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

Year 1998, Volume: 3 Issue: 3, 0 - 0, 01.09.1998

Çinar Özen

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 See Haas, Ernest B. (1968), The Uniting of Europe, Standford.
• 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 Haas, Earnest B., The Uniting of Europe, p. 5.
• 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 Linberg, Leon N. (1963), The Political Dynamics of European Economic Integration, London, p. 10.
• 6 Haas, Ernest B. (1961), “International Integration: The European and the Universal Integration”, International Organisation, Vol. XV, No. 3, p. 368.
• 7 Pentland, Charles, op. cit., p. 109.
• 8 Haas, Ernest B., The Uniting of Europe, p. 4; Pentland, Charles (1973), International Theory and European Integration, New York, p.122.
• 9 Haas, Ernest B. (1964), Beyond the Nation-State, Stanford, p. 35.
• 10 Haas, Ernest B., The Uniting of Europe, p.13.
• 11 Ibid, p.16.
• 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 Ayberk, Ural, Le Mécanisme de la Prise des Décisions Communautaires en Matière de Relations Internationales, p. 310.
• 14 Dalmas, P.; Dalage, O.; Grzybek, G.; Schreiber, T., op. cit., p. 91.
• 15 Birand, Mehmet Ali (1990), Türkiye’nin Ortak Pazar Macerası 1959-1990, (The Common Market Experience of Turkey 1959-1990), İstanbul, p. 73.
• 16 Avrupa Birli¤i ve Türkiye, (European Union and Turkey), T.C. Başbakanlık Dış Ticaret Müsteşarlığı, Ankara, 1996, p. 248.
• 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 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 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 See Eralp, op. cit., p. 29.
• 21 See Kirkpatrick, Jeane J. (1990), “Beyond the Cold War”, Foreign Affairs, Vol.LXIX, No. l, p. 2.
• 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 Avis de la Commission sur la Demande d’Adhésion de la Turquie à la Communauté, Sec (89) 2290 final, 18 Décembre 1989.
• 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 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 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 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 Luxembourg European Council, 12-13 December 1997, Conclusions of the Presidency, Bull. EU. 12-1997.
• 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 Balkır, Canan, “Turkey and the European Community: Foreign Trade and Direct Foreign Investment in the 1980s”, in Turkey and Europe, p.103.
• 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 Balkır, Canan, op.cit., p. 103.
• 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