EU and Overseas Countries and Territories association framework development

¶ … political framework of EU and OCT

European Union (EU) and Overseas Countries and Territories (OCTs) are in association with each other via a system which is based on the provisions of part IV of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU), consisting of detailed rules and measures which are laid down in the document issued on 27th November 2001 title Oversees Association Decision. The expiry date of this association decision is 31st December 2013. Stress has been laid down by the European Council in its conclusions issued on 22nd December 2009 that the relationship between OCT and EU should continuously be updated in order to reflect latest developments not only in EU and OCT but thorough out the world. The commission has also been encouraged to make revisions to the Overseas Association Decision and present it in front of the council prior to July 2012 (Hill et al., 2011).

Current Relationship between EU and OCTs

Although there exist great differences between today's OCT and ACP states but still the recent Overseas Association Decision issued on 27 November 2001 is basically based on a loom which is related to the mutual relationship between the EU and the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) States. The commission has adopted a Green Paper to work on the upcoming relationship between OCT and the EU on 25th June 2008, just to replace the existing policy and to bring in something which is as per the needs of the OCT and is also directed towards strengthening the ties between EU and OCT. This Green Paper has been followed up by Commission Communication COM (2009) 623 of 6 November 2009 which targets a new relationship between EU and OCT. This new relationship would work as a guide in 2011-2012 in replacing the existing overseas Association Decision which would be expiring on 31st December 2013 (Hill et al., 2011).

What are the main problems which this paper will address?

EU and OCT both are in association with each other. At first there were many territories included in OCT, but those territories are now recognized as separate countries, like ACP countries. The logic which was given in the Overseas Association Decision of 2001 regarding the cooperation between EU and OCT is quite identical to the basis of association between ACP states and EU. Despite of the similarity, the description about the cooperation with OCT is given separately in the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU).

Nevertheless, there is no parallelism seen among the daily challenges that are faced by the OCT and the close ties in between OCT and EU. In fact EU does not recognize the strategic importance of OCT as a separate colony, which is spread over the entire globe as the supporters of EU's principles. Furthermore, a much wider international context has developed as a result of globalization, liberalization of worldwide trade and also due to the enhanced district addition of the ACP countries.

Therefore, this paper assesses the past and current legal status of OCTs and ACPs and their significance to European Union. The main question this paper will focus on is:

Where does Europe end, is European Union defined with its continent or are these overseas territories also part of EU?

Additional sub-questions this paper focuses on are the following:

1. Why there are still overseas territories?

2. What European states gain for this relationship?

3. What OCTs gain for this relationship?

Colonial era ended after Second World War and most of the current ASP (African, Caribbean and Pacific states) countries gained independence in 1950s and 1960s. The key question here is: why these 20 overseas territories are still part of some European states, and who wins more from this? To answer this question, this paper uses the theory of realism, neorealism and geopolitics.

All three political theories are relevant in this context as on one hand OCTs get huge financial support from mainland and their economy is strongly linked with mainland economy, but on the other hand, mainland gets all the right over natural resources what might be found in OCTs. Most of the OCTs are islands, so around these islands they have fishing rights, rights to mine the minerals like oil and gas and control over sea lines. But natural resources are not the main reasons to keep these territories - on geopolitical point-of-view, these territories are important for military use. Mainland states can use them as military bases.

The research, however, had some problems with defining and choosing OCTs for this work. It is quite hard to define which territory is overseas territory. For example, in some literature, Isle of Man is UK overseas territory, but in reality it is located between UK and Ireland. This begs the question whether territories which are located on same continent, overseas territories or not?

The second problem faced by this researcher was geographical. OCTs are located around the world; most of them are located in Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean, while some are located India, Atlantic and Northern Ocean. Because of the geographical differences these OCTs have different relations with the mainland. The third problem was based on the fact that different European states had types of policies and bilateral relations with their OCTs.

To avoid these problems, the researcher decided to concentrate only on a certain area and take OCTs from that area. Therefore, the researcher chose Caribbean Sea area. In this area the OCTs density per square kilometer is highest. There are 14 OCTs in this region and they are all located close together. Three European Union member states have OCTs there, i.e. Netherland, United Kingdom and France. Therefore, this also gives the researcher a chance to compare different policies towards OCTs.

The paper starts with a short overview about the colonial era. This historical part of the paper is connected with the imperialism era beginning from the 15th century and ending in the 20th century. Secondly this paper analyzes European Geopolitics origins and its links with economic and military security. Thirdly, this paper discusses realism and neorealism, which forms the theoretical foundation of this paper. This helps in answering questions like: why there are still overseas territories? What European states gain for this relationship? What OCTs gain for this relationship? Lastly, this paper focuses on the current legal status of Carribean Island OCTs to answer the fundamental question of this thesis: Where does Europe end, is European Union defined with its continent or are these overseas territories also part of EU?

Section 1: European Imperialism

The 15th -- 18th century marks an era of European imperialism, starting with the initiation of trade relations with other nations and then moving on to empire building. The bread and butter liaison with other nations was known as Old Imperialism. India, China, Japan and Indonesia are amongst the many nations where European business was at its peak. The leaders shared a relationship of trust and reverence, which was further braced by recurrent cooperation and teamwork between the leaders of nations and European community. For European leaders, the strategy was to build a plaza in each state, therefore, with the exception of Spain and Portugal, the main focus in each state was to maintain strong relations in terms of trade, and not to acquire those using armed forces.

Later, the trade relationship proved to be a stiletto for European Leaders and helped them launch a remarkable subjugation of realms and to build a kingdom. The core strategy was to target the territories that have been tied to apron strings, and to provide economical and technological assistance to help them emerge as competitive nations in world industry. These nations became world known suppliers of victuals and raw materials, and patrons of industrial products. For independent and stable countries, the strategy was to divide and rule; i.e. To divide the nation into colonies and then rule.

Tools of European Imperialists

Imperialism is not like shooting ducks in a pond; it requires a lot of effort and determination. Along with fortitude and audacity, European and American leaders had a profuse collection of tools that helped them achieve their objective. These tools were a gift of industrial revolution; the industry upheaval opened a path for various technological advances and made life a can of corn as compared to old ages. Innovations such as submarine, Suez Canal and steam ships gave European and American leaders an edge over other nations in terms of portability and effective communication. European and American leaders had an additional advantage to move freely to different nations as the inherent obstacles were surmounted by these novelties.

A hindrance to enter Africa was the prevalent disease of malaria, which was overcome by quinine; an antidote to prevent malaria was discovered amongst the many advancements. In the same way, creation of advanced weapons such as breech loader, smokeless powder and machine gun made the defeat of colonies a duck soup. This is because the ancient weapons of these nations were not a match against the advanced muskets of Europe and America,

Imperialism and its link with the Industrial revolution

The industrial revolution instigated penury of raw materials. As a result, European nations looked forward to developing nations such as Asia, Africa and South America for the purchase of these necessities. For developing nations this was an opportunity to become known as suppliers of grist, therefore, they were willing to enter into this trade agreement. However, what European Leaders wanted was more than a simple trade agreement; their aim was to enforce their rules on these nations, making them colonies of the infinite European empire. Therefore, they entered into the agreement after setting out a lot of rules for the dependent nations to follow. As time passed by, these rules made the European leaders indirectly administer the nation, thus the nations became a part of European empire. History reveals that the imperialism is not impertinent, it had started since 1400s. Remarkable examples include Columbus, Spanish and U.S.. Amongst these, U.S. expanded its empire in 1700s.

Defining Imperialism

Imperialism can be defined as a guiding principle to extend the power and authority of an empire to other nations, whether in terms of administration or trade. According to this mechanism, a state intends to control the political, economic and cultural factors of another state (termed as colony or territory), making the other state its subordinate. On the contrary, colonialism is defined as building colonies on the basis of conquest. A state defeats another state using firearm and gets the authority to rule that state.

1815 -- 1914 is the time period that marks the remarkable victory of Europe and America, who succeeded in expanding their empire from 35% - 85%, using both the techniques mentioned above.

Modern form of Imperialism

New imperialism started in 1870s, when the West used armed forces and advanced weapons to take over the nations in Asia and Africa. As mentioned earlier, the developing nations were not equipped with the gifts of industrial revolution which created a wide gap between them and made it easier for Europe and America to expand their kingdom. Along with the use of armed forces, European nations also used trade to conquer some territories. By setting out various rules before entering into a trade agreement, they managed to enslave these nations. Also, the dependent nations had an urge to be known in the world and be equivalent to the developed and stable nations in every sphere of life. Due to their vulnerability, to influence these nations and make them live their life according to the rules set out by European leaders was a piece of cake for them.

European motives for Colonization

What instigated European nations to adopt an aggressive strategy and build their own kingdom? The various reasons behind imperialism can be classified into economic, social, technological and cultural factors. Each of them played an important part to influence leaders to favor colonization. Some of these reasons have been explained below.

Economic Causes

The most important factor has been mentioned earlier; industrial revolution. Industrial revolution spurs a demand for industrial products. European leaders wanted to purchase raw materials at a reasonable price, and therefore, terms of trade were negotiated with developing nations. Terms of trade were in favor of European leaders only, making the supplying nation comply with all the rules of agreement. Now, when suppliers have been arranged, the next step was to establish a market for those products. Colonies of the massive European empire would serve as consumers of these products, therefore, focus of European leaders was also to acquire nations and make them part of their kingdom.

Western world was well equipped in terms of assets and wealth, and this helped it conquer even the remote places of world. As mentioned earlier, by 1914, around 85% of the world was under Western realm.

Military Causes

Amongst the many gifts of industrial revolution came the advanced armaments, making the Western army more competitive and powerful than others. Creation of ocean going fleets, modern rifle and rapid fire missiles and weaponry made it difficult for the other nations to survive the attack. Mostly, these nations were stuck between a rock and a hard place.

The army with all mod cons also required bases and oil stations across the world. Oil stations throughout the world were essential for the repair and refilling of ships. As colonies can serve as bases and oil stations, European leaders moved on to adding colonies to empire and increasing the strength of their army.

Social Factors

In 1800s, Europe's experienced a brisk escalation in its population. With the increase in population, related problems come as a package deal, leaving the nation in an ad hoc situation. Same was the case with Europe, the increased population resulted in unemployment, poverty and increased crime rate. Immigration to America was the first step, a demo for people to show that they have an option to try their luck in other countries. A lot of people exercised this option, and left for America to exploit the opportunities awaiting there. On the other hand, there were a few people who moved to colonies with a hope that colonial life might be better for them. Therefore, European leaders planned on expanding their kingdom, new opportunities emerged with the addition of each colony and therefore, European leaders considered this as one of the best ways to deal with their social problems.

Role of Science and Technology

Science and Technology played an auxiliary role in Western Colonization. The most important tool was the tool of knowledge. With the innumerous innovations, a lot of doors were unlocked; a lot of opportunities emerged and with this knowledge came greater supremacy. The western world focused on innovating new things and making life easier. The advancements in transportation and communication increased mobility and flexibility of nations. It removed all obstacles and made it easier for Western world to approach far off places. An example of quinine was mentioned above; this discovery enabled the Western world to enter even the forbidden nations, where no one entered earlier due to the fear of diseases.

Cultural Factors

Western world had a superiority complex. They believe that their race is far better than others; they came in this world to rule and therefore considered it their right to conquer other nations. It would not be wrong to state that they believed it to be the reason of their existence. They targeted those nations that were not developed and their culture and life style was the same as old ages, with no signs of modernization or improvement. Western world believed that as they were modern and civilized and equipped with advanced resources, it was their rightful duty to make the under developed nations their subordinates.

Different people have different opinion on this belief. Some people consider it to be the bitter truth of life, something that cannot be changed; the superior one always gets to rule. These people tend to be biased towards the Western world. This is the theory of Social Darwinism. The one who is advanced in terms of culture and technology is bestowed by nature with the gift to rule.

Social Darwinism as a justification of imperialism

Another aspect of this theory that can be applied to people was 'the survival of fittest." Only the people who are fit can survive and rule. Summing up, this theory was just a partisan way to justify imperialism. This was used as an excuse to all criticism from the people who opposed European imperialism. Western world believed that it was their duty to teach the dark people their culture and values and to train them to live their life according to the modern ways.

An English poet, Rudyard Kipling, expressed the attitude of English men towards black people in his poem "White Man's Burden." He characterized the attitude of Western people to be genuine and sincere, but also patronizing. According to the British poet, due to their superiority complex, Western doctors, scientists and colonial officials performed better when they went for a visit to colonies. This attitude gives them excellence over their work and also crushed the beliefs and ideas of local people.

European Migration

1815 -- 1932 was the period of European migration, in which more than 60 million people migrated to colonies of North and South America along with New Zealand, Australia and Siberia. As mentioned earlier, this addressed the population problems faced by Europe and then further provided an incentive for Western world to move on to empire building. The people migrating consisted mainly of the poor people, who wanted to try their luck and exploit new opportunities. However, the poorest class did not migrate in big numbers because of the inhuman land policies.

Advantages of Imperialism

With all the discussion on imperialism and colonization, a question arises, why to go through all this mess? The answer can be understood with the famous saying; "No pain, no gain." If the European leaders left no leave unturned, it has to be for some gain.

The most important benefit to the Western world is strong economies. With a competitive market for industrial markets and increase in demand and supply of the same, wealth of these nations will also increase. This can be further used for innovation and colonization to make economies more competitive and stable.

The self-esteem of Western world will be satisfied as it is consistent with their inherent belief that Western people came to this world to rule. Majority of the territories will be under their rule and they will be successful in implementing their culture throughout the world. They can then promote their religion in all nations and influence people to blend in their life style. The belief that no one is better than them gives them a sense of authority over other people's lives and beliefs.

Safety of the Western world is also an important factor. With the acquisition of colonies, Western world can further strengthen their army. Due to industrial revolution, Western world is equipped with advanced weaponry and continues to make innovations in this field, and with the addition of colonies, European nation can acquire skilled people for their army.

The innovations resulting from industrial revolution is not confined to military hardware only; it extends to each facet of life. The advancements in science, technology and medicine are worth mentioning. The series of innovation do not end here, with the acquisition of colonies and advanced resources, Western world has the expertise to explore the untouched areas in each of these fields. The innovations will further make the life easier, make communication more effective and thus make the Western world more powerful.

Conclusion of section 1: Imperialism and EU's relationship with Carribean OCTs

Imperialism is the policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations. "Over the last 500 years imperialism has been a predominantly western project and from dominance that has been shaped by expansionist system. Western overseas expansion was initiated by Portuguese and Spanish mariners in the fifteenth century and reached its territorial and ideological climax in the early twentieth century, when many European states were engaged in 'the scramble for Africa,' the British Empire spanned the globe, and imperialism was first defined precisely, as an ethos of state expansion and 'civilizing mission'" (Johnston, 2000). Imperialism can generally be understood as a state self-centered policy to expand its power and influence in the region. To manage it, states create colonies and protectorates. Such an activity is also known as colonialism. OCTs are part of former colonial areas of European states. As mentioned above, Caribbean area was quickly colonized after the Christopher Columbus first sailed into Caribbean in 1492. Haiti and Saint-Dominguez were first two states who gain independence on 18th century, others followed on the first half of the 19th century. But not all of them acquired autonomy as 14 different territories are still part of Europe.

Section 2: European Geopolitics

With the development of the European state system the modern era has even identified the beginning of a new boundary for the expansion of the Europeans. With the discovery of routes to Asia, the markets of Africa and America were beaten badly. A new dimension to European's geopolitics was given by their expansion all through the Atlantic world, right at the beginning of the nineteenth century. In the early nineteenth century there were even Muslim invasions, which created a challenge between the Muslims and the Europeans, resulting in the terminal downfall of the Ottoman Empire. This demonstrates how wide-ranged the European borders were (Balzacq, 2010).

The colonization in America, predominantly that of Caribbean and North America, resulted in the creation of a new Atlantic world. This new world subjugated the economy of Europe above all during the seventeenth and eighteenth century. The growth on both sides of the Atlantic was entertained by the trade links between America, Europe and Africa. The technological advancement has enabled the marine architecture to calculate distances. Moreover, ships became the most effective means of transporting cargo, in terms of cost. The economic policies developed by mercantilism have provided a sound structure through which primary goods can be swapped for metropolitan producers. This enabled the sale of tobacco, furs and tropical products at higher profitable margins within Europe. One-fifth of the trade of France which was with the Caribbean now shifted to Atlantic World (McKay and Scott, 1983). Krakow, Lvov and Prague were less close to the West Europeans than Philadelphia, Quebec and Havana. The Atlantic World is basically an addition of the Western Europe (Balzacq, 2010).

The European colonists created a new world for themselves. But this late medieval expansion seems to be a very well prepared model for invasion. Following Europe, Spain also started forming techniques of building its empire during the re-conquest of Iberia from the Muslims and afterward in capturing the Canary Islands. The Adelanto system was a scheme under which the soldiers who were certified by the crown funded their own campaigns in return for lands and repaid investors from the spoils. Ecclesiastical structures played an important role in bringing hegemonic Spanish culture in the newly occupied districts (Taylor, 2001). The absence of provincial liberties and other institutions have enabled effectual execution of royal authority. This unrestrained authority has created a vast difference between the Metropolitan Spain and the colonies. Under the era of James I and Elizabeth I, Irish plantations set up a pattern for the English colonies, particularly in the North America, by bringing about major differences between natives and colonies. David Hackett has taken a step of unfolding the relocation of cultural norms from European to North American regions. Despite of the modification in the new environment the cultural beliefs remained the same. European region had extended colonies; and it existed as a short hand that described the settlement in overseas and the peninsula itself (Fisher, 1989). Ostbewegung brought about the culture of Germany into the Eastern Europe, an overseas Anglo-sphere and Hispano-sphere was created in Atlantic World, the impact of which are seen in Europe today as well (Raymond, Barbara and Bob, 2009).

The antagonism that existed in between Spain, Britain, France and districts of North America and Caribbean further shaped the geopolitics of Europe in the eighteenth-century. The struggle flanked by Prussia and Australia created a parallel in Anglo-Spanish trade wars or rather an Anglo-French struggle for establishing expertise in North America. The set-up of European alliances, which consisted of Britain dynasties connected with the Hanover after 1714 and the French relationships between Germany and Poland was associated with divergence. After the war of Australian succession which took place in 1748, the achievement of one theatre was allowed to be traded for damages somewhere else in the Britain cessation of Louisbourg in Acadia. William Pitt the Elder aptly, after the seven years of the war, explained that Germany has been dominated by Americans and that the Atlantic world just like other regions of Europe played a part in the politics (Raymond, Barbara and Bob, 2009).

The role of Atlantic world modified during the period of 1776 and 1825, but the remains are still in existence under the European geopolitics and culture. The existence of independence movements detached the relations between the United States and Britain. This was followed up by the weakening of affairs between Spain and its colonies. Quebec came up with a different approach towards the development of the metropolitan France, under the British rule. The new approach was aimed to sustain a role of dominance till the 1960s in the Roman Catholic Church. By the nineteenth century the economic significance of the Caribbean territories declined in the eyes of the European and the British Empire. When Britain gained a grade of supremacy in maritime, the control over the Atlantic world shifted. The maritime supremacy was gained by Britain after the Trafalgar in 1805 in contrast to the hegemony of Napoleon within continental Europe. In the eighteenth century the British began trading with the territories of Portuguese and Spain, cutting down the overseas trade with France. An economic war began due to Napoleon's Berlin and Milan declaration which devastated those regions which were dependent on the Atlantic trade. But this excluded the British or British produced goods. French shifted its commerce eastwards from the Atlantic ports towards Rhine and Central Europe to set the patterns for the duration of both the nineteenth and twentieth centuries (Crouzet, 1990). In 1815, peace was seen in the realm of foreign country trade, but the position of the Atlantic world remained diminished due to the economic wartime. Even Spain, which was once considered as a key European power now turned marginal (Raymond, Barbara and Bob, 2009).

The period, under which the growth of Atlantic World was extended towards Europe (westwards), the European borders were tapered by the invasions of the Ottoman's. The effect of Ottoman Empire on the Balkans altered the geopolitics of Europe. The downfall of Constantinople which took place in 1453 opened the Eastern Europe to the Turks of Ottoman. At Lepanto, a Spanish led fleet predicted the expansion of Ottoman Empire at sea in 1571, but the defeat of Hungarians and Mohacs brought the Turks into Central Europe in 1526. A high wave of Ottoman Empire over Europe was seen by the blockade of Vienna in 1963.The Ottoman Empire crushed the existing composition of the districts that they conquered and detached them from the foremost currents in European record. The growth within Ukraine was hindered by the influence of Ottoman Empire in Northern Black Sea and Crimea in the early nineteenth century. Furthermore, the access to the Mediterranean was also denied. The leading edge of Islam stroke a very powerful dissection between the west and east that oriented the regions held by the Turks towards the middle-east. Balkan coast was defined as a state which was identified in Italy (Gibbon, 1994). The territories which were under the influence of the Turks were not seen as a part of European world, regardless of where they appeared on the map. Much of the Balkan territory was under the influence of the Turks throughout the nineteenth century. But the gradual decline of the Ottoman Empire left the eastern culture under question which kept annoying the diplomacy of the Europeans till 1919 (Raymond, Barbara and Bob, 2009).

Industrial Revolution and the European Strategic Calculus

The geopolitics of Europe kept changing due to the culture and religious fluctuations, but this cannot be denied that the changes were brought in the Europe due to the industrial revolution as well. With the improvement of infrastructure the communication technology also improved during the eighteenth century. A few projects like; canalization of Guadalquivir River in Spain, Canal du Languedoc in France and the Russia's Neva-Volga complex extended the right to use the economical water transport for the bulky goods (Davies, 1996). The development of the steel industry was enhanced by the linkage of the coal fields and iron ore deposits. This connection was established by the Bridgewater canal of England. As compared to the canal means of transportation, roads were very costly. But a massive improvement in the road transportation was brought about by Thomas Telford and J.L. McAdam; they established a very safe and effective means of transport for the people of Britain, in the early nineteenth century (Gariup, 2009).

Industrial revolution was brought about by the growth in mining as well as manufacturing abilities which were further encouraged by the improved transportation facilities. The balance of power was changed with the inception of industrial revolution, because a few regions gained more strategic importance in terms of wealth and goods when compared to the others. Like for instance, the utilization of iron and coal possessions in Ruhr, led to the dominance of Prussia in Germany. Under the Twentieth century, France took control of Ruhr and Saar for the security of wealth and military. While on the other hand, after World War I Germany planned to take over Longwy-Briey iron ore fields present in Northern France. Apart from these mined resources the technological advancement in the field of manufacturing changed the strategic calculus of Europe (Gariup, 2009).

A strengthening pattern of demand and supply is reinforced by the development of railroads. In the construction of roads and railways a large amount of input of coal, iron and intense engineering goods was required. For the further expansion of industrial output, increased transport capacity was also in high demand. The landscape of Europe was completely modified by the construction of railroads. Even suburbanization was promoted with the spreading of railroad network from Britain to the continent under the period of 1830-1840. The railroad transport gained significant importance over the water transport, as it turned out to be cheaper and effective in comparison to the water transport. Daniel Hedrick appropriately described this revolution as a major tool for modifying the geopolitics of the Europe. Dynamics of work were seen in the antagonism between Austria and Russia to gain control over the railroads in the Balkans, under the time period of 1890 and 1914. Synchronized endeavors of the Austrians also created a barrier for Serbia from getting direct access to the Mediterranean, again reflecting the energetic move towards work (Headrick, 1981). With the inception of rail transport, Russian and Siberian goods gained an access to the European markets and this even enabled long-range power projection in Eurasia (Lincoln, 1994). Mackinder and Haushofer embraced after 1900 that railroads were the technological requirement for a variety of geopolitical thinking which was based upon the dominance of land power in the OCTs (Gariup, 2009).

Twentieth-Century Geopolitics

The clash of geopolitically raised patriotism with the demography as well as political geography of earlier centuries gave rise to the twentieth century wars of Europe. From the end of nineteenth century the patriotism and the will of the citizens to gain a self-government within an independent state played a major role for the politics of Europe. A model was set for the others by the amalgamation of Germany and Italy. In the 1920s the new creation of states started to take place after the dissolution of multinational Romanov, Ottoman and Habsburg Empires. The nationalities did not managed to live in divided communities and mixed with each other in ways which gave rise to unsuited claims. In almost every nation people were found to be outside the political margins that comprised of other ethnic groups and considerable minorities. Gypsies and Jews remained minorities, who lacked a proper homeland or government to prevent their rights. Even the Germans and Hungarians lost their pride that they enjoyed in the previous times. Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia faced tensions; with the earlier a Serb-dominated federation. The dilemma has been predicted by Noel Buxton in 1917, which stated that the formation of novel states from the remains of Austria-Hungary would lead to the creation of several Ulsters, which would have strong support from the exterior without any guarantee against the harassment (Buxton, 1917). Small states which were culturally divided revitalized the old conflicts related to self-determination while sparking new conflicts which could even not be tolerated (Bindi, 2009).

Streamlined borders of 1919 and 1948 came to be known as ethnic cleansing in 1990s. After the war of 1920-22 of Greco-Turkish, the empire of Kamal Ataturk disqualified the Analotian Greek communities and even smashed the Magna Graeca, which survived the Ottomans. The same fate of horrible population switch over was faced by the Turkish population living in Northern Greece. In the 1920s famines were terrorized by Josef Stalin for the purpose of breaking the national struggle to the soviet rule. After 1938, he exiled due to the security risk of Tatars, Chechens, Poles, ethnic Germans and other Baltic nationalities. The Ashkenazi Jewish populations were destroyed by the Nazi holocaust during the middle ages. The war led Poles towards east away from the German lands and added them into Adolf Hitler's Reich. The downfall of Germany led to the reversal of the primitive Ostbewegung when the indigenous German population was ruthlessly being killed or ousted towards the west by the army of Soviet Union. The boundaries of Germany underwent a change. Konigsberg came to be known as Kaliningrad in honour of Socialist head Mikhail Kalinin while the remarkable state Prussia became Poland and the uninhabited land of the Soviet Union was divided. As per the Benes Decrees of 1945, Germans were exiled as a result of the delayed revenge for Hitler's occupation of the Sudetenland accompanied by Czechoslovakia's Hungarian population which were branded as a threat to the national security. International attempts at peacekeeping authorised the population changes as Poland shifted into the German lands and relinquished the territories alongside its eastern boundaries to the Soviet Union. This gave rise to a more culturally organized state than it had been previously (Bindi, 2009).

As Winston Churchill puts it very aptly that an 'Iron Curtain' slid from Stettin to the Baltic and reached Trieste on the Adriatic, the Cold War resulted in the division of Europe into East and West. This separation positioned majority of the Central European territory in newly formed "East" governed by the Socialist tenet from Moscow, Soviet Union. The equivalent to the Soviet-governed area emerged in the shape of the NATO (or North Atlantic Treaty Organization) established in 1949 to act as military coalition to safeguard the Euro-Atlantic area. The non-aligned Western countries like Sweden, Ireland accompanied by Yugoslavia whose Socialist regime struggled against the Soviet rule, were not a part of the coalition of Cold War which led to the division of Europe. However, these states were exclusions exemplifying the rule that formed geopolitics till 1989, the time when the Soviet bloc toppled (Bindi, 2009).

The geopolitics prevalent during the Cold War gave Western Europe the identity of "Europe" and it joined United States' Western coalition and this obliquely debarred the states behind the iron curtain from being a part of Europe. The European cohesion was reinforced by the American political heads as they saw in Europe a more powerful ally against the Soviet. However, this idea was actually endorsed due to the circumstances surrounding Europe (Trachtenberg, 1980). Supportive attempts to speed up the recovery after the war and to encourage financial cohesion resulted in the creation of a European Economic Community preceded by the Treaty of Rome, which took place in 1957. Jean Monnet tried to accomplish the military and political integration of Europe accompanied by financial cohesion through progressive relocation of function from state to international control. European establishments offered a way to surpass the geopolitical aspects that were seen by their supporters as the reason for the two major wars across the globe. The Europe which was conceived by Monnet was more of an ideology rather than a place (Judt, 1996; Bindi, 2009).

Monnet's idea of combining and sharing the rule was reflected in The Maastricht Treaty in 1991. This treaty changed the European Community into a clearly political European Union with global ambitions having a shared currency and desires for shared international and defence strategies. It, however, tried to address certain issues related to the part played by a unified Germany in the Europe after the Cold War. The earlier plans driven by the European community included national interests spanning from entry to the bordering markets and the assets to fulfil Germany's longing for political restoration. The clash between the national policies and European policy emerged after Euro was introduced followed by the stability pact. This has resulted in grave issues since 2000. The idea of l'Europe de Patries was given by Charles de Gaulle which he personally regarded as a way to promote French influence. Notwithstanding Monnet's desires, Europe advanced as a union of domestic states that specifically used power to fulfill their self-interests. The regions of Carolingian Empire give the fundamental geographical background of the European Union and there has been a conscious empathy with its legacy. Networks in the European territory make integration more attractive than in the regions with diverse cultures. The European Union, however, is a relic of the Franco-German pressures in the era of 1920s and'90s and Cold War issues which have been solved now. The downfall of Soviet bloc and the Soviet Union along with the inclusion of Ireland and other outlying countries to the European Union formed an altered geopolitical dynamic of the present history. Europe cannot be regarded the same as the European Union and though praised by several people, the changeover from nation-states to member-states was next to impossible. The categorization of Europe, therefore, is a disputed matter in this century (Bindi, 2009).

Conclusion of section 2: the theory of Geopolitics and OCTs existence: Where does Europe End

The theory of Geopolitics attempts to explain why some countries have power and other countries do not. "The term geopolitics came into use at the end of the nineteenth century. Thinking globally was then formally connected by geopolitical reason to acting globally, but the actual practices of geopolitics began much earlier, when Europeans first encountered the rest of the world (Agnew 2003)." So geopolitics is already connected to imperialism. Geopolitics reflects the view that the geographic conditions have a major influence in public policy. Geographical assumptions do not undermine the geographical position, but also the topography and the natural and human resources (population, natural resources, water, etc.). Therefore geopolitics is also called the geography if international relations (Berg 1998).

European states need their overseas territories for economic and security reasons. On economic point they own the right to all natural resources included minerals and fishing rights around the islands. Caribbean biggest natural recourse is its climate. Thanks to weather conditions, it is possible to grow agricultural products, which cannot grow in Europe. So UK, France and Netherland can import product without dealing with European Union customs and rules. Besides that, Carribean OCTs provide these territories economic springboard to neighboring countries -- it is easier to sell one's goods, if they come through the neighboring area. On the security point-of-view, these territories provide bases to the military and secure sea roads to the mainland. Military and economic security is not only important to the mainland states but also to the European Union. The current world is no more bipolar, but more and more unipolar. And one of the players is European Union. Sea roads and territories on other continents provide huge advantage to Europe. Therefore to compete with China, India, U.S. And Brazil, EU needs these territories.

Section 3: Realism and Neorealism

Why is there a need to use realism to understand and define EU geographic boundaries and its place in the global politics? While selecting realism, why identify neorealism as a means to highlight legal problems with OCTs? The concise solution to all these issues is that, due to its deep impression on international relations theory, the use of realism is inevitable. Due to its consistent use as a supportive-if imperfect-approach, it would be necessary to rationalize why this approach was used. As Benjamin asserts that realism has controlled the almost all studies and researches on international relations from the very start. This is because realism has unfailingly offered the most dependable regulation for the government along with the most convincing descriptions of state behavior (Benjamin, 1996).

Furthermore, the part of realism has been so widespread that other constructs and particular theories are partially explained with respect to the spot they appear in as opposed to it. David Baldwin observes that the key issues related to realism in the present times are democratic peace theory, which is put forward by republican liberalism; constructivism, which is put forward by sociological liberalism; interdependency, which is explained as commercial liberalism; and neoliberal institutionalism. All of the aforementioned theories have critically evaluate realism (David, 1993). Robert Keohane says that these criticisms authenticate the importance realism has in international relations. He asserts that from time to time people have criticized realism yet the main emphasis of these criticisms validates the importance of Realistic thought in the global political thinking of the West.

While selecting neorealism as a leading theory, one makes out that it has been the most challenging form of realism for more than two decades in the past. Neorealism became, for theorists, a manner of choice or the centre of critique after Kenneth Waltz put forward his Theory of International Politics. Robert Powell wrote in 1994 that the argument over neoliberalism and neorealism has its influence on international relations theory for the past decade (Robert 1994). As a result of this argument, important changes and shifts of focus have taken place in neorealism. Yet despite all this, I will debate that it is still the same as the description given by Waltz. Neorealism is still influencing the area of international relations but in different forms. The alterations in the construct of neorealism have been profound and controversial in nature but in my opinion they characterise a mandatory struggle to improve neorealism and combine it with the outcomes observed somewhere else (Majone, 2009).

The theory of Neorealism and its link with the Balance of Power

The Theory of International Politics by Waltz gives a type of structural realism which outlined a system structure with regard to

1. The ordering principle of the theory which in this case is chaos in contrast to hierarchy

2. The description of the working of its components

3. The circulation of its power (Kenneth, 1996).

Waltz concentrated on the type of communication among the states, particularly on elucidations for the periodic sequence of war. He claims that governments function in a chaotic environment wherein they cannot trust others to have any regard for their interest or even on the persistent benevolent plans of the amicable states. In the absence of a world federation, there can be anything which could avert the attack of one state on another. The key impact of chaos is to generate the need of support as eventually a state can only rely on itself to survive. Thus, Waltz comes to the conclusion that wars take place simply because there is nothing to stop them (Kenneth, 2000).

Trying not to depend upon other countries is essential to decrease a country's contact with the perils of chaos. Waltz argues that this results in making all the states similar in function instead of being different. States having hierarchical system would perform well if they focus on a specific function, in doing so they would benefit from financial benefits. Conversely, states having anarchical system will only be capable of reaping temporary advantages and those too at the expense of susceptibility over a long period. In one of the essays written earlier, Waltz compared the international system to machinery wherein each component can live and work even when others are not present. This is total opposition to the working of a living being wherein the entire organism is at the mercy of the specific working of every organ. As Kenneth asserts that a machine like society relies on the connection of the elements that from it; an organic society built on diversity (Kenneth, 1991).

As per Waltz, the capability of every state determines whether it is similar to its arrangement or not. Because all states are responsible to defend themselves, those who are powerful will rule while those who are weak will be the most susceptible. Though every state has similar functions, they are able to function to unsatisfactory standards. Every state will strive to make the most of its security so that the impact of chaos can be reduced. However, this will not be equal as they have diverse resources that would be used. This makes Waltz's theory indicative of elucidation of a bitter reality: the strong ones can exercise their power in any way they like while the weak have no choice but to agree (Thucydides, 1972).

The way in which the units are arranged causes Waltz to reach an important view about the relationships among states. If a powerful state gains control over others, no one can stop the weaker states or their alliances to increase their power so that they can remove the rule of the dominant one. Undoubtedly, because there is nothing to stop a dominant state to take advantage of its position, viz., and acting in its interest, the underprivileged states would in reality have a strong motivation to try to reorganize their relative positions. Waltz's main inspiration states that:

…peace is merely an alteration in the character of the battle… like every huge political community is a probable contender for honour, it is also a probable danger to all its surrounding countries. Lastly, due to an inevitable 'dynamic of power', anywhere the right to prestige emerges… they encounter and invite all the aspirants of prestige (Smith 1986).

Due to their unsafe environment and the terror of domination, as a result, weaker powers will emerge and rebalance the system structure. Because it is supposed that states are rational and it is in their benefit to balance, states are required to start their challenge as early as possible following their rival's domination. The issuing of a challenge lies usually in the interest of the disadvantaged states, as nothing can resist them. Due to this fact, if the hegemonic position is attained subsequently by the challenging state(s) then it is expected that another challenge from elsewhere might take place (Wunderlich and Bailey, 2011).

Balance-of-power is the most distinctive political theory of international politics. Waltz believes that balance of power theory is to be the sole significant contribution of neorealism towards international political theory (as cited in Viotti & Kauppi, 1999).

Waltz elaborated the balance of power concept into a coherent theory, despite the fact that he didn't originate that idea. He located the primary causal variable at the system level. He believed that constant rearrangement of units is due to the uncertainty of the system, which is fundamental principle behind ordering as compared to unit level variables. The 'balance of power' is an automatic perennial process which will not halt until it is transformed. According to an influential neorealist, the world is heading towards a new era of hegemonic conflicts, as disequilibrium gets replaced by equilibrium. This vivid fact will remain valid until a peaceful change is uncured by the human beings or they tend to destroy themselves eternally (Viotti & Kauppi, 1999).

Neorealism and the Cold War Era

World War II resulted in the depletion of all resources of the pronounced European powers and also withered the economic and human cost of the Western Europe. Moreover, it also put an end to their imperial ambitions. Western European states became familiar of the lofty losses of power encountered by them in comparison to the United States and the Soviet Union, as a majority of the colonies struggled for attaining independence. The political centre of gravity left Europe for the first time since the very inception of state structure of international relations, which commenced in the 17th century. The bipolar system came in to being for ordering the world politics structure, which was traditionally done according to the multipolar system. The U.S.S.R. And the U.S.A. possessing conventional, economic and nuclear capabilities dominated the political system of the world (Wunderlich and Bailey, 2011).

The competition and mutual fears between the two superpowers polarized them after a few years of the war, despite the fact that both of them had been allies of each other. George Kennan in his popular Long Telegram in February 1946, predicted a battle between the two significant world centers, which would be headed by respective superpowers (Frost, 1946). Kennan notified Washington government regarding the intentions of Soviet Union for reducing influence and strength on both individual and collective level of capitalist powers (Kennan, 1946). He argued in response to oppose the aggressive USSR policies by building alliance with friendly Western states.

The Long Telegram by Kennan had a deep impact on the containment policy which supported the Truman Doctrine which was agreed upon last year by the American president, despite the fact that he criticized the American foreign policy during the Cold War. Truman aimed at supporting free people attempting to resist suppression by outside pressures or armed forces (Kennan, 1946). This led to the rejection of traditional American avoidance of alliances and led the U.S. To commit open-ended support of challenged states due to either internal or external communist influences. In June 1948, the Soviet blockade of Berlin posed a challenge to Washington which resulted in compelling the U.S. To strive for maintain European security. This led to the creation of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which served as instrumental in institutionalizing American security commitments to Europe. The Cold war in Europe between security organizations gained a formal shape upon the admission of West Germany to NATO in 1955, which made USSR to set up Warsaw Pact in opposition (Kyris et al., 2011).

The former great powers in Western Europe settled on the path of economic integration through the formation of European Economic Communities, while the bipolar structure persisted throughout the Cold War with different levels of intensity. They also faced the hostile attitude of the Soviet superpower, however their security was still granted by the United States. The Western European powers sustained their alliance with the U.S., as they were unable to cater appropriate levels of security as sovereign states. Moreover, the Europeans lost their power status due to the fact that they were way behind the superpowers in terms of economy. They were unable to regain their power as they were afraid of alienating the U.S. Or provoking the U.S.S.R. So, as long as the Cold War carried on, the Europeans could not bring their system structure back to multipolarity (Hill et al., 2011).

The United States invested vast military and economic resources in NATO and the 1947 Marshall Plan. The reason behind was the fear of implications of a Soviet-dominated Europe engulfing the United States. The U.S. And Western Europe remained tied to each other as long as both of them considered Soviet Union as a major threat. This made the system structure to remain bipolar. Bipolarity was expected to persist until one superpower refrains from considering the other as hostile. This could only be made possible through a withdrawal or a defeat or by incurring a change in policy (Hill et al., 2011).

The withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan by Gorbachev - the Soviet president for policies in 1985 and his lenient attitudes towards protest movements in Eastern Europe, convinced the West about the positive changes in the motives of the Soviet. In 1991, the U.S.S.R. collapsed ultimately due the freedom granted by these policies for eventual independence of several Soviet republics together with Russia. This sudden movement of the U.S.S.R. shifted the system structure into unipolarity. This made it quite vague to predict the durability of a new structure which was previously based on bipolarity or multipolarity. The mutual bonds tying Western Europe and the United States were all eliminated after the events occurring in 1991. The forces that hurdled the reaffirmation of influence of European states at the international level were all eliminated (Hill et al., 2011).

Neorealism and the European Union

The European Union's analyses of realism defines that neo-realism is structural instead of dual causality theory. There are two wider concept and approaches. The first one is European, which states that it is a nation state centered in relation to the bi-polarity: Soviet had to face Americans so as to decide who the world power is (De Vasconcelos, 2010).

Integration was not undertaken to build any one common power, but it is the empowerment of individual and separate states by their common interest and means. The European states integration was hardly to do anything with Europe rather it is dealing with states. This is the reason that Joseph Grieco states Modern realists as skeptical of EC (Joseph, 1993). The European Union was an alliance of interstates with a basic purpose of stronger individual states in highly competitive and interdependent economy (Giplin, 1990). The rationale for OCTs existence here then becomes

According to the analysis, the Western-European states will shatter from this integration, after the Cold-War, and by utilizing their freedom in relation to super-powers, try to escape from the limitations of the integration and will try to emphasize on their national interests. John Mearsheimer, illustrates both the political history and Neo-realism theory and predicted that the multi-polarity will return in Europe after the collapse of Soviet Union. Furthermore, he said that the war had corrupted the European-state system (Measheimer, 1990), and to balance out the cycle, Europe enhances the situation for a better future. According to him, the main concept behind peace and war is in the international structural system rather than in the nature of individual states.

Griffiths' reading of neorealism confirms this analysis:

The states retaliate to any cooperation and logical anarchy which may be the binding factor between them, and subordinated to power distribution (Griffiths, 1999).

As mentioned above, the reasons of the European integration is state-centered but interprets the results as potentially a new super-power of Europe instead of community of different and individual empowered states. In this case, there will be no balance in the European powers and others. To balance out against other superpowers, they have to unite their weight. According to the perception of Richard Rosecrance, the era after the Cold-war was dominated largely by multi-polarity of superpowers, the Europe is one of them.

The five greatest powers control the organizations of the world, which are United States of America, European Community, Russia, China and Japan (Vasquez, 1997).

In the late 1990s the scenario of 'Back to Future' was declined with the deeper advancement of integration. With the support of U.S., the European states tries to clear themselves from the situation of anarchy, which European are condemned according to the realists. Surprisingly this is due to the development and the researchers try to regenerate neo-realism with more consideration of variables at unit-level. Failing to obey the rules of common neo-realist and their expectations, the European states cooperated not only internally but also externally with hegemony. The researchers of other paradigms support their judgment that this structural theory is not right and are also misleading. According to David Lake, it does not matter that the realist got the Cold-War right as they certainly got the peace wrong (David, 1999). Schweller and Wohlforth defines the common conclusion of scholars that the Cold-War had weaken the realism (Randall and Wohlforth, 2000).

Against the balancing neo-realism expectation, European Community had found a path to institutionalize their cooperative motives towards self-help strategies despite of structural pressures. According to Patricia Weitsman, the EU is not just an alliance formed against adversary rather it is formed between them therefore, improving the chances of peace among Union members (Patricia, 1997). Those who like Mersheimer believe on the constraints of structure and revert previous pattern of balance and conflict and other who like Schweller; believe that progress can be made and the possibility of the elevation of international politics to other higher level (Robert, 1991/92).

The time's cycle class does not include neorealism whenever the over-weighing structural factors of the neorealism lead to it's blindside. Despite not being completely dynamic in nature, the structural theory still cannot be considered completely static. As defensive realism is dynamic and as well as consistent in nature because of its unit factors, so it is really able to fit itself in the time's arrow approach. On the other hand, with respect to offensive realism, the deterioration of past national strategies and the collapse in European integration is well considered by offensive realism, which makes it included in the time's cycle description of the history of the world (Viotti & Kauppi, 1999).

According to Waltz's theory of dual-causality method, the sustainability of neorealism has not really become complex because of the rapid growth in European integration, after the end of the cold war era. The unit variables which were given special emphasis by Waltz and other neo-structural theories which were given after Waltz theory, are proved effective in time's arrow approach and as well as in time's cycle approach. As per Waltz, to get return to the state multipolarity and intra-European conflict is not in the destiny of the European states. Nevertheless, there are some chances with respect to the consistency of power theory. With respect to the unit variables, Mearsheimer did not provide room for changes at unit level as was provided by Waltz. It can be said that neorealism has nothing to do with the integration due to which this situation got hurt (as cited in Viotti & Kauppi, 1999).

The international politics has found the unit variables provide by Waltz's theory, and this is the reason it is also supported by the defensive realism, which is fit in the time's arrow approach. Although European politics have been altered at the lower level because of European integration since the ending of cold war, it must nevertheless keep operating in anarchic conditions. Europeans strategies are still constrained by structural pressures, although they might be rescuing themselves of anarchical waters in Europe by combining their capabilities. The case of defense realists and that of Waltz remains valid even though the EU has marred the case of offensive realism. European states may balance against each other if they do not balance amongst themselves. Thus, European countries seem to becoming more and more united and this union has to face up to the expectations from a unipolar world (De Vasconcelos, 2010).

So, the allegation that there is still a balance of power operating in Europe ten years after the Cold War seems to rely on the expectation of a superpower from Europe becoming capable of standing up to the present hegemony, or the hegemony pre-emptively striking at future challenges. In the context of such challenges, the EU must be seen as the most likely unit from this area. Since another type of neorealism seems even more unlikely, it now falls back to its alternative, time's arrow, expectation, that a rebalancing of the worldwide system still take place with the European Union as a global unit (De Vasconcelos, 2010).

These ideas and the emergence of a Euro-based unit in place of various European countries are long-standing ideas in realism. One of the main assumptions the realists have is that the prime actors in global political scenario are not the nation-states, but only the "conflict groups," according to Robert Gilpin (Gilpin, 1996).

Any group of people with some shared political and personal interest form conflict groups in the pursuit of an agreed agenda. Ideally, the realistic have been more concerned with fundamental groups of early seventeenth century that coined the idea of kingdom. At another point, Gilpin has discussed a much compatible definition of conflict groups by declaring them non-fixed with the passage of time. Therefore, a truly nationalistic state becomes quite like-minded with the fundamental idea of realism:

... As the modern thoughts of a nation-state are brainchild of historical analysis, any change in the fundamental factors will be equal to death of the concept (of nation-state) (Gilpin, 1984).

In case, this happens, Giplin argues, "the political administration and affairs are not going to die, as considered by realists; you can still imagine a jungle in real world" (Gilpin, 1996). While harmonizing with the idea, Kenneth Waltz argues, "the global administrative structures have defined parameters for understanding an era, either by city, towns, kingdoms and nations" (Vasquez, 1996).

This bias shown by Gilpin and Wlatz in favor of a unit renovation is followed by Hans Morgenthau, who created masterpiece Politics Among Nations (1948). In his works, he predicted three happenings with particular reference to integration of Europe, where two of them are somehow related to neorealism and third one is like a 'moderate' view that doesn't lean towards any.

1- Political Creativity- the concept predicted integration of complete administrative structure, including political, financial and military systems. In short, it can be described as shared sovereignty.

2- Political Impotence- According to this idea, Europe was supposed to declare itself as a neutral power with no interest in external affairs

3- Political Desperation- This was a bit far away from integration; instead, it favours the idea of a common national agenda and its pursuit (Morenthau & Thompson, 1985).

The third option was given more focus and consideration after the fall of Soviet Union as an imperative step to give Europe a lost power once more. The same can be exhibited in the response given by Europe to the Cold War. Additionally, since the fall of USSR in 1991, there have been dozens of agreements between various European nations to form and establish supra-national institutes to achieve the goal of a more collaborative union. The three types of integration explained by Morgenthau are incorporated in various agreements signed by member states of European Union (Shimko, 2009).

However, the predictions of Morgenthau have not been able to respond the key question as to whether EU is an actor by itself (this is against the view that supra-national establishment is merely to reflect shared interests of the members) but it has definitely pinpointed the course of EU integration that ultimately forms a conflict group. Unlike these predictions, Mearsheimer's views of reversing back to chaos across the Europe as a result are not given fresher look and taken merely a conservative thought (Shimko, 2009).

On the other hand, Waltz favours the idea of evolution of union institutes into a global force and claims that supra-national actors will be able to work more effectively. Moreover, they either will adopt the capabilities of a state or will vanish as a result of inability to perform accurately in line with state attributes (Vasquez, 1996).

In the 90's the European Union mainly focused on its look of state. Today, one can see that after a successful transition into a vibrant political and administrative unit, the EU is declared by defensive realism as not only an actor but one of the leading candidates in the global political game and plays pivotal role in international balance of power. In the past 10 years, EU/EC has been quite focused on the expansion of its economic and territorial grounds (Shimko, 2009).

The formation of Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) as a result of Maastricht Treaty in 1992 is one similar step and such steps are on their way even today. In simple words, the Gilpin's idea of EU and global political development argues in favour of EU growing as a state and forming the traditional statehood system and concept in the modern times (Waltz, 1996). An insight holder of the European integration, who is of the radical view that the actions of the EU are steady with the theory of balance of power, has been mentioned by Joseph Nye Jr.:

As a challenge to America, a political syndicate is evolving as European Union (Nye, 2000).

The panorama of the European rebalances of the world politics have been viewed by the analysts more earnestly now. EC/EU has been itemized by Waltz in his 1993 article, as one of the four challengers for the balance role. Russia was included in the list in 2000, despite the fact that it had been avowed by William Wohlforth, "The world may seem as bipolar in case of EU being a state" (William, 1999). On the other hand, it has also been frequently questioned by the educational books whether the self-assured EC/EU can be borne by the Atlantic alliance, possessing labels such as Adversaries or Allies, Europe: The strange superpower, and American and Europe: Is the break Inevitable (Frank, 1993)? It is then essential and probable (because its alternate, time's cycle/aggressive realism, hasn't been of much reliability) for American superiority the perception of EU challenge, in the footings of neorealism.

Conclusion of section 3: the theory of Realism and Neorealism and OCTs significance:

Neorealism acknowledges that economic actors are important, but still not as important as a military power (Nicholson 2002). Neorealism explains why European states still wants to keep their overseas territories -- they need them for their military and economic security. In this point-of-view existence of OCT is related to the geopolitics. From the discussion above it is clear that different viewpoints of geopolitics define Europe in a different manner. According to the first one, it is illustrated as long-term geopolitical measures which comprise of East/West divide, resolutions of Gaullist Europe of nation-states along with a number of economic conditions that different European territories follow. The second definition or "idea" of Europe is forwarded by Monnet and that idea was adopted as an institutional form made with the EU. Besides the theory of globalization and transnational associations, the concept of Europe is viewed beyond geopolitics and its chronological foundations. One more very common "idea" or the third one of Europe is the transformation of cultural values or demographic changes due to the rapid invasion of immigrants from third world countries. Some believers also define Europe as criticism of American cultures and society. The Caribbean OCTs which are European-derived have remarkable resemblance in cultural values and demographic conditions active in Europe and this also influences the political, emotional and economical conditions. All these ideas or definitions of Europe are under consideration and are helpful in enhancing the current circumstances of development which cannot be overlooked. It is not enough to look at the maps and decide which country should be given more weightage. Maps can be misread due to distortions that may exist among these countries. Undoubtedly, in line with the geopolitical theory, OCTs has its root in Europe and they should always remember the history and geopolitical settings that made this possible.

Section 4: Legal Status of European OCTs

Overview of Legal status of French OCTs

The legal status of local government in the constitution of 1958 can be recognized as overseas in the following two forms like the overseas department (DOM) and the Overseas Territories (TOM). The terms" DOM - TOM "are normally used to describe French regions. Since 1970's this twofold categorization has been sidestepped by the propagation of special status with respect to few and some other pre-existing regions. These French DOM - TOMs are legitimate and lawful places that allowed some sort of suppleness instead of being rigid framework (Vink and Graziano, 2007).

The occupied French DOM - TOMs has been considered as overseas collectives and received a distinctive federal prominence in French territorial administration since 2003. However, this concept is different in terms of decentralization compared to RUPs (regions ultraperipheriques") and DOMs ("departements d'outre-mer") (Vink and Graziano, 2007).

This situation is because of the need generated by revised recommendations in 1958 French Constitution. Article 74 describes the lawful specifications for every PTOM in the new status of constitution. In addition to this the French Polynesia law had been the only passed law, the other PTOM are still administering the past legal regimes (Vink and Graziano, 2007).

Wallis & Funtuna are in argument of close and direct administrative and financial autonomy as per provided law 61-814 29/07/1961. Conventional organizations are divided into three kingdoms (as cited in Vink and Graziano, 2007):

king (the Lavelua in Uvea (Wallis)

the Tuiagaifo in Alo

the Keletaona in Sigave (Futuna)

Martinique's government ("collectivite territorial) has seen upgraded status since 1976 according to 2001 statue to a "collectivite departementale" which is similar to the status of a metropolitan "department" and relevant local administration (Conseil General). It is also associated to State administration (Vink and Graziano, 2007).

The referendum of 2009 has upgraded this status to status of full -fledge" department" (95% yesyotes). Mayotte was considered as a department in 2001 by the French administrators. This was considered as a first step towards the path of Outermost Region of the European Union. This change has been regulated as a state of OR (outermost region) for year 2014. However, it is dependent on Martinique which has least standards for entrance to status of OR (Vink and Graziano, 2007).

To consider Martinique as an outermost region it simply requires some step process to be implemented which France can forefront to the EU. OR often get financial assistance from EU and it is important to note that Martinique cannot get elongated funds from EDF. However, they are able to get more detailed assistance from ERDF via DGREGIO (Vink and Graziano, 2007).

Guadeloupe and French Guiana's history is consistently evolving. In 1976, it was administered by the government of France and was treated as an overseas department. However, they both were able to get the status of local government ("collectivite territoriale") in 1985. The responsibilities of these local governments are a combination of metropolitan department and regions (Vink and Graziano, 2007).

Saint Barthelemy and Saint Martin have been enjoying a superior status with respect to increased government independence since 1984 (Lemoine status). Territories' political development and conceding power of politics and its native population is representing a big landmark as described in the 1998 Accord de Noumea. Here country has to decide either to build a lasting relationship with the French Republic or to acquire status of n independent state in a referendum that will be conducted in 2012 and 2019. The territorial congress (Congress (Congres, with voters limited to only the people dwelling in this territory for at least a decade) and governments are established according to the signature of the accord. They have more power after facing a steady process of inflow with respect to power from France (Vink and Graziano, 2007).

Self -government principle of French OCTs was introduced in the revised constitution of 2003. In 2004, French Polynesia had an unbreakable status of self-rule by law (Loi organique 2004-192 27/02 / 2004). A self-elected structured assembly (having common law as it's proficiencies) and government was allowed to run affairs in the region. French autonomy followed these main features; defending their interests, controlling the consistency of local laws as per the constitution, transference of proficiencies (keeping aside the ones autonomous in nature), preferring local government especially on employment (Vink and Graziano, 2007).

OCT linked with the Netherlands

There are three main divisions of the Kingdom of Netherlands possessing individual identity given by international law namely: Netherlands, Netherlands Antilles and the third is Aruba. Every division enjoys unique identity which is completely independent in running their internal matters. A process of modification with respect to constitution is taking place, which will be discussed under legal status. The Netherlands Antilles consists of the following five islands: Bonaire, St. Eustatius, Saba, St. Maarten and Curaco comprising of 75% of the population of 191,780 on the whole. This detail is obtained from 8th and 9th EDF. However the Aruba has a population of about 72,000 (Keukeleire and MacNaughtan, 2008).

Among the three islands, Netherlands Antilles is the one on the wealthier side having the per capita GDP of about €12,441 recorded in 2001. The economy of Antilles depends upon tourism, transshipment, oil refining and financial investments. Some of the drawbacks faced by this division are loss of skilled workers, moving towards Netherlands as emigrants contributing to social deficit. For the improvement of financial sector, some crucial reforms IMF made are being taken into consideration and also to strengthen its offshore finance providing position. This also involves a considerable economization of public sector. Netherlands provide extensive assistance in development of this region in which economic investment and complete social infrastructure development is included (Keukeleire and MacNaughtan, 2008).

Aruba Island was the part of Netherlands Antilles until 1986, but now it is a separate island of Caribbean comprising of about 193 square kilometers. Its population is estimated as 102,000 (2006). Not many details are available about Aruba because there is no individually prepared SPD under 9th 0 EDF at present. The per capita GDP is about € 20.000 (2004) which brings the island under the list of one of the wealthiest countries in the Caribbean (Keukeleire and MacNaughtan, 2008).

The economy of Aruba is partially depended on tourism and associated firms like construction, oil refining and offshore banking mainly. According to the OAD for the 9th EDF, Aruba does not get any defensive share, however there are some remaining funds available given by EDFs (Keukeleire and MacNaughtan, 2008).

Tourism is the main source of economy for both Aruba and Netherlands Antilles, for which land and environment protection is one of the major concern in the region. Some of the increasing environmental problems are: continuous increase in population, particularly in low-income segments (in some measure flourished by immigrants from surrounding islands) and the uncontrollable load of tourists. Marine and sea environment is continuously being polluted by liquid wastes, infecting the water causing environmental disasters. Urgent major actions should be taken to safeguard the water which is polluted by unlimited landfills. Effective strategies should be made to improve waste management system and there should be proper management of water resources in order to enhance the biodiversity of islands (Keukeleire and MacNaughtan, 2008).

Legal Status of Neitherland OCTs

The Queen of Netherlands Islands, represented as Governor General, is the head of the Aruba and Netherlands Antilles. However Netherlands Antilles has a well organized centrally run government and parliament for the Netherlands five islands, but each island enjoys its own internal government which is very much independent in taking decisions economically as well as socially (Keukeleire and MacNaughtan, 2008).

However, the main responsibilities such as Ministry of Foreign Affairs are still controlled by the Netherlands itself. The main issues like dealing with USA for placing the Air Force aircrafts of U.S. In Curacao and Aruba (during the "drug war"). Negotiation involving the sessions with EU on OCTs is also look after by the main government (Keukeleire and MacNaughtan, 2008).

Issues concerning to security, General Intelligence, renewal of civil services, security services parliamentarian issues are still under the control of Netherlands Ministry of Interior and also Kingdom Relation. Collaboration of Kingdom Relations is also its responsibility. The departments which also come in their supervision are municipalities, open government, Central Government, department of management, senior civil services and provinces (looking after the departments of security, fire services, crisis management and medical assistance for accidents and damages) (Keukeleire and MacNaughtan, 2008).

The new constitutional structural reforms are being taken by the Kingdom of Netherlands to enhance the present status of Netherlands Antilles. A new transformed NEA has been concluded in this reform into 5 different territories during October 2010. In the Round table Conference held at Willemstad on 15th December 2008 and put into exercise on 10th October 2010 generally recalled as "10.10.10." These reforms also involved public finance, constitutional reforms, economical changes, enforcement of laws and enhanced government policies. Following are the four features of the evolution process (Keukeleire and MacNaughtan, 2008):

• Netherlands will head the St. Eustatius, Bonaires and Saba as public authorities like municipalities of Netherlands (responsible authority for these actions) (Keukeleire and MacNaughtan, 2008).

• The Country status would be given to Curacao and St. Maarten (these islands will be responsible in collaboration with the government for the on going political process and administration of related organizational affairs as individual states) (Keukeleire and MacNaughtan, 2008).

• According to Laws of Kingdom, mutual agreement will be reached regarding the decision of the islands as new states (these consensus will be done under the supervision of Netherlands, but minute details and agreements will be made on multilateral groups level) (Keukeleire and MacNaughtan, 2008).

• The same political and administrative structure of Netherlands Antilles will be changed (under the supervision of Netherlands Antilles itself) (Keukeleire and MacNaughtan, 2008).

Propositions for collaboration and support with EC will be affected if the legal status of Netherlands Antilles is changed (as per the 10th EDFs and upcoming EDFs). Amendments, for evaluating intrusions taken during the 8th and 9th EDF would not be affected by these changes, while structural changes in constitution will be implied before the final decisions of the delayed 10 EDF and will be expected during the evaluation of OCT. According to Reference Group recommendations, the research and field work should be conducted before the amendments application (10th October 2010). TAOs and deputy TAOs will function as it is in the current framework (Keukeleire and MacNaughtan, 2008).

Current Status of UK OCTs

Compositions of the EC aid program in alliance with the UK Overseas Territories are:

• The Cyman Islands, the Turks, Caicos Islands, Montserrat in the Caribbean and Virgin Island of British the Anguilla.

• In the South Atlantic the Falkland islands, Ascension Island, St. Helena and its reliance and Tristan da Cunha.

• In the Pacific British OTs the Pitcaim Island which also includes the British Indian Ocean Territory, the British Antarctic Territory, as well as, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands that do not have any local population. Sovereign Base Area of Akroit and Dhekelia regions in Cyprus are also included. These islands of Cyprus are not considered in OTs that is why they are excluded from the collaborations with EC and from its evaluation too (Cremona, 2008).

Legal Status of Carribean OCTs

The people of Overseas Territories (OT) want to maintain relations with the UK that is why UK Government can take part in these regions. This decision is under taken through consistent views gathered during consultation process and by referendum (Cremona, 2008).

The territories' internal affairs are mostly run by OTs, which is considered to be their own responsibilities. Local Government generally comprises of Elected Legislature and Executive Council. Responsibilities such as defense, foreign affairs, public services and internal security are given to Governors and commissioners who are elected by the Crown as per the Foreign Secretary recommendations. The initiation of Constitutional reform process is aimed at improving constitution, accountability, and restricting governor's powers (Cremona, 2008).

Conclusion of Section 4: Where does Europe end, is European Union defined with its continent or are these overseas territories also part of EU?

The status of Overseas Countries and Territories that were fashioned in accordance with the Treaty of Rome in 1957 has a particular authorized and political structure of its own. The bodies of the OCT statues are not considered to be the fragment of the European Union and thus are excluded of the Schengen Space, although the Schengen member countries are reliant on them. They still attain advantage from connotations with the European Union, which has been enclosed in Part IV of the Treaty of the European Union and thus meet the requirements for bequests from European Development Fund (EDF). The population they have comprised of residents of the State, allied with the territory. There are 21 OCTs in the European Union that belong to five Members States, majority of these are Islands that are located in the tropics. Overseas Association Decision's Act was issued in 2001 for OCTs. The main objective behind this Act was to support economic and social development of the OCTs in an effective way. It was also included in agenda of the Act to strengthen economic relations between OCTs and the EC. The principal focus of this decision-based cooperation can be categorised in three areas of economy like (Orbie, 2008):

Efforts to reduce and ultimately eliminate poverty o Consistent efforts to maintain the level of development o The procedural integration of the OCTs into various regions and economies of the world.

OCTs economic cooperation is to develop trade cooperation or trade arrangement. It also aims to enhance financial cooperation and regional collaboration along with assimilation. Finally, OCTs cooperation is found in areas of operations between OCTs and Non- OCTs, non- European member countries like ACP countries and other external regions (Orbie, 2008).

The objective of OCTs is to gear up efforts related to economic cooperation and development. It involves the free trade of good and services, free movement of labour and technical facilities, relaxation in terms of payments and implementation of reforms along with sector wise policies at various scale of economy. Moreover, close relationships in terms of cooperation and assimilations are also bringing nearer the least developed economies of the OCTs (Association of the OCTs, 2008). European Development Fund (EDF) and European Investment Bank (EIB) are the providers of finance for investment and loan flux to the OCTs. In addition to this EU budget and thematic programmes are also big source of finance (Orbie, 2008).