What is the EU a trading area or an enlarged European State Should Dissertation

What is the EU a trading area or an enlarged European State Should Turkey allowed to join the club - Dissertation Example The so-called Kemalist ideology of Turkey is based on the philosophies developed by Kemal Ataturk, the first president of the Republic of Turkey (1923-1938). His ambition was to modernise the nation and, thereby, launch Turkey into mainstream Western culture.Ever since the foundation of modern day Turkey in 1923, this country with a predominantly Muslim population has been a secular democracy closely aligned with the West. Turkey was a founding member of the United Nations, and has been a member of NATO since 1952, the Council of Europe since 1949, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) since 1961 and an associate member of the Western European Union since 1992. Ankara chose to begin co-operating closely with the then European Economic Community (EEC) in 1959, and Turkey's prospective membership of the EEC's successor, the European Union, has been a source of much debate ever since. Turkey's relationship with the EEC was legally sanctioned in 1963 when it si gned an Association Agreement with the EU. This is the first preliminary step on the path to full membership. Since then, Turkish hopes have been put on hold, particularly following its invasion of Cyprus in 1974 and the military coup of 1980.A major turning point for Turkey's EU prospects was the decision reached at the Helsinki Summit in December 1999 to grant official candidate status to the country. In the period between 1999 and 2004, Turkey took great steps in order to meet the Copenhagen criteria, especially regarding stable institutions, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and the protection of minorities. A key step in this process was the signing of the protocol on the de facto abolition of the death penalty. The European Council decided in December 2004 to open accession negotiations with Turkey in October the following year. Nevertheless, practical negotiations on the 35 chapters of the ‘acquis communautaire’ only began in June 2006. From the very beginnings of the creation of the European Union, Turkey has shown a keen interest in the integration process in Europe and, indeed has considered becoming a member of EU to be a logical consequence of its modernisation and Westernisation policies. Consequently, it came as no surprise when Turkey applied for associate membership in 1959 and went on to sign the Ankara Agreement with the EU in 1963, an agreement which not only recognised Turkey’s eligibility to participate in European integration but explicitly envisaged Turkey’s eventual full membership of the EU. EU-Turkey relations have, however, experienced serious difficulties resulting from the essential incompatibility of both parties’ policies with the declared objectives of their Association agreement. In particular, it seems unlikely that the ultimate objectives of the Association Agreement –Turkish accession to the EU – will be achieved in the foreseeable future. On the one hand, this is b ecause the EU has always considered Turkey to be an awkward candidate for EU membership: turkey is different, problematic and thus, by implication, a more difficult case than any other applicants. The EU scepticism towards the prospect of Turkish membership can be seen in its policies, which have basically south to maintain and strengthen the existing Association Agreement. However, this has been inadequate to prepare Turkey for EU membership. In fact, the EU has developed an alternative approach towards Turkey, which can be best described as containment strategy, designed to delay indefinitely the prospect of membership while keeping Turkey within economic, security and political sphere of influence of the EU. This paper argued that the EU has treated Turkey differently compared to the other applicant countries in the present enlargement round. In this respect, before further exploring this argument, there seems to be an important question remaining: Why should the EU treat all app licants ‘fairly’ in the enlargement process? In this respect, the question might arise as to

Reading Respond#3 Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Reading Respond#3 - Essay Example U.S, and of the armed forces of the numerous states, when given the actual service of America and commission all the service personnel of the United States (The Founders Constitution 1). The separation of war powers within the U.S Constitution does not appear so uncertain. While the President is given some exclusive authorities (Straub 1-2), the immensity of the authority to take the country to war depends on Congress (Kinkopf 2). According to U.S. Constitution, there is separation of powers of war. With Congress having the power to proclaim war, select and sustain the armed forces, and manage war funding (Article I, Section 8). At the time the Constitution was outlined (Kinkopf 2), the framers evaluated the singular willpower of the Executive against the Legislature’s consultative function, whose components would ultimately carry the cost of battle (The Founders Constitution 1). The ultimate responsibility for any military engagement is held by the congress. This is clear as it is supported by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has been fast to remind the people that, where overlaps in the authorities given by the Constitution prevail, reverence goes to Congress. This is a clear declaration of Supreme Court that when Congress, acting in the vast aspects of overlapping authority, tells the President no, the President ought to comply (Kinkopf 2). Straub, Steve. Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper #69, On Command of the Army and Navy. On March 21, 2011. Accessed from