; y pro pi ciar la pre sen ta-
ción, dis cu sión y con fron ta ción de las ideas y avan ces cien tí fi cos con com pro mi so so cial.
Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas apa re ce dos ve ces al año y pu bli ca tra ba jos ori gi na les con
avan ces o re sul ta dos de in ves ti ga ción en las áreas de Cien cia Po lí ti ca y De re cho Pú bli-
co, los cua les son so me ti dos a la con si de ra ción de ár bi tros ca li fi ca dos.
ESTA PU BLI CA CIÓN APA RE CE RE SE ÑA DA, EN TRE OTROS ÍN DI CES, EN
:
Re vicyhLUZ, In ter na tio nal Po li ti cal Scien ce Abs tracts, Re vis ta In ter ame ri ca na de
Bi blio gra fía, en el Cen tro La ti no ame ri ca no para el De sa rrol lo (CLAD), en Bi blio-
gra fía So cio Eco nó mi ca de Ve ne zue la de RE DIN SE, In ter na tio nal Bi blio graphy of
Po li ti cal Scien ce, Re vencyt, His pa nic Ame ri can Pe rio di cals In dex/HAPI), Ul ri ch’s
Pe rio di cals Di rec tory, EBS CO. Se en cuen tra acre di ta da al Re gis tro de Pu bli ca cio-
nes Cien tí fi cas y Tec no ló gi cas Ve ne zo la nas del FO NA CIT, La tin dex.
Di rec to ra
L
OIRALITH
M. C
HIRINOS
P
ORTILLO
Co mi té Edi tor
Eduviges Morales Villalobos
Fabiola Tavares Duarte
Ma ría Eu ge nia Soto Hernández
Nila Leal González
Carmen Pérez Baralt
Co mi té Ase sor
Pedro Bracho Grand
J. M. Del ga do Ocan do
José Ce rra da
Ri car do Com bel las
An gel Lom bar di
Die ter Nohlen
Al fre do Ra mos Ji mé nez
Go ran Ther born
Frie drich Welsch
Asis ten tes Ad mi nis tra ti vos
Joan López Urdaneta y Nil da Ma rín
Re vis ta Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas. Av. Gua ji ra. Uni ver si dad del Zu lia. Nú cleo Hu ma nís ti co. Fa-
cul tad de Cien cias Ju rí di cas y Po lí ti cas. Ins ti tu to de Es tu dios Po lí ti cos y De re cho Pú bli co
“Dr. Hum ber to J. La Ro che”. Ma ra cai bo, Ve ne zue la. E- mail: cues tio nes po li ti cas@gmail.
com ~ loi chi ri nos por til lo@gmail.com. Te le fax: 58- 0261- 4127018.
Vol. 41, Nº 76 (2023), 172-185
IEPDP-Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Políticas - LUZ
The European Union as a
supranational association and the
problem of state sovereignty
DOI: https://doi.org/10.46398/cuestpol.4176.09
Inna Kostyrya *
Oksana Biletska **
Marina Shevchenko ***
Olena Kropyvko ****
Taras Lysenko *****
Abstract
The objective was to analyze the European Union EU as a
supranational association, which, in turn, leads to problems of
state sovereignty. The methodology employed consisted of general
and special scientic methods. Sovereignty is an archaic political
construct. There are two opposites: one focuses on the state and
proclaims that sovereignty resides in a particular level of government, the
parliament and the government derived from it; the other is the multilevel
approach that presents sovereignty through a new prism, claiming that the
concept itself is obsolete, challenging globalization and integration. The
ability and right of existing states to exercise supreme authority over their
territory, control access to it and defend their citizens has become more
dicult to exercise. To conclude, globalization, transnational trade, culture
and travel are just some of the factors that have challenged the eective
capacity of the state. To adapt to these transformations, sovereignties
are joined or shared with other states, as states are the main actors in an
organization such as the EU because their interaction is so complex and
intense that it has modied their independence.
* Doctor of Political Sciences, Professor, Head of the International Relations Department of International
Relations, Faculty of PR, Journalism and Cybersecurity, Kyiv National University of Culture and Arts,
36 Yevhena Konovatsia st, 01133 Kyiv, Ukraine. ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2654-8472
** Candidate of Cultural Studies, Associate Professor Department of International Relations, Faculty
of PR, Journalism and Cybersecurity, Kyiv National University of Culture and Arts, 36 Yevhena
Konovatsia st, 01133 Kyiv, Ukraine. ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1785-9607
*** Candidate of Cultural Studies, Associate Professor Department of International Relations Faculty of PR,
Journalism and Cybersecurity, Kyiv National University of Culture and Arts, 36 Yevhena Konovatsia st,
01133 Kyiv, Ukraine. ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0960-513X
**** Candidate of History, Associate Professor of the Department of History and Political Science,
Department of International Relations and Social Sciences Faculty of Humanities and Pedagogy
National University of Life and Environmental Sciences of Ukraine Heroiv Oborony Str.15 building 3,
of. 207, Kyiv Ukraine 03041. ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3289-884X
***** Assistant Department of International Relations Faculty of PR, Journalism and Cybersecurity, Kyiv
National University of Culture and Arts, 36 Yevhena Konovatsia st, 01133 Kyiv, Ukraine. ORCID ID:
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4879-9646
173
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 41 Nº 76 (2023): 172-185
Keywords: national sovereignty; obsolete sovereignty; supranationalism;
supreme political authority; independence.
La Unión Europea como asociación supranacional y el
problema de la soberanía estatal
Resumen
El objetivo fue analizar la Unión Europea UE como una asociación
supranacional, lo que, a su vez, conduce a problemas de soberanía estatal.
La metodología empleada consistió en métodos cientícos generales y
especiales. La soberanía es una construcción política arcaica. Hay dos
opuestos: uno, se centra en el Estado y proclama que la soberanía reside
en un nivel particular de gobierno, el parlamento y el gobierno derivado de
él; el otro, es el enfoque multinivel que presenta la soberanía a través de un
nuevo prisma, armando que el concepto mismo es obsoleto, desaando
la globalización y la integración. La capacidad y el derecho de los Estados
existentes de ejercer la autoridad suprema sobre su territorio, controlar el
acceso a él y defender a sus ciudadanos se ha vuelto más difícil de ejercer. Para
concluir, la globalización, el comercio transnacional, la cultura y los viajes
son solo algunos de los factores que han desaado la capacidad efectiva del
Estado. Para adaptarse a estas transformaciones, las soberanías se unen o
comparten con otros Estados, ya que los Estados son los principales actores
de una organización como la UE porque su interacción es tan compleja e
intensas que ha modicado su independencia.
Palabras clave: soberanía nacional; soberanía obsoleta;
supranacionalismo; autoridad política suprema;
independencia.
Introduction
When European states emerged from the Middle Ages, creators
worked to consolidate territorial possessions and rationalize territorial
administration. The main goal of this period was to consolidate territory,
often dispersed because of the dangers of inheritance or conquest. Thus,
Austria gave up territories in southern Italy for the north, and France
absorbed Franche-Comté, Alsace, and Lorraine, contributing to its eorts
to replace the disorderly: “Pré carré, or straight line of division” and the
chaotic 1659 border of the southern Netherlands (Abramson et al., 2022).
174
Inna Kostyrya, Oksana Biletska, Marina Shevchenko, Olena Kropyvko y Taras Lysenko
The European Union as a supranational association and the problem of state sovereignty
That is, the main goal of these ocials was to build increasingly ecient
states bound by well-institutionalized boundaries. These increasingly
eective state institutions played an important role in facilitating economic
exchange between people who did not know each other, for example by
providing clear rules and enforcing norms (Abramson et al., 2022).
In the absence of eective state-building, individuals often relied on
narrow and exclusive groups within which they could reliably engage in
commerce. In sixteenth-century England, individuals formed exclusive
associations to provide credit when the state was unable to provide a stable
currency at all times (Abramson et al., 2022).
Although frequent transfers of territory redrawing borders were part
of the broader process of European state-building, at the local level they
hampered eorts to build eective states. Regions with multiple border
changes lagged behind, as territorial transfers interfered with state eorts
to consolidate control.
Since the early days of the integration process, scholars have tried
to establish how and to what extent integration and globalization have
transformed sovereignty, both de jure and de facto. Although early theories
of EU integration painted supranationality in contrasting colors, they only
indirectly addressed the question of sovereignty.
The gradual transformation of the EU raised a critical question: How
can power, united in a supranational union halfway between a federation
and an international organization, be exercised collectively in a democratic
way?
In the post-Maastricht era, member states of the European Union
(EU) have been increasingly reluctant to delegate further powers to the
supranational level, citing their willingness to protect their sovereignty. At
the same time, recent crises in various policy areas, such as immigration,
borders, monetary policy, trade, etc., have prompted decision-makers to
expand, albeit in a limited way, the scope of EU institutions.
Not only the refugee crisis and attempts to save the euro but also the
debate surrounding Britain’s exit from the European Union has been a
dominant sovereignty issue. This has provoked an unprecedented level of
debate about the values underlying the EU’s common policy and what many
perceive as a new loss of sovereignty. Thus, the conundrum underlying
notions of “common” or “pooled” sovereignty has once again found itself
at the center of debates around the EU’s legal, economic, and political
legitimacy.
It is therefore important to reevaluate the issue of sovereignty in
the EU in light of contemporary challenges. Although the notion of
sovereignty has been central to the debate generated by the current EU
175
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 41 Nº 76 (2023): 172-185
crisis, it remains strikingly under-researched. Big theories do not directly
address the question of sovereignty and tend to limit their reexions to the
opposition between national sovereignty and supranationalism (Zaharia
and Pozneacova, 2020).
Almost ten years after the explosion of the 2008 global and nancial
crisis and its European manifestation as the “Eurocrisis,” there is a growing
consensus that the latter has quickly outgrown or changed into a deeper
democratic crisis (Nanopoulos and Vergis, 2019).
EU integration, as a top-down process, had a corrosive eect on
European polity, delegitimizing the very idea of Europe’s political unity, and
at the same time promoting the growth of populist movements against the
EU. Because of the obvious shortcomings of the European project, the only
powerful narratives that seem to be populist rebuttals in blaming Brussels
and, above all, are the conclusion that EU institutions are democratically
delegitimized and cannot provide basic public goods such as employment,
security, currency and the like (Longo, 2019).
This article is aimed at summarizing the understanding of the European
Union as a supranational association and at the same time understanding
that it is a problem of state sovereignty.
1. Literature Review
Various scholars have investigated this problem, and their results and
conclusions have been used in addressing this issue.
In their work Zaharia and Pozneacova (2020) emphasis to the process
of framing supranational and intergovernmental theories in a historical
context to determine their signicance in the development of the European
Community. The concept of supranationalism was developed by Albert
Einstein, Winston Churchill, Robert Schuman, and Jean Monnet. At the
beginning, this concept was expressed, on the one hand, in terms of the
need to create a supranational organization in control of military and
nuclear forces. In addition, these eminent persons noted the possibility of a
supranational economic union.
It should be noted that the intergovernmental theory was described by
Stanley Homann, Alan Milward, Jerey Garrett, and Andrew Morawczyk.
According to them, the state is the main actor in the process of European
integration, and its role cannot be limited even in the best periods of
European integration. The adaptations of intergovernmental theory, on the
one hand, analyze the importance of the state in the European Community,
but, on the other hand, note the process of formatting preferences in
national state policies.
176
Inna Kostyrya, Oksana Biletska, Marina Shevchenko, Olena Kropyvko y Taras Lysenko
The European Union as a supranational association and the problem of state sovereignty
One response to the desire for a more democratically legitimate Union
and to meet citizens’ expectations about political institutions, which
today are channeled mainly into radical populist messaging, is certainly
to increase participation and extensive access to the processes under
discussion. This is all happening under the umbrella of Institutional Change
in the EU, following the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty, as an innovative tool
to involve people in the debate on politics and lawmaking at the EU level, by
supporting and submitting legislative initiatives to the Commission, which
aimed to create conditions for a new dialogue between political institutions,
civil society, and people, to “transfer the social sphere formed by citizens
using their rights and freedom in political freedom” (Longo, 2019; 32).
The transformation of the Economic Community into a political
union has sparked debates about how they change the nature of national
sovereignty. Throughout the 1990s, scholars tried to understand the
emergence of the new European conguration and the transformation of the
concept of sovereignty by introducing a wide range of metaphors, indicating
that sovereignty is unied and shared. They also tried to understand the
implications of a model of unied or shared sovereignty.
Does the abolition of the national veto, with a shift to qualied majority
voting in most areas of EU decision-making, combined with a top-down
European legal system, mark Europe’s transition to a post-sovereign, a
post-national political order based on human law? Or should it be perceived
as a pre-sovereign conguration that “divides and distributes sovereignty
in a way that eliminates the arbitrary power of any single agent or agency”?
(Brack et al., 2019).
Carmen (2022) points out that from the perspective of defenders of
state sovereignty, the EU was a somewhat unintentional and ultimately
undesirable evolution of the treaty creating a common economic space. The
EU could be considered unintentional because once it became operational,
individual states lost unilateral control over many of the changes made by
successive treaties, and undesirable because it encroached on larger and
larger areas of domestic politics.
The signatory states of the 1957 Treaty of Rome began a process
that culminated in a regional organization that gradually asserted legal
supremacy over the member states, thereby weakening the ability of these
states to decide how to manage their own economies and other related
economies. Civic nationalist views defending the idea of national self-
determination and the value of state sovereignty can be interpreted as
supporting this more skeptical view of the EU.
Over the past two decades, the formation of large coalitions has increased
in the European Union (EU), even in countries that have had no previous
political experience with them. Along with the signicant growth of both
177
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 41 Nº 76 (2023): 172-185
new and radical parties, large coalitions signal the growing fragmentation
of contemporary European politics (Morini and Loveless, 2021).
An anti-essentialist perspective helps to better understand the
phenomenon of Brexit and right-wing populist strategy in the United
Kingdom. The success of the “exit” vote in the referendum was due to
the ability of those defending exit from the EU to articulate a range of
demands, in some ways heterogeneous. Tony Blair was largely responsible
for the Brexit. He implemented a program that beneted the middle class
in the south of England, which completely abandoned the more industrial
northern regions. Neoliberal globalization has really devastated these
sectors, and the Brexit referendum exit camp has managed to portray the
European Union as the source of all the problems these communities face.
The Brexit has become hegemonic, highlighting a whole series of
demands. In the construction of the people, heterogeneous demands are
constantly being articulated. It requires a hegemonic qualier that becomes
a symbol that represents the demands; over which the people gather. The
people of the exit campaign clustered around the symbol of the Brexit, which
denoted all the heterogeneous competitions that were in fact resistance to
the post-democratic conditions created by neoliberal hegemony.
Those leading the campaign for exit managed to express this not as a
consequence of neoliberal hegemony, but as a consequence of belonging
to Europe. On this basis, the decision was to take back control and leave
the EU. This became the cement that crystallized the collective will. This
collective freedom was not an expression of existing demands; there were
no such demands against Europe. These demands were constructed by the
discursive campaign “Leave” (Moue and Ouziel, 2022).
2. Methods
The article is based on scientic works, articles, as well as the constituent
documents of the EU. The functioning of these organizations is clearly
evident in the fact that on the one hand, there are supranational bodies,
on the other hand, that successful integration is not necessarily connected
with the creation of supranational bodies.
The methods of research have been selected taking into account the
specics of the goals and objectives of this work. In general, a systematic
approach based on a combination of the dialectical method of scientic
knowledge of international legal phenomena and processes, as well as
general scientic and special research methods was used.
The methodological basis of the work consists of interdisciplinary and
integrated approaches. The interdisciplinary approach is based on the
178
Inna Kostyrya, Oksana Biletska, Marina Shevchenko, Olena Kropyvko y Taras Lysenko
The European Union as a supranational association and the problem of state sovereignty
application of theoretical developments of jurisprudence, philosophy,
history, political science, economic theory, etc., which enable the fullest
comprehensive study of European integration and identify its impact on
the state sovereignty of the European Union countries.
Consequently, the comparative legal method is used in the study of the
content and signs of superpower. In turn, the logical-legal method allows to
nd elements, signs, and models of supranationality.
In the study is used a comprehensive approach aimed at revealing the
multidimensionality and multifactoriality of ontological determinants
of the integration process, contributing to the elucidation of connections
between the various structural levels of public power in the EU.
The hermeneutic method was used in the interpretation of the constituent
treaties and legislation of the EU, constitutions, and other sources of
national law in the aspect of clarifying the powers of Union institutions, the
legal regulation of issues related to the implementation of state sovereignty.
The use of system-structural and structural-functional methods helped
to consider the EU as an institutional-functional organization of power, the
legal order of the EU, giving it a character of integrity, as well as to dene
the degree of complexity of the political system of the EU.
The historical-legal method was used to cover the issue of the evolution
of approaches to the unication of European countries.
In turn, the comparative legal method was used to clarify the legal nature
of the EU as an integration association, identifying a trend to strengthen
the supranational foundations in its institutional mechanism.
3. Results
Together with attempts at new forms of regional integration, the end
of World War II ushered in a new phase for shifting territorial boundaries,
political forces, and institutional structures on the European continent.
From the outset, this sparked various political and scholarly debates about
the further reconguration of state sovereignty, with federalists advocating
the unication of former, mostly belligerent, nation-states into a European
federation (Brack et al., 2019).
Common values are the basis for establishing the institutional structure,
dening the goals and objectives of the integration association, and legislating
them. Common foundations give integration processes sustainability and a
certain direction. The fundamental values remain largely unchanged and
are generally preserved and proclaimed in all the founding acts of the EU.
They may be formulated in dierent ways, undergo certain changes in the
179
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 41 Nº 76 (2023): 172-185
relevant documents, but they remain unchanged in their essential content.
The fundamental values laid down based on integration determine the
nature and ways of achieving the set goals.
In practice, such goals and objectives are formulated and implemented
as part of the development strategy, which may also undergo certain
changes at dierent stages of the development of the integration process,
depending on internal and external conditions. The objectives are directly
related to the tasks, which are enshrined in the regulations and statutes.
These are, rst of all, founding treaties, as well as acts adopted to ensure
their observance. Comparing the European Union with other geopolitical
centers of power, it is necessary to bear in mind a number of its fundamental
peculiarities.
The formation of the single market and the eurozone, contributing to the
convergence of conditions in the EU countries, smoothing the dierences
between the national and regional models of the participants of these
associations, did not deprive them of their national identity (Organisation
for economic co-operation and development, 2019).
The commitment to common ideals, principles, and values is one of the
most important conditions for the formation and stability of integration
associations. Law does not establish values and ideals, it only consolidates
and conrms their existence, builds upon them, and relies on them to ensure
their fullest and most eective implementation (European parliament,
2021).
In the EU, the governance process is no longer carried out exclusively
by the state, but by various supranational, state, and non-state actors
in a polycentric and non-hierarchical system of governance. From this
perspective, it seems that the political supremacy does not belong to the
member states or to the supranational bodies of the EU, but between them
is exercised in dierent ways and combinations according to the sphere of
politics.
Over time, the EU has developed into a unique system of multi-level
governance, in which national governments are limited in their ability to
control the supranational institutions they have created at the European
level. Who decides and how is not always clear in a policy that brings together
28 member states, a wide range of institutions, bodies, expert committees,
national agencies, and national institutions in constant interaction with
their domestic and international counterparts (Zaharia and Pozneacova,
2020).
The EU continues to consist of sovereign actors in international
economic relations who have transferred only part of their sovereignty to
supranational bodies, choosing European values as a guide in state-building
processes. Within the EU, states often act for themselves but join forces
180
Inna Kostyrya, Oksana Biletska, Marina Shevchenko, Olena Kropyvko y Taras Lysenko
The European Union as a supranational association and the problem of state sovereignty
against third countries at the supranational level. A “Europeanization of
values and nationalization of interests” is taking place (Razumkov centre,
2021).
Regarding the new European Union candidates, it is important to note
that Central and Eastern European countries wishing to join the European
Union must undertake public administration reforms at the national
level to meet the Copenhagen and Madrid criteria for European Union
membership. In turn, such reforms are expressed in the adaptation of EU
values by introducing qualitative multisectoral reforms in order to bring
national legal systems as close as possible to EU law (Gerasymova et al.,
2021).
In the liberal intergovernmental mechanism, “domestic social actors”
are embodied, in essence, as economic producers who contribute to shaping
the advantages of states and the “winning set” available to them during
intergovernmental negotiations (Figure 1). In view of this, postfunctionalism
is the only theoretical approach that emphasizes the primacy of domestic
politics and the possible pressures it can have on reducing the level and
scope of integration (Webber, 2019).
He also notes the relevance of politicizing issues related to identity and
sovereignty, especially for explaining crises. For example, the migration
crisis, the illiberal challenge, and Brexit can be explained in part by the
moderating eect of the politicization of identity and/or sovereignty issues
by political actors at the domestic level. These crises mobilized collective
identities, which some saw them as sovereignty issues, and any attempts to
depoliticize these issues had the opposite eect (Börzel et al., 2019).
Figure 1. Liberal mechanism of formation of supranational European Union
(author’s own development).
181
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 41 Nº 76 (2023): 172-185
Although post-functionalism does not oer a particular development
of the concept of sovereignty per se, it emphasizes the need to go beyond
the binary opposition of national sovereignty versus supranationalism and
shows how important internal actors and events are for understanding EU
integration and its crises (Brack et al., 2019).
Daring to categorize the European Union, it is necessary to agree with
Villasmil (2022), who point out that it is the timely resolution of the crises
in dierent democratic societies that will determine the continuation of this
form of government in time, a situation that requires a specic scientic
study of each experience of polyarchy in the hands of an interdisciplinary
team and, more importantly, still through the support of an organized civil
society that wants to build a better reality.
According to Bellamy, state sovereignty matters because people living
in states have a long history of self-government. Liberal-democratic states
give their citizens room to create and shape the institutions governing their
social and economic lives to ensure freedom and justice, including political
and social rights. But a proper assessment of state sovereignty does not
require the abandonment of supranational institutional schemes that bring
states together.
Indeed, supranational institutions such as the EU oer states a number
of important advantages, including regulating their interactions to avoid
interstate domination, addressing collective action, and cooperating to
better meet the needs of their citizens. But to be consistent about respect
for state sovereignty, cooperation among states is best realized through
a “consensus agreement among democratic states,” acting as democratic
representatives of their citizens (Bellamy, 2019).
Since the famous Maastricht ruling of the German Constitutional Court
in 1993, there has been a constant debate around the “No demos” thesis. In
their ruling on the Maastricht Treaty, German judges argued that there were
no pan-European demos that would underlie a possibly fully democratic
European polity. Thus, the main problem with popular sovereignty in the
EU is the impossibility of nding a sovereign who could grant powers to
joint institutions (Rose, 2019).
On the one hand, the fact that dierent people remain distinct
means that they retain control (i.e., veto power or withdrawal) over the
constitutive rules of state structure; on the other hand, it also implies that
dierent European peoples are obliged to exercise their sovereignty “only
in agreement with all other members of the state or people.”
Today’s political practice, however, shows that a) on an intellectual
level, the concept of democracy has no political or social consensus, and b)
on a practical level, shared sovereignty is not (yet?) an operational concept;
rather, it tests the limits of dierent types of sovereignty in everyday politics,
182
Inna Kostyrya, Oksana Biletska, Marina Shevchenko, Olena Kropyvko y Taras Lysenko
The European Union as a supranational association and the problem of state sovereignty
igniting vivid conicts with destructive potential for democratic order in
Europe (Brack et al., 2019).
4. Discussion
Institutionalized cooperation among states does not diminish the
sovereignty of member states and their people but can preserve and enhance
it. It becomes possible: by creating the conditions of external sovereignty,
providing for the protection of states from undue interference by other
states, or by enabling states to increase their internal capacity to promote
and protect the interests of their citizens.
In general, one can agree with the normative framework and the need
to dene more precisely the relationship between state sovereignty and
supranational institutions. But, contrary to the arguments, one cannot
see how a supranational structure like the European Union can be created
without reducing the sovereign power of member states.
Over the past decade, the EU has been confronted with a “polycrisis”.
While it may seem that the EU is in a state of permanent crisis, this time is
dierent, as the European project has never had to face so many challenges
simultaneously, over such a long period of time, and with such a high price
to pay for inaction (Brack et al., 2019).
Over the past 10 years, not only have some Eastern and Central
European countries consistently challenged the legitimacy of the EU
and the Commission to take action when national governments adopt
legislative changes that put pressure on the liberal constitutional order and
the independence of their judicial systems, but more recently they have
challenged the necessarily supranational institutions to defend the common
values on which the EU was founded. This debate has raised fundamental
normative, political, and legal questions about the nature of the EU’s
political regime and its role in protecting shared values and preventing
member states from putting those values under signicant pressure. This
is an existential threat and a political challenge to EU integration (Brack et
al., 2019).
The result of the Brexit referendum on June 23, 2016, came as a shock
not only to those remaining in Britain but also to pro-Europeans throughout
the EU. Apparently, pro-European adherents signicantly misjudged the
support of most of their preferences. It is plausible to expect that an event
with such visibility and ramications will aect the shaping of beliefs and
benets not only among British citizens but also European citizens outside
the UK (Delis et al., 2020).
183
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 41 Nº 76 (2023): 172-185
Conclusions
The EU is an example of an orderly condence-building process,
allowing governments to steadily cede elements of national prerogatives
to supranational institutions. In an eort to lay the foundation for greater
integration to make future wars in Europe impossible, a gradual approach
was adopted, beginning with the European Coal and Steel Community as
the area where the benets of cooperation after the war were most evident.
Based on this, the Treaties of Rome establishing the European Economic
Community were signed in 1957.
The 1978 decision of the European Court of Justice established the
principle of mutual recognition of judgments in any one state among all
other European states. The Single European Act of 1987 abolished the
requirement of unanimity in decision-making, and then streamlined
Europe in 1992 and abolished border controls. The European Parliament
evolved from a deliberative group of national parliamentarians to a directly
elected body.
The Maastricht Treaty of 1992 called for a common currency and gave
legal meaning to the concept of Union citizenship. The Lisbon Treaty in 2009
expanded European competence, strengthening the European Parliament.
There have been ups and downs, and countries have progressed at dierent
rates, but the Union has expanded to 28 members.
Since the end of the twentieth century, the EU is believed to have suered
from a signicant legitimacy crisis, combining symptoms of a structural
democratic decit on the one hand and a general lack of eective solutions
to common problems on the other.
Since the creation of the European project, the external relations of
the European Union and its member states have been central to their
development at the international level. A striking feature of international
relations today is the increasing number of international organizations
and international agreements, as well as the growing range of issues they
involve. This naturally encourages the EU and its member states to make
active use of their external powers. While the EU has gained a lot of external
powers - because of treaties and case law - member states can still take
autonomous actions, as long as they do not violate EU law.
Sovereignty is at the heart of conicts over membership, as the Brexit
showed. Although in the past “closest union” was the only way forward, and
the return of sovereignty was unthinkable and legally impossible, the Lisbon
Treaty allows member states to withdraw from the Union in accordance
with their constitutional requirements. The extent to which leaving the EU
allows a return to the world of “early sovereignty” is unknown, and Brexit
is an interesting case in point. Similarly, the conicts in Britain over the
184
Inna Kostyrya, Oksana Biletska, Marina Shevchenko, Olena Kropyvko y Taras Lysenko
The European Union as a supranational association and the problem of state sovereignty
Brexit reveal a fundamental tension between dierent types of sovereignty,
in particular between popular sovereignty and parliamentary sovereignty.
These crises demonstrate that conicts of sovereignty occur at dierent
levels, in dierent domestic situations, and involve dierent spheres of
politics.
Bibliographic References
ABRAMSON, Scottf; CARTER, Davidb; YING, Luwei. 2022. “Historical
Border Changes, State Building, and Contemporary Trust in Europe”
In: American Political Science Review. Vol. 116, No. 3, pp. 875-895.
BELLAMY, Richard. 2019. “A Republican Europe of states: Cosmopolitanism,
intergovernmental and democracy in the EU”. Cambridge University
Press. Available online. In: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139136303.
Consultation date: 10/06/2022.
BÖRZEL, Tanja; RISSE, Thomas. 2018. “From the Euro to the
Schengen crises. European integration theories, politicization
and identity politics” In: Journal of European Public Policy.
Available online. In: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/
full/10.1080/13501763.2017.1310281?scroll=top&needAccess=true.
Consultation date: 10/06/2022.
BRACK, Nathalie; COMAN, Ramona; CRESPY, Amandine. 2019 ‘‘Sovereignty
conicts in the European Union” In: Les Cahiers du Cevipol. No. 4, pp.
3-30.
CARMEN, Pavel. 2022. “The European Union and diminished state
sovereignty” In: Critical Review of International Social and Political
Philosophy. Vol. 25. No. 4, pp. 596-603.
DELIS, Agelos; MATAKOS, Konstantinos; XEFTERIS, Dimitrios .2020.
“Electoral spillovers in an intertwined world: Brexit eects on the 2016
Spanish vote” In: British Journal of Political Science. Vol. 50, No. 3,
рр.1169-1174.
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT. 2021. The protection of Article 2 TEU values
in the EU. Available online. In: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/
factsheets/en/sheet/146/the-protection-of-article-2-teu-values-in-the-
eu. Consultation date: 10/06/2022.
GERASYMOVA, Elvira; KUTSEPAL, Svitlana; VYKHOVANETS, Zorina;
KRAVCHENKO, Olena; YUKHYMENKO, Nataliia. 2021. “European
Union as a Set of New Values in State-Building Processes in EU
185
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 41 Nº 76 (2023): 172-185
Enlargement Candidate Countries” In: Cuestiones Políticas. Vol. 39, No.
71. pp. 62-80.
LONGO, Erik. 2019 “The European Citizens’ initiative: too much democracy for
EU polity?” In: German Law Journal. Cambridge University Press. Vol.
20, No. 2, pp. 181-200.
MORINI, Marco; LOVELESS, Matthew. 2021. “Losers together? Grand
coalitions in the EU member states” In: Italian Political Science Review/
Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica. Cambridge University Press. Vol. 51,
No. 3, pp. 404-418.
MOUFFE, Chantal; OUZIEL, Pablo. 2022. Agonistic Representative Democracy
in Europe. Democratic Multiplicity: Perceiving, Enacting, and Integrating
Democratic Diversity. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, UK.
NANOPOULOS, Eva; VERGIS, Fotis . 2019. “The Inherently Undemocratic EU
Democracy: Moving beyond the ‘Democratic Decit’ Debate,” The Crisis
behind the Eurocrisis: The Eurocrisis as a Multidimensional Systemic
Crisis of the EU. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, UK.
ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT.
2019. The European Union: A People-Centered Agenda. An International
Perspective. OECD, 114 p. Paris, France.
RAZUMKOV CENTRE. 2021. Ukraine-EU Partnership in the Security Sphere.
Razumkov Centre, 71 p. Kyiv, Ukraine.
ROSE, Richard .2019. “Referendum challenges to the EU’s policy legitimacy –
and how the EU responds” In: Journal of European Public Policy. Vol.
26, No 2, pp. 207-225.
VILLASMIL ESPINOZA, Jorge; BABARYKINA, Nadiia. 2022. “Crisis del
modelo democrático en el siglo XXI” In: Cuestiones Políticas. Vol.
40, No.72, pp. 16-20. Available online. In: https://doi.org/10.46398/
cuestpol.4072.00. Consultation date: 10/06/2022.
WEBBER, Douglas. 2019. European Disintegration? The politics of crisis in the
EU, Palgrave.
ZAHARIA, Virginia; POZNEACOVA, Veronica. 2020. “Supranationalism vs.
Intergovernmentalism in the Actual Organization of EU” In: Logos
Universality Mentality Education Novelty: Political Sciences and
European Studies. Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 47-61.
www.luz.edu.ve
www.serbi.luz.edu.ve
www.produccioncienticaluz.org
Esta revista fue editada en formato digital y publicada
en enero de 2023, por el Fondo Editorial Serbiluz,
Universidad del Zulia. Maracaibo-Venezuela
Vol.41 Nº 76
