NEO-FUNCTIONALISM AND THE CHANGE IN THE DYNAMICS OF TURKEY-EU RELATIONS

Abstract

The principal question to which we have tried to find an answer in this article is whether neo-functionalism, as a comprehensive and largely accepted international integration theory, remains valid in explaining different kinds of integration movements towards a political end. In order to test the neo-functional integration model we have adopted the case study method, and the Turkey-European Union integration movement has been chosen as the case. Neo-functionalism is an integration theory proposing a model to achieve establishing a political community at the end of the integration process. In this model neo-functionalism creates a linkage between economic and political integration. Neo-functionalists claim that after the creation of an economic integration within the framework of a supranational organisation, political integration would come into existence almost automatically. By pursuing this way of integration, the neo-functionalists anticipate to reach a federal or a confederate State at the end. To test the neo-functionalist integration model, we have applied its hypothesis to the Turkey-EU integration process and we have tried to observe especially the differences and similarities between this hypothesis and the changing dynamics of Turkey-EU relations throughout this integration process. Meanwhile, we have tried to analyse the historical developments of Turkey-EU relations and the economic and political issues stemming from this relationship in the theoretical framework of neo-functionalism. Thus, we have assumed to explain on the one hand the dynamics of the Turkey-EU integration movement, and on the other, the fragility of neo-functionalism as an international integration theory.

References

1. 1 See Haas, Ernest B. (1968), The Uniting of Europe, Standford.
2. 2 Functionalism elaborated by David Mitrany with his essay ‘A Working Peace System is the Principal Precursor of the Neo-functionalism’ See Mitrany, David, A. (1966), Working Peace System, Chicago.
3. 3 Haas, Earnest B., The Uniting of Europe, p. 5.
4. 4 Georges, Stephan (1991), Politics and Policy in the European Community, New York, p. 21-22; Haas, Ernest B., The Uniting of Europe, p. 13-14; Haas, Ernest B. (1958), “The Challenge of Regionalism”, International Organisation, Vol. XII, No. 4, p. 450; Diebold, W. Jr., “Theory and Practice of European Integration”, World Politics, Vol. XI, No. 4, July 1959, p. 627.
5. 5 Linberg, Leon N. (1963), The Political Dynamics of European Economic Integration, London, p. 10.
6. 6 Haas, Ernest B. (1961), “International Integration: The European and the Universal Integration”, International Organisation, Vol. XV, No. 3, p. 368.
7. 7 Pentland, Charles, op. cit., p. 109.
8. 8 Haas, Ernest B., The Uniting of Europe, p. 4; Pentland, Charles (1973), International Theory and European Integration, New York, p.122.

9. 9 Haas, Ernest B. (1964), Beyond the Nation-State, Stanford, p. 35.
10. 10 Haas, Ernest B., The Uniting of Europe, p.13.
11. 11 Ibid, p.16.
12. 12 See Bilge, Suat A. (1992), Güç Komşuluk: Türkiye-Sovyetler Birliği İlişkileri 1920-1964, (The Difficult Neighbourhood: The Turkey Soviet Union Relations 1920-1964), Ankara, pp. 261-264; Dalmas, P., Da Lage, O., Grzybek, G., and Schreiber, T. (1986), Jeux de Go en Méiterranée Orientale, Paris, pp. 23-25; Gönlübol, Mehmet, et. al. (1987), Olaylarla Türk Dış Politikası, (Turkish Foreign Policy with Cases), Ankara, pp.192-193; ERALP, A.. “Turkey and the European Community in the Changing Post-war International System”,in Turkey and Europe Canan Balkır and A. Williams (Eds.), London, 1963, p. 24.
13. 13 Ayberk, Ural, Le Mécanisme de la Prise des Décisions Communautaires en Matière de Relations Internationales, p. 310.
14. 14 Dalmas, P.; Dalage, O.; Grzybek, G.; Schreiber, T., op. cit., p. 91.
15. 15 Birand, Mehmet Ali (1990), Türkiye’nin Ortak Pazar Macerası 1959-1990, (The Common Market Experience of Turkey 1959-1990), İstanbul, p. 73.
16. 16 Avrupa Birli¤i ve Türkiye, (European Union and Turkey), T.C. Başbakanlık Dış Ticaret Müsteşarlığı, Ankara, 1996, p. 248.
17. 17 Accord Créant une Association entre la CEE et la Turquie, JOCE, NO.217, 29 December 1964; Official Gazette, No. ll858, 17 November 1964.
18. 18 Le Protocole Additional Signé le 23 November 1970, Annexé à l’Accord Créant une Association entre la Communautee Economique Européenne et la Turquie, JOCE, NO. L 293, du 29 Décembre 1972.
19. 19 Akagul, D. (1955), “L’Union Douanière entre 1’Union Européenne et la Turquie: Un Pas vers l’Adhesion?”, in Le Rôle Géostratégique de la Turquie; D Billion (Ed.), Paris, p.112; Çayhan, Esra (1997), Türkiye-Avrupa Birliği İlişkileri, İstanbul, pp. 199- 205.
20. 20 See Eralp, op. cit., p. 29.
21. 21 See Kirkpatrick, Jeane J. (1990), “Beyond the Cold War”, Foreign Affairs, Vol.LXIX, No. l, p. 2.
22. 22 For the speech of the Jacques Delors, Head of the European Commission, explainning the European Communities approach on this issue, see Bull. CE. 9-1989, point 3.3.1.
23. 23 Avis de la Commission sur la Demande d’Adhésion de la Turquie à la Communauté, Sec (89) 2290 final, 18 Décembre 1989.
24. 24 See Bahçeli, T. (1994), “Turkey, the Gulf Crisis, and the New World Order”, in The Gulf and the New World Order, T.Y. Ismael and J.S. Ismael (Eds.), Gainesville-Florida, p. 435.
25. 25 Arık, Umut (1996), “Yeni Türk Cumhuriyetleri ve Türkiye”, (The New Turkish Republics and Turkey), Uluslararası İlişkilerde Olaylar ve Yorumlar, No. XXIV, p. 5; Kaleağası, Bahadır (1995), “Le Défi Européen”, in Semih Vaner, et. al., (Eds.), La Turquie en Mouvement, Bruxelles, p.121.
26. 26 Asmus, R.; Larabee, F.S.; Lesser, I.O., “La Sécurité dans le Bassin Méditerranéen. Nouveaux Défis et Nouvelles Tâches”, Revue de I’OTAN, No. 3, Mai 1996, p. 26.
27. 27 Conseil Européen de Lisbonne, 26-27 Juin 1992, Conclusions de la Présidence, Bull. CE. 6-1992; Conseil Européen de Copenhague, 21-22 Juin 1993, Conclusions de la Présidence, Bull. CE. 6-1993; Essen European Council, 9-10 December 1994, Conclusions of the Presidency, Bull. EU. 12-1994; Cannes European Council, 26-27 June 1995, Conclusions of the Presidency, Bull. EU. 6-1995.
28. 28 Luxembourg European Council, 12-13 December 1997, Conclusions of the Presidency, Bull. EU. 12-1997.
29. 29 Kazgan, Gülten (1993), “External Pressures and tne New Policy Outlook”, in Turkey and Europe; Canan Balkır, Allan M Williams, (Eds.), New York, pp. 69-71.
30. 30 Balkır, Canan, “Turkey and the European Community: Foreign Trade and Direct Foreign Investment in the 1980s”, in Turkey and Europe, p.103.
31. 31 Güvenen, Orhan, “A Statistical Presentation of the New and Ernerging Trends in Turkish-EU Cooperation: With Specific Reference to Customs Union”, in Partners For Growth: New Trends in EC-Turkey Cooperation, A Forum Europe Conference, Brussels, 1993, p. 186.
32. 32 Balkır, Canan, op.cit., p. 103.
33. 33 Avrupa Birli¤i ve Türkiye, (European Union and Turkey), p. 248-249; DIE Haber Bülteni, Temmuz 1997 Dış Ticaret İstatistikleri, (State Institute of Statistics News Bulletin, July 1997), p. 3 ; Turkey ‘96 (1996), Export Promotion Center of Turkey, Ankara, p. 95