European Integration and Sovereignty: A Proposal of Re-conceptualisation

Paulo Vila Maior
{"title":"European Integration and Sovereignty: A Proposal of Re-conceptualisation","authors":"Paulo Vila Maior","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3419012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Many scholars deploy a deep-rooted perception that the participation of countries in the European Union (EU) involves a loss, or at least a limitation, of national sovereignty. The argument has widespread acceptance among Eurosceptic and Europhile sectors (but not only). This essay aims at, firstly, finding out whether the modernisation of political science (of which European integration studies is an emanation) lies at the heart of the deconstruction of national sovereignty as a concept. Pegging to this non-mainstream approach, the essay challenges the monolithic perception of sovereignty, searching for new avenues that bring fresh blood to the analysis and trigger the re-conceptualisation of sovereignty. Secondly, the essay borrows on the analytical tools of European integration critics to challenge mainstream thinking, trying to measure the effects of European integration on national sovereignty. The core argument is that sovereignty needs to be deconstructed and then re-constructed. To that purpose, the concept of sovereignty must consider the current political-economic context at the worldwide level.","PeriodicalId":170831,"journal":{"name":"Public Choice: Analysis of Collective Decision-Making eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Choice: Analysis of Collective Decision-Making eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3419012","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Many scholars deploy a deep-rooted perception that the participation of countries in the European Union (EU) involves a loss, or at least a limitation, of national sovereignty. The argument has widespread acceptance among Eurosceptic and Europhile sectors (but not only). This essay aims at, firstly, finding out whether the modernisation of political science (of which European integration studies is an emanation) lies at the heart of the deconstruction of national sovereignty as a concept. Pegging to this non-mainstream approach, the essay challenges the monolithic perception of sovereignty, searching for new avenues that bring fresh blood to the analysis and trigger the re-conceptualisation of sovereignty. Secondly, the essay borrows on the analytical tools of European integration critics to challenge mainstream thinking, trying to measure the effects of European integration on national sovereignty. The core argument is that sovereignty needs to be deconstructed and then re-constructed. To that purpose, the concept of sovereignty must consider the current political-economic context at the worldwide level.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
欧洲一体化与主权:重新概念化的建议
许多学者提出了一种根深蒂固的看法,即各国加入欧盟(EU)意味着国家主权的丧失,或者至少是一种限制。这种观点在疑欧派和亲欧派中得到了广泛接受(但不仅如此)。本文的目的是,首先,找出政治学的现代化(欧洲一体化研究是其中的一个分支)是否处于国家主权概念解构的核心。与这种非主流方法相结合,本文挑战了对主权的单一感知,寻找新的途径,为分析带来新鲜血液,并引发主权的重新概念化。其次,借鉴欧洲一体化批评者的分析工具,挑战主流思维,试图衡量欧洲一体化对国家主权的影响。核心论点是主权需要被解构,然后重建。为此目的,主权的概念必须考虑到目前世界一级的政治-经济背景。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Violent Conflict and the Strength of Civil Society A Model of Embedded Autonomy and Asymmetric Information Endogenous Networks and Legislative Activity Judicial Independence: Why Does De Facto Diverge from De Jure? Does Ethnic Diversity Always Undermine Pro-Social Behavior? Evidence from a Laboratory Experiment
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1