The Treaty of Lisbon: An Analysis
The Lisbon Treaty has not brought a revolutionary reform. The democratic deficit, though slightly improved, still has a long way to go, in terms of transparency, openness and public awareness of EU politics. It can be criticized for the tremendous complexity in itself, which doesn’t succeed in bringing the idea of a united Europe and what it entails closer to the people. In a nutshell, the Union is still far from reaching finalité politique.
Nation States: Stronger in Europe than Elsewhere?
Europe has imposed its intrinsic identity and revolutionary social and political values and models worldwide, transforming many of them in global standards, shaping the lives of billions of people. It is within the European geographical space that a large number of the world’s greatest empires have developed and some of humanities most valuable technological, spiritual, cultural, economic or political advancements have been achieved.
British and German approaches to European security provision
Britain and Germany are, together with France, the so-called E-3. These the states have most advanced economies of Europe, and from the point of view of European security, face the highest expenses and are provided with the most numerous and best equipped armies on the continent. Each have used the process of European Integration and the development of a Common Foreign and Security Policy to pursue their national interests.
Offense-Defense Theory and the absence of war on the Korean peninsula
This essay argues that the absence of a major war between North (DPRK) and South Korea (ROK) does not disprove the offense-defense theory (ODT) because the theory is capable of explaining the prevalence of peace under conditions when the defense has the advantage.
What are the main developments contained within the Treaty of Lisbon?
The year 2005 has meant a rejection of a viable constitutional project for the European Union. After a reconsideration and political stylization of the Constitutional Treaty, the Treaty of Lisbon was put together and signed by all of the 27 member states on the 13th of December 2007. What developments did it contain?
Does the European Union Need an Army?
There is much discussion between those who believe the EU should remain a wholly civilian (soft) power and those who argue that it should develop a military (hard) dimension. There is also a lively debate between those who seek to develop an autonomous military identity (Europeanists) and those who see Europe’s military future in NATO (Atlanticists). But does the EU need an army?
Does the European Union have a strategic culture?
This essay will posit that the EU does have a strategic culture, but one still in infancy, beset by weaknesses and potentially insurmountable obstacles. To demonstrate this, we shall explore key diplomatic efforts to enhance European strategic integration, responses to world events and operational deployments, how these have progressively shaped a common strategic culture, and how numerous issues undermine it.
Hamas in Power
Hamas, ‘Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiyya’ (The Islamic Resistance Movement), has evolved over time from its humble beginnings as a faction of the Muslim Brotherhood, to an arguably legitimate political body, controlling much of the occupied Palestinian territories. This paper will reflect on the key factors in its development and features of the movement, and will conclude with a discussion of Hamas’ future as both an agent of armed struggle and a legitimate political body.
Should the EU develop into a United States of Europe?
The present-day image of the EU can be defined as a political, economic, social and legal hybrid with a combination of federal, confederal, supranational and intergovernmental features. Whether it should proceed through the development of a U.S.E will remain a matter for deep reflection, for how it really works will never match one vision of how it should work.
From Westphalia to Tehran: International Secularism and Iran’s Theocracy
International Relations is currently facing a global religious revival. Tehran’s foreign policy reflects the pluralism of the regime’s political-theological discourse. Westphalian assumptions promote an ignorance of this pluralism and lead to the incorrect assumption that a theocratic Iran is incompatible with international stability.
