This is the second lesson of the macro topic, “Concepts and Categories to Understand the EU and Its Development and Working,” in the first module.
The objective of this lesson, led by Pietro Sala, is to engage in a discussion of realism and European integration.
Before federalism or neo-functionalism, realism was the first major theory to confront the question of European unity. Rooted in traditional international relations, it offered a powerful yet ultimately limited lens: nation-states, driven by the will to preserve power, could never truly share sovereignty. For realists, European integration could only ever be international cooperation — not a supranational project.
When European unity emerged as a political idea after World War II, realists viewed the process through the framework of sovereign states. The iron law: “whoever has power wants to keep it.” From this perspective, integration without the preservation of full national sovereignty was impossible.
Council of Europe: a realist design
The Congress of The Hague in 1948 brought activists and leaders together to discuss European unity. The realist line prevailed, leading to the creation of the Council of Europe in 1949 — a classic intergovernmental organisation with no transfer of sovereignty. Its model was one of cooperation, not integration.
But when the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) was proposed — based on shared sovereignty — reality began to diverge from the realist worldview. The ECSC represented not just cooperation, but binding supranational governance. Its success marked the start of a different European path, one realists could not fully explain.
The UK: embodying the realist stance
No country better exemplifies realist logic than the United Kingdom:
- Founding member of the Council of Europe (1949)
- Rejector of the ECSC (1951), due to sovereignty-sharing
- Advocate for intergovernmental cooperation over supranationalism
This stance endured until its culmination in Brexit (2016) — a definitive act of reclaiming national control over European integration.
Realism’s return—and its limits
The failure of the European Defence Community in 1954 briefly revived realist theories. The French National Assembly rejected the project by just 14 votes, reinforcing the idea that states would not pool military sovereignty. In the 1970s, the breakdown of the Bretton Woods system and ensuing economic crises deepened the realist argument that integration was limited by national interests.
Yet realism underestimated the EU’s resilience. Even during the 1970s “crisis years,” Europe created the European Monetary System (1979) and held the first direct elections to the European Parliament, paving the way for deeper legal, economic, and political integration.
Why realism still matters
Realism’s core insight endures: whenever integration touches deeply sovereign areas — like defence, taxation, or constitutional reform — nation-states still hold decisive power. Yet, through crises, Europe has repeatedly adopted solutions that go beyond what realism predicted, often strengthening the role of supranational institutions.
In the end, realism reminds us that the EU is not a federal state — but it also shows its limits in capturing a political project that continues to evolve into something more than mere cooperation among states.
