globalization, regional integration and human rights

8/8/2019 Globalization, Regional Integration and Human Rights

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/globalization-regional-integration-and-human-rights 1/21

The Challenge of Globalization, European Union Regional Integration and its Implications

on Human Rights

Introduction

The end of the Cold War and the subsequent end of the politico-ideological conflict

between American democracy and Soviet socialism led to increased attention being paid on two

phenomena: “globalization and regional integration” (Janowski 2006, p.3). Globalization and

regional integration were not new phenomena at that point in time, but they were observed to

have intensified in the post-Cold War period. According to scholars, this intensification took

place because after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Iron Curtain and the Bamboo Curtain, “two

conflicting desires appeared…the wish to create a world free of barriers…and the desire to

cooperate with neighboring countries on the other” (Janowski 2006, p.4). Consequently,

globalization and regional integration intensified as processes. This reality was reflected in the

example of the countries that were members of the European Community, which deepened

regional integration in the post-Cold War era through the “Maastricht Treaty on [the] European

Union (1993), and the Amsterdam Treaty (1999)” (Tsebelis and Garrett 2001, p.357).

The intensification of European Union regional integration had a number of implications

on the human rights regime of the EU. As such, this paper aims to explore the connection

between the two phenomena of globalization and regional integration in the EU and how it has

affected, and has been affected by the Union’s internal human rights regime. This will be done

by examining three main questions. First of all, what are the phenomena of regional integration

and globalization, and how are they manifested? Secondly, what is the relationship between

globalization and regional integration? And thirdly, how has the relationship between

globalization and regional integration in the EU affected the internal governance of the regional

1



arrangement? The implications of the relationship between globalization and regional integration

in the European Union will then be explored with regard to the issue of human rights.

What are the phenomena of regionalism and globalization, and how are they manifested?

As was mentioned, earlier, regionalism and globalization are processes that intensified

after the fall of the Soviet Union. Looking at the two phenomena, one finds that they actually

exist on two levels of reality. Regionalism exists on the level of nation-states that occupy a

specific geographic area, and is therefore more limited in scope compared to globalization,

which exists on a global level, affecting multiple levels of reality alike. For that reason, it

appears more prudent to begin by discussing the phenomenon of globalization.

Scholars have produced a plethora of literature in order to define and illustrate

globalization, but an exhaustive survey of the said literature would be beyond the scope of the

paper. A sufficiently descriptive survey may be found in the work of Jacques Gelinas in his

article entitled “Juggernaut Politics. Understanding Predatory Globalization”, which describes

globalization as a “system”, a “process”, an “ideology” and, perhaps, an “alibi” (Gelinas 2003).

First of all, globalization is a system because it entails the “total control of the world by powerful

supranational economic interests” (Gelinas 2003). This is the reason, for example, that

multinational corporations have grown in power. The ability of multinational corporations such

as Nike, Sony or Citibank to move their business to wherever government policies are most

conducive to them makes it so that they have a great deal of influence over governments because

of their ability to simply terminate relationships. The growth of multinational corporations has

been facilitated by developments in technology, which have allowed for much more rapid and

instantaneous transactions and communication across the globe. This concept is captured by

2



David Harvey (1997) in terms of “time-space compression” (Harvey 1997, p.260), or the

shrinking of the world through trade liberalization and very likely technological developments,

such as the internet, which have led to increasing speed of transactions and relations across the

globe. Time-space compression is said to have led to “a shift away from the consumption of

goods and into the consumption of services” (Harvey 1997, p.285). It is this notion of time-space

compression that has allowed globalization as a system to flourish as it has done.

Apart from being a system, globalization has also been described as a process. Given that

the global capitalist system is currently viewed as the hegemon of the globalized system, the

logic of capitalism has also become a central process to the system. As a result, globalization

implies the constant restructuring, rationalizing and re-engineering of multinational companies in

order to increase capital accumulation. Consequently, developing countries have to adapt to the

processes of the new global hegemons; the multinational companies (Gelinas 2003). Related to

this is the idea that globalization is also said to be an ideology. In other words, it is a discourse

aimed at rationalizing and explaining the world according to the worldview of those who hold

power. This means that neo-liberal ideas have also gained a hegemonic position in the realm of

the ideational.

Related to the hegemony of multinational companies and neo-liberal ideas is the

intensification of tribalism. In his book entitled Jihad Versus McWorld (2006), Benjamin Barber

discusses how the dual phenomena of Jihad and McWorld, which stem from globalization, are

eroding the ability of nation-states to perform their functions. The phenomenon of McWorld

refers to the growth and rise in position of multinational companies, which was discussed earlier.

The phenomenon Barber referred to as Jihad, however, refers to what is more commonly referred

to as “tribalism”. That is, the rise of intense ethnic and religious nationalism that threatens to

3



erode the nation-state from below. This idea was also briefly discussed in the work of Paul James

(2006) in his work entitled “Globalism, Nationalism, Tribalism. Bringing Theory Back In”. The

effect of the phenomenon of tribalism is that sub-national groups are invoking their intense

nationality to break away from the nation-state, as in the case of the Basques in Spain.

Globalization, therefore, has the effect of eroding the sovereign capabilities of the nation-state,

either at the supra-state level or the sub-state level.

Finally, returning to Gelinas’ article, globalization was equated with being an alibi.

Globalization has been invoked by economic and political elites of various nation-states as an

excuse to escape from their social and environmental responsibilities. Anti-globalization rhetoric

has been used by leaders of various developing countries as an excuse for their lack of economic

development, despite the fact that their regimes have been accused of corruption and poor

governance. Globalization has become the scapegoat for their shortcomings. Hence, one

observes that globalization has been a phenomenon that has been highly politicized. It has been

truly detrimental for some groups, such as the poor of the developing world, but at the same

time, it has been beneficial for some stakeholders, such as multinational corporations. What is

clear, however, is that globalization has been used for various political ends by various groups,

and has the effect of altering states’ “options for actions in core questions of domestic policy as

well as…the economy or foreign political relations” (Janowski 2006,p.16).

Having discussed globalization, which is the first phenomenon, it is now possible to

discuss regionalism, the second phenomenon. Regionalism, or regional integration, is essentially

a form of intergovernmentalism, but it is one that is confined within a specific geographic region.

Ramesh and van Langenhove (2006) provide a general definition of regional integration,

describing it as “a process in which a group of…countries moves from a condition of partial or

4



utter isolation toward one of partial or complete manifestation” (Ramesh and van Langenhove

2006, p.233). It has also been said that “the process of regional integration goes along with a

momentum of consolidation, determination and the pooling of common interests. The level of

integration may range from a loose cooperation to a pooling of national sovereignty” (Janowski

2006, p.20). A loose regional cooperation may be seen in the case of APEC, while a pooling of

national sovereignty is what exists in the European Union; arguably the most sophisticated

regional arrangement that currently exists.

Theorizing about regional integration has yielded five differing degrees of regional

integration:

“On a first degree of rather natural ‘regionness’, the region appears as acoincidental geographical unit. On this basic level, regionalism does not

require any kind of human interaction. The region simply exists by naturally

given factors. As soon as states interact, regions reach a second degree of

regionalism. Mere geographic units turn into social entities that foster trans-

national exchange…Regular political, economic, or military interactions are

features of a third degree of regional integration…Once a broad intraregional

communication starts that includes actors of the civil society, a fourth degree

of region has been reached…On the fifth and highest degree, regional entitiesact as subjects with an own identity, actor capability as well as structures that

allow region-wide decision-making” (Janowski 2006, p.20).

Using the typologies described above, one finds that various regional arrangements would fit into

each of the aforementioned categories. The first degree of regionalism characterizes regions that

have little or no integration whatsoever, such as Northeast Asia or the Middle East. The second

degree of regionalism is exemplified by the Asia-Europe Meetings (ASEM). APEC is an

example of the third degree of regionalism, where regular meetings take place, but only

government elites are involved in the integration process. The fourth degree of integration is

exemplified by ASEAN, which has regular meetings that involves civil society as well. The fifth

and highest degree exists in the guise of the European Union alone, and as such, it remains to be

a regional arrangement sui generis.

5



Regionalism is therefore a very complex process. It exists in many guises, but it is limited

in terms of geography as well as in terms of actors. Having briefly discussed globalization and

regionalism, it is now possible to explore the relationship between the two phenomena.

What is the relationship between globalization and regionalism?

According to scholars of regional integration and globalization, “whether we agree to

more positive or rather skeptical positions on globalization, it is assumable that globalization and

regional integration are related issues” (Janowski 2006, p.18). The relationship between the two

phenomena has been interpreted in a number of ways. The fact that they are parallel phenomena,

however, appears to be widely accepted for the most part. For example, in the work of James

Rosenau (1999), there is a call for an understanding of global politics that goes beyond

considering solely the agency of nation-states due to their possession of sovereignty in the face

of globalizing forces. In the article, Rosenau (1999) states that

“states retain their sovereign rights, but the realms within which these rights can

be exercised has diminished as the world becomes ever more interdependent and

as state boundaries become ever more porous. With the increasing diffusion of authority, states can no longer rely on their sovereignty as a basis for protecting

their interests in the face of increasingly complex challenges” (Rosenau 1999, p.292).

States are therefore less capable to unilaterally exercise their sovereignty as a result of

globalizing forces, which result in events taking place “through, over, and around the long-

established boundaries of states” (Rosenau 1999, p.293). Consequently, states have had to adapt

with globalizing forces by relocating the exercises of their “authority upwards to transnational

and supranational organizations, sidewards to social movements and NGOs, and downwards

towards subnational groups” (Rosenau 1999, p.293). As a result, Rosenau’s (1999)

understanding of global politics is one that is not “dominated by states and national governments,

[instead] the new ontology builds on the premise that the world is comprised of spheres of

6



authority (SOAs)” (Rosenau 1999, p.294). One example that may be cited with regard to the

notion of SOAs is the case of the European Union, which has configured itself in terms of a

region, with authority relocated upwards toward supranational authorities. This has entailed the

experience of the phenomenon of regional integration, thereby indicating the fact that at the very

least, using Rosenau’s (1999) framework, regional integration is a phenomenon that appears

alongside the phenomenon of globalization.

Others scholars, however, have come to understand the relationship between regional

integration and globalization in a more clearly defined manner, particularly as it is seen in the

case of the European Union. The regional integration scholar Ludger Kühnhardt, for example,

says that the relationship between globalization and regional integration may be characterized in

two words: challenge and response (Kühnhardt 2006). Regional integration has been described

as a response to the challenge that is globalization. This coincides with the widely-held belief

that regional integration among nation-states is a type of coping mechanism in order to shield

themselves from the negative effects of globalization. The essence of this sentiment was captured

in a political cartoon in the French newspaper Le Monde. Therein, one finds a picture of the

former French President Jacques Chirac warding off a tiger that is symbolic of globalization. In

his right hand, he is holding the spear of “France”, while in his left hand; he is holding a shield

representing the “European Union”. Hence, in this illustration, one finds the idea of a regional

arrangement acting as a response, a figurative shield, against globalization.

Ludger Kühnhardt, in one of his articles, succinctly discussed regional integration and

globalization in terms of challenge and response. This is a twist on the theory of historian Arnold

Toynbee. Using the example of the European Union, Kühnhardt discussed how, historically, the

European Union’s integration coincided with crises that affected the countries of the region. For

7



example, the recognized first step towards regional integration in Europe, the European Coal and

Steel Commission (ECSC), came about as a result of the destruction “of Europe in two wars”

(Kühnhardt 2006, p.5). Furthermore, “it is interesting to note…that the most important crises and

turning points in European integration have been linked…to fundamental developments and

adaptation crises in transatlantic relations” (Kühnhardt 2006, p.15). It is due to the

aforementioned facts that Kühnhardt is able to conclude that regional integration is indeed a

response to challenges that arise.

Shifting Kühnhardt’s theory onto the world of the present, one finds that regional

integration has also taken place in Europe in response to the challenge of globalization. The

formation of regional intergovernmental organizations has come about as a result of such factors

as the need to increase the economic policy implementation of states beyond their individual

borders, and the need to guarantee peace and security in the region. Each of the abovementioned

factors may be observed in the regional arrangement that has developed through the European

Union.

The first, and perhaps most common, factor for the formation of regional

intergovernmental organizations is the need to exercise sovereignty beyond state borders in terms

of economic or financial policies. Historically speaking, it is for economic reasons that the

ECSC, the predecessor of the EU, was formed. By adopting a uniform set of rules and stands in a

regional arrangement, such as what has occurred in the European Union, individual states are

able to impose norms “under the umbrella of a scheme of pooled sovereignty” (Kühnhardt 2005,

p.17). On the one hand, this allows for greater state control over increasingly mobile

multinational companies, while at the same time, individual states’ economies are able to benefit

through preferential trade agreements that facilitate the transfer of goods, services, people and

8



capital across, what were once, solid state boundaries, as in the case of the European common

market. Furthermore, by forming an economic regional partnership, individual states are able to

create a unified voice in international economic fora, thus increasing their bargaining efficacy.

The factors mentioned above may be seen to allow states to increase their capacities beyond

individual boundaries.

It has been said, however, that although “region building might begin with a free trade

agreement…a free trade agreement does not preclude the development towards more

comprehensive schemes of…integration” (Kühnhardt 2005, p.30). A political will to look

beyond national identities, and towards a common destiny, is needed in order for regional

integration to succeed. It is in this way that the member states of the European Union have

maintained peace and security in the region, despite having been at war form most of their

history. It was said that “shortly after the horrendous World War II…mistrust and cultural

suspicion were as prevailing in Europe as the hope to overcome the deadly vicious circle of

antagonistic and clashing nationalism” (Kühnhardt 2005, p.19). As such, “it turned out to be

right and far-sighted to begin European integration…because at the end, it also transformed

cultural relations in Europe” (Kühnhardt 2005, p.19). As a result of EU integration, there has

been a “mutual recognition of cultural diversity…based on the understanding that European

integration is a process toward a common political identity without undermining the cultural

diversity of its people” (Kühnhardt 2005, p.19). Furthermore, by recognizing diversity, the EU is

able to create an identity that is not tied to the erosion of the sovereignty of the state; namely a

“European political identity” (Kühnhardt 2005, p.19) thereby allowing it to cope with

globalization’s tendency towards increased tribalism.

9



In the case of the European Union, therefore, a combination of political will and

recognition of cultural diversity stimulated by regional economic cooperation has been the base

upon which the European Union developed. And looking at the depth to which the EU has been

able to integrate, one may say that the strategy of regional integration has been a successful

coping mechanism with the general phenomenon that is globalization.

How has the relationship between globalization and regional integration in the EU affected the

internal governance of the regional arrangement?

Typologies of regional integration have been attempted, and one form of typology was

discussed earlier in the paper, with various regional arrangements being classified depending on

the strength of the integration among member nations. Naturally, the top example in the

integration hierarchy is that of the European Union, with all other forms of regional integration

falling under lesser forms of integration. Given that there are various forms of regional

integration in existence, what is significant to discuss in this paper are the forms of governance

that take place within a regional arrangement, and consequently, the factors that need to be

considered by nation-states when becoming a part of a regional arrangement. Given that a state

has decided to apply the strategy of regional integration to cope with globalization, the question

then is: what strategies do nation-states employ within a regional arrangement in order for them

to be able to achieve their individual and collective goals as member states of a regionally

integrated entity?

Drawing from the works of scholars that have studied the internal governance of regional

integration, one finds that there are two main debates on strategies that have been discussed

within regional arrangements. First of all, there is the debate of “intergovernmentalism versus

10



supranationalism” (Tsebelis and Garrett, 2006). Second of all, there is the debate on “unanimity

versus majority” in making collective decisions. By adopting one and not another, a regional

arrangement indicates the conviction of its member states to the regional entity and the extent to

which individual member states are willing to sacrifice individual state goals for the regional

collective.

The debate of “intergovernmentalism versus supranationalism” is a somewhat technical

debate that is very one-sided when one looks at the examples of regional arrangements in the

world. Essentially, the debate on intergovernmentalism and supranationalism straddles the

balance between individual state will and collective will. When scholars of regional integration

speak of the term “supranationalism”, they are not simply referring to an entity that is above the

state. Instead, when “supranationalism” is used, it refers to a regional organization wherein an

entity is able to make binding decisions on individual member states without the consent of those

member states, and where individual states face harsh sanctions should they not abide to the rules

of the supranational entity (Tsebelis and Garrett, 2006). As such, there is a surrender of

sovereignty in supranational entities. “Intergovernmentalism”, for its part, refers simply to states

agreeing to cooperate and discuss with one another on one or more issue (Tsebelis and Garrett,

2006). Compared to regional arrangements in the rest of the world, the European Union is the

only one that has applied supranationalism, and even so, only to policies and issues under the

jurisdiction of its supranational institutions: “the Commission of the European Communities, the

European Court of Justice, and the European Parliament” (Tsebelis and Garrett 2006, p.357).

Other issues, such as foreign and security policy and justice and home affairs, the so-called

second and third pillars of the EU, remain under intergovernmental governance.

11



Related to the debate between regional governance through intergovernmentalism and

supranationalism is the debate between unanimity and majority in decision-making. Like the

earlier debate, this debate implies the amount of trust that exists between member states and the

extent to which states are willing to surrender a part of their sovereignty in order for the regional

arrangement to be more effective. When one refers to unanimity and majority, one refers to the

voting and decision-making processes that exist in a regional arrangement. Regional

arrangements have been observed to become hindered as a result of their internal decision-

making processes. Within the EU, unanimity is maintained under issues governed by

intergovernmentalism, while majority voting is applied to issues of supranationalism. It has been

found that “unanimity voting has two effects…On the one hand, it respects the sovereignty of

individual member states. On the other hand, it cripples the…collective actor” (Tsebelis and

Garrett 2006, p.370). Majority voting, for its part has “’unblocked’ collective decision making”

(Tsebelis and Garrett 2006, p.370). The majority of regional arrangements apply a unanimity

form of decision-making and as such, a consensus needs to be reached between individual

member states in order for a decision to be made. Therefore, it may be observed that among the

regional arrangements that exist in the world, the European Union is unique in that its

governance is efficient and individual member states actually defer to the decisions of the

supranational entities.

Looking at the two debates of intergovernmentalism and supranationalism, and unanimity

voting and majority voting, one finds that political will plays a major role in the development of

a regional arrangement. The political will of individual member states to support the integration

process and the regional arrangement plays a major role in the strength of a regional arrangement

as a mechanism for individual states to cope with globalization.

12



Regional integration and its implications on human rights in the EU

The political will of member states has not just been significant to regional integration,

however. The application of a state’s political will is also essential to the issue of human rights,

to which the European Union is deeply committed. In the history of human rights discourse, one

finds that the continent of Europe has been a particularly significant contributor to the field.

Philosophers from various European countries such as Cicero, Thomas Aquinas, Jean Jacques

Rousseau and Immanuel Kant have all contributed to the idea of human rights (Weiss and

Collins 1996).

Looking at the effect that Europe has had on the development of human rights, therefore,

it is not surprising that Europe has “experienced the most sophisticated codification,

institutionalization and operationalization of humanitarian action” (Weiss and Collins 1996,

p.24). Consequently, vestiges of human rights discourse can be found in the domestic and

foreign policies of individual European states, as well as in the documents that form the acquis

communautaire, or the basic law, of the European Union. For example, in Article 6(1) of the

Treaty of Amsterdam, one of the main treaties of the EU, one finds the statement that “The

Union is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and

fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law, which are common to Member States” (Nowak 1999,

p.689).

Despite this commitment, however, it has been noticed that human rights, like the state

sovereignty to which it is tied, has been under siege as a result of the phenomenon of

globalization. Recalling the earlier discussion, which made references to the phenomena of

“Jihad and McWorld” (Barber 1996), one finds that the diminution of state capacity that results

13



from globalization-induced Jihad and McWorld not only weakens the state apparatus itself, it

also weakens the state’s capacity to protect its citizens. This prompted Barber to state in his book

that the, “question then becomes whether Jihad and/or McWorld can themselves promise to

safeguard common liberty” (Barber, 1996 p.231), because if the state cannot protect its citizens,

then who is left to protect them?

The EU appears to have responded to this siege of state sovereignty and protection of

human rights by incorporating human rights into the European Union’s policies and institutions.

This is seen, for example, in the Union’s accession policy, trade policy and foreign policy. With

regard to accession policy, criteria have been established in order to prevent countries suspected

of human rights violations from joining the European Union. In June 1993, the European Council

established the Copenhagen Criteria requiring candidate countries trying to enter the EU to have

achieved “stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and

respect for and protection of minorities” (Nowak 1999, p.691). In so doing, the European Union

member states reinforce their commitment to human rights while at the same time extending the

human rights regime to candidate countries wishing to enter the EU.

With regard to trade policy, the European Union has somehow begun to link trade

preferences with human rights in such a way that there is a “conditionality of trade preferences…

on respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms…such as the principle of democracy and

political rights and freedoms” (Brandtner and Rosas 1999, p.699). The discussion with regard to

this aspect of EU trade policy and human rights has been described as having a “carrot and stick”

dualism (Brandtner and Rosas 1999, p.721), with states known to violate human rights, such as

Myanmar and the former Yugoslavia being penalized, and states trying to establish human rights

regimes being assisted through such measures as preferential trade agreements.

14



A third policy area where human rights have become significant is the area of EU foreign

policy. Since the conception of the idea of a European Union Common Foreign and Security

Policy in the 1992 Treaty of Maastricht, the common EU foreign policy sought “to develop and

consolidate democracy and the rule of law, and respect for human rights and fundamental

freedoms” (Clapham, 1999 p.634). This clause was repeated in the subsequent treaties of

Amsterdam and Nice, which consolidated the EU foreign policy as a significant pillar of the EU.

As a result of this politico-legal structure created for the EU common foreign policy, the Union

has given human rights a privileged position in the way that foreign policy has been conducted.

Whether or not the EU promotes human rights in its external relations to contribute to the

universalization of human rights is beyond the scope of this paper, however, the point that the

institutionalization of human rights is significant to the creation of an identity of the EU is

discussed later.

The European Union upholding the value of human rights as universally accessible is

seen in that Member States of the EU now “take account of persons qua persons, rather than qua

citizens. The individual is now an object of law and a site for rights regardless of whether a

citizen or alien” (Sassen 1998, p.23). Judicial institutions on a national level initiated the

movement towards respecting the human rights of non-citizens. Taking their cue from the courts

at the national level, the European Court of Justice, which acted on a supra-state level, “inferred

rights…[on non-citizens] in defiance of the interests of powerful member-states” (Guiraudon

2000, p.1114). “In this sense, the building blocks had been laid at the national level to be

reasserted internationally, strengthening the chances that the norms would diffuse downwards

again” (Guiraudon 2000, p.1114). The European Union has therefore made deliberate advances

to promote and protect human rights both on the level of individual member states, as well as on

15



the supra-state level, thereby consolidating an EU human rights regime through regional

integration.

Given the fact that the EU has institutionalized human rights norms into many of its

policies, one has to consider the reasons why it has been so adamant in applying human rights

norms when it could have possibly done without them. Possible explanations to this question are

perhaps more clearly seen when the question is considered in light of the EU’s neighboring states

that are proximate to it. Furthermore, a discussion of this question would necessarily entail an

examination of the contribution of human rights to European regional integration. In other

words, what do human rights contribute to regional integration in the EU such that the EU would

strongly defend them in their policies?

In general, one may say that the EU continues to adamantly include human rights in their

policies because it is a significant part of their identity; it creates a basis for commonalities to

appear among the various member nations. Human rights, therefore, contribute on the more

abstract level of identity, and have been observed as instrumental in deepening the integration

between EU Member States. In the article by Kühnhardt (2005), it is said that a common political

regime and comparable values,, are significant for a regional arrangement to succeed through the

creation of similarities among nation-states. Citing the regime differences that exist in Northeast

Asia, for example, Kühnhardt poses the question “how can one expect shared destiny under the

umbrella of a scheme of pooled sovereignty as long as the political systems and their underlying

political culture are so fundamentally different?” (Kühnhardt 2005, p.17) Deploying his ideas to

the case of the member states that exist in the EU, the respect of human rights is a precondition

to entering the EU because such a criterion would compel applicant countries to become

relatively homogeneous in terms of political regime and cultural values when viewed alongside

16



current members of the EU. This may be likened to Thomas Diez’ (2001) notion of “Euro-

speak”, which refers to language, which “defines the space for political action within the EU”

(Diez 2001, p.91). Therefore, by including discourses of human rights in “Euro-speak”, one is

able to develop spaces of commonality among members of a regional arrangement. The inclusion

of human rights in its policies and institutions, such as the CFSP and the ECJ, may thereby be

seen as a consequence of human rights in “Euro-speak” embodied since “institutions cannot be

separated from the discourse they are embedded in” (Diez 2001, p.97).

A relatively homogeneous group of member states, such as those who engage in the

language of Europe, has also been equated with “political trust and commonly binding legal

norms” (Kühnhardt 2005, p.40), which are factors that have been observed to have contributed to

the success and stability of the European Union as a regional arrangement. It is this fact that

prompted Kühnhardt (2005), in his article, to comment that during the Cold War era, although

there were cultural similarities between “Poland and Portugal, Hungary and Ireland, Sweden and

Slovakia, it would have been inconceivable for the European Community to recognize any

Central and Eastern communist state as its member in the absence of democracy, rule of law and

market economy”. Therefore, such human rights criteria contribute to the stability and continued

existence of the regional arrangement that is the EU by creating similarities of discourse between

member and applicant countries. Given the fact that similarities in political regime norms and

values are viewed as significant to stability and action in a regional arrangement, it is therefore

not surprising that “recognition of rule of law, democratic governance and a primacy for human

rights…[have become] preconditions to substantial integration” (Kühnhardt 2005, p.36);

particularly in the case of the European Union.

17



Conclusion

Having explored the interrelationships between globalization, regional integration and

human rights in the European Union, a number of conclusions may be drawn. First of all, it was

mentioned at the onset that regional integration and globalization have intensified as phenomena

in the post-Cold War period, and have therefore become of concern to states, including those that

were members of the European Community. Secondly, as was discussed, globalization has had

the effect of eroding states’ abilities to exercise their sovereignty. This has entailed, first of all, a

reconfiguration of the way that global politics is understood and done. Secondly, forces of

globalization have been seen in terms a challenge to which regional integration has been a

response, particularly in the case of the European Union. Thirdly, political trust and political will

have been significant factors with regard to the governance, and resulting efficacy of regional

arrangements to react to global forces; the strength of the European Union may partly be

attributed to its supranational structure and majority voting governance. And finally, the

phenomena of globalization and regional integration in the EU have affected, and been affected

by, human rights. On the one hand, the EU has institutionalized human rights norms in a number

of its policies, perhaps in an attempt to contribute to the universalization of human rights. On the

other hand, as was discussed earlier, human rights norms have been used as criteria to ensure

relative homogeneity in terms of political regimes and values, particularly to EU applicant

countries. This then indicates a mutually strengthening relationship between regional integration

and human rights in the structure of the European Union.

Despite the apparent relationship between the European Union’s regional integration and

its human rights regime, however, increased exploration may still be done on the relationship

between the two phenomena. This would be particularly timely in light of attempts by the

18



Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) to deepen its integration. To what extent

would the recognition of human rights, or the lack thereof, be an issue for the future stability of

the regional arrangement? And what are the possible consequences of the relatively

heterogeneous political regimes and values that exist in ASEAN to further deepening of the

regional integration? These are questions that need to be taken into account and discussed given

that plans are in place to further institutionalize the regional arrangement of Southeast Asia of

which the Philippines is part.

Manuel Enverga IIIEuropean Studies Program

Ateneo de Manila University

e-mail: [email protected]

References

Alston, Philip and J.H.H. Weiler. (1999). An EU Human Rights Policy. In The EU and Human

Rights. New York: Oxford University Press.

Barber, Benjamin. (1996). Jihad Versus McWorld . New York: Times Books.

19



Barkin, J. Samuel. (2006). International Organization: Theories and Institutions. New York:

Palgrave MacMillan.

Booth, Ken. (1999). Three Tyrannies. In Human Rights in Global Politics. United Kingdom:

Cambridge University Press.

Brandtner, Barbara and Allan Rosas. (1999). Trade Preferences and Human Rights. In The EU and Human Rights. New York: Oxford University Press.

Cammack, Paul. (2002). “The Mother of all Governments: The World Bank’s Matrix for Global

Governance”. In Wilkinson and Hughes (eds.) Global Governance Critical Perspectives.

London: Routledge.

Cammack, Paul. (2005). “The Governance of Global Cpaitalism: A New Materialist

Perspective”. In R. Wilkinson (ed), The Global Governance Reader . London: Routledge.

Clapham, Andrew. (1999). Where is the EU’s Human Rights Common Foreign Policy , and How

is it Manifested in Multilateral Fora? In The EU and Human Rights. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

Dawkins, Kirstin. (2003). Global Governance. The Battle Over Planetary Power . New York:

Seven Stories Press.

Diez, Thomas. (2001). Speaking ‘Europe’: The Politics of Integration Discourse. In Christiansen,

Thomas, Knud Erik Jørgensen and Antje Wiener (eds.) The Social Construction of Europe.London: Sage Publications.

DiPrizio, Robert C. (2002). Armed Humanitarians: U.S. Humanitarian Interventions from

Northern Iraq to Kosovo. Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Gelinas, Jacques B. (2003). Juggernaut Politics. Understanding Predatory Globalization.London and New York: Zed Books.

Glendon, Mary Ann. (2001). A World Made New. United States: Random House Inc.

Germain, Randall. (2002). Reforming the International Financial Architecture: The New Political

Agenda. In Wilkinson and Hughes (eds.) Global Governance Critical Perspectives. London:

Routledge.

Guiraudon, Virginie. (2000). European Courts and Foreigners’ Rights: A Comparative Study of

Norms Diffusion. International Migration Review 34(4).

James, Paul. (2006). Globalism, Nationalism, Tribalism. Bringing Theory Back In. London: Sage

Publications.

20



Janowski, Cordula. (2006). Globalization, Regional Integration and the EU . Bonn: Center for

European Integration Studies.

Kühnhardt, Ludger. (2006). European Integration: Challenge and Response. Bonn: Center for


Kühnhardt, Ludger. (2005). Northeast Asia: Obstacles to Regional Integration. Bonn: Center for


Kühnhardt, Ludger. (2004). The Global Proliferation of Regional Integration. Bonn: Center for


Moseley, Alexander and Richard Norman (eds.). (2002). Human Rights and Military

Intervention. England: Ashgate Publishing Limited.

Nowak, Manfred. (1999). Human Rights and Conditionality in the EU. In The EU and Human

Rights. New York: Oxford University Press.

Ramesh, Thakur and Luk Van Langenhove. (2006). “Enhancing Global Governance ThroughRegional Integration”. Global Governance 12.

Rosenau, James (1999). Toward an Ontology for Global Governance. In Hewson, Martin and

Timothy J. Sinclair (eds.) Approaches to Global Governance Theory. New York: SUNY Press.

Rosenau, James. (2005). Governance in the Twenty First Century. In Wilkinson (ed.) The Global

Governance Reader . London and New York: Routledge.

Sassen, Saskia. 1998. In Globalization and its discontents: Essays on the new mobility of peopleand money. New York: The New Press.

Therien, Jean-Philippie. (2005). Beyond the North-South Divide: The Two Tales of World

Poverty. In Wilkinson The Global Governance Reader . London: Routledge.

Tridimas, Takis. (1999). The General Principles of EC Law. New York: Oxford University

Press.

Tsebelis, George and Geofferey Garrett. (2001). The Institutional Foundations of

Intergovernmentalism and Supranationalism in the European Union. International Organization

55(2).

Weiss, Thomas G. and Cindy Collins. (1996). Humanitarian Challenges and Intervention.

United States of America: Westview Press.

Welsh, Jennifer M (ed.). (2004). Humanitarian Intervention and International Relations. New

York: Oxford University Press.

globalization, regional integration and human rights

Documents