The thesis of this essay provokes a statement holding that the AU, compared the EU, has so far failed in its endeavor to develop an “integrated, prosperous and peaceful Africa, driven by its own citizens and representing a dynamic force in global arena”. The reason behind this partial failure is accounted for in terms the level of intergovernmental and supranational arrangements characterizing both the EU and AU. To support this claim, the paper suggests a comparative analysis of the functional mechanisms of each of the Unions, by discussing the variables of Intergovernmentalism and supranationalism, as distinguishing features between the two Unions. Three sections constitute the body of the essay: 1) a brief presentation of three key concepts: i) intergovernmentalism, ii) supranationalism, and iii) regional integration; 2) the historical contexts within which each of the Unions was created; and 3) a comparative analysis.

1. INSTITUTE
FOR
CULTURAL
DIPLOMACY
BERLIN,
GERMANY
2014
Supranational Integration Versus Intergovernmental Structure:
The European Union vs. the African Union
Abdeslam
Badre,
PhD
ABSTRACT
The
thesis
of
this
essay
provokes
a
statement
holding
that
the
AU,
compared
the
EU,
has
so
far
failed
in
its
endeavor
to
develop
an
“integrated,
prosperous
and
peaceful
Africa,
driven
by
its
own
citizens
and
representing
a
dynamic
force
in
global
arena”.
The
reason
behind
this
partial
failure
is
accounted
for
in
terms
the
level
of
intergovernmental
and
supranational
arrangements
characterizing
both
the
EU
and
AU.
To
support
this
claim,
the
paper
suggests
a
comparative
analysis
of
the
functional
mechanisms
of
each
of
the
Unions,
by
discussing
the
variables
of
Intergovernmentalism
and
supranationalism,
as
distinguishing
features
between
the
two
Unions.
Three
sections
constitute
the
body
of
the
essay:
1)
a
brief
presentation
of
three
key
concepts:
i)
intergovernmentalism,
ii)
supranationalism,
and
iii)
regional
integration;
2)
the
historical
contexts
within
which
each
of
the
Unions
was
created;
and
3)
a
comparative
analysis.

2. 2
I.
Introduction
The
rise
of
global
capitalism,
the
spreading
ideological
extremism
embodied
in
neo-­‐
Nazism
in
the
West
and
fundamentalism
in
the
East,
the
unfathomable
global
environmental
threats
as
well
as
the
scarcity
of
natural
resources,
the
urging
needs
for
maintaining
human
rights
and
individual
liberties,
on
the
one
hand,
and
the
speedy
telecommunicational
and
technological
progress,
the
emergence
of
non-­‐state
actors
as
influential
borderless
entities,
along
with
the
increasing
interconnectedness
of
the
world,
on
the
other
hand,
are
all
conflicting
offspring
of
globalization
that
has
undermined
national
borders
and
challenged
the
notion
of
national
sovereignty,
pushing
individual
sate
to
fiercely
seek
innovative
routes
for
safeguarding
their
interests
and
powers.
Such
global
transformations
and
power
dynamics
have
triggered
necessities
to
build
intergovernmental
coalitions
that
would
grant
more
leverage
in
the
global
arena;
thus,
paving
the
way
to
the
formulation
of
international
and
intergovernmental
organizations
and
supranational
unions,
under
the
label
of
regional
integration,
as
a
counter-­‐
reaction
to
any
potential
spatial-­‐temporal
processes
of
changes
unfolded
by
globalization.
Since
the
end
of
World
War
II
and
the
breakdown
of
the
bipolar
world
order,
there
have
emerged
many
international
and
intergovernmental
organizations
aiming
at
developing
stronger
political
community-­‐building
and
competitive
economic
models
that
would
preserve
the
cultural
autonomy
of
individual
states
across
the
globe.
Notable
examples
of
these
international
organizations
and
regional
groupings
include
the
United
Nations
(UN),
the
World
Trade
Organization
(WTO),
and
the
European
Union
(EU)
which
often
serves
as
a
source
of
inspiration
for
those
who
hanker
for
integration,
as
was
the
case
of
the
African
Union
(AU),
among
many
others.
While
some
of
these
entities
have
only
concerned
themselves
with
trade
relations,
such
as
the
North
American
Free
Trade
Area
(NAFTA);
others
have
focused
on
economic
and
political
integration,
as
exemplified
by
the
European
Union
(EU)
and
the
African
Union
(AU).
Due
to
their
highly
significant
historical
contexts
as
well
as
their
roles
in
the
present
international
relations’
stage,
both
the
European
Union
(EU)
and
African
Union
(AU)
will
be
the
touchstone
of
the
present
paper.
The
latter
advocates
the
claim
that
a
supranational
union
or

3. 3
regionalism
in
today’s
globalized
world
is
no
more
a
choice
but
a
necessary
step
individual
states
have
to
take
if
willing
to
protect
their
national
interests
and
maintain
their
name
on
the
geopolitical
map;
yet,
an
affiliation
into
a
supranational
model
may
not
yield
satisfactory
results,
if
the
latter
does
not
function
within
strong
institutions,
harmonized
and
democratic
system,
and
sound
operational
mechanisms.
On
this
basis,
I
argue,
in
this
paper,
that
the
AU,
if
compared
to
the
EU,
has
so
far
failed
in
its
endeavor
to
develop
an
“integrated,
prosperous
and
peaceful
Africa,
driven
by
its
own
citizens
and
representing
a
dynamic
force
in
global
arena1”.
The
reason
behind
this
partial
failure,
in
my
opinion,
can
be
explained
in
light
of
the
level
of
intergovernmental
and
supranational
arrangements
characterizing
both
the
EU
and
AU.
In
other
words,
the
AU
is
a
merely
deformed
imitation
whose
structure
might
resemble
the
EU’s
but
its
operational
method
remains
an
intergovernmental
structure
which
is
handicapped
by
the
lack
of
supranationalism
approach
to
decision
making
upon
which
the
EU
has
been
founded,
and
is
being
governed
and
expended.
In
this
regards,
the
paper
is
composed
of
three
sections.
The
first
section
will
be
devoted
to
a
brief
presentation
of
three
key
concepts
that
are
central
in
this
paper,
namely:
i)
Intergovernmentalism;
ii)
supranationalism;
and
iii)
regional
integration.
The
second
section
will
go
over
the
historical
contexts
within
which
each
of
the
unions
was
created.
Accordingly,
two
historical
landmarks
will
be
called
upon:
the
cold
war,
in
the
case
of
the
EU;
and
independence
in
the
case
of
AU.
The
third
section
sets
a
comparative
analysis
of
the
functional
mechanisms
of
each
of
the
unions,
by
discussing
the
variables
of
intergovernmentalism
and
supranationalism,
as
distinguishing
features
between
the
two
Unions.
II.
Key
Concept
Definition
II.1.
Intergovernmentalism
Intergovernmentalism
could
be
defined
as
simply
as
a
method
of
international
decision
1
-­‐
Vision
of
the
African
Union
as
stated
in
the
Vision
and
Mission
of
the
African
Union.
Available
at
African
Union
web
portal
at:
http://www.au.int/en/about/vision.
Consulted
on
April
20th,
2014;
at
23:57.

4. 4
making
in
which
state
governments
play
prominent
roles 2 .
The
term
is
often
used
interchangeably
with
intergovernmental
organization
and
it
might
refer
to
different
types
of
international
organizations,
such
as
the
United
Nations3
(UN,
1945),
the
North
Atlantic
Treaty
Organization4
(NATO,
1949),
the
European
Union5
(EU,
1993),
the
Organization
of
Petroleum
Exporting
Countries6
(OPEC,
1960),
the
African
Development
Bank7
(ADB,
1963)
and
the
World
Trade
Organization8
(WTO,
1995),
among
many.
I
would
like
to
embark
on
two
definitions,
relevant
to
the
fields
of
political
sciences:
one
is
theoretical;
and
the
second
is
operational.
On
the
one
hand,
it
refers
to
the
theory
of
Stanley
Hoffman’s
proposition
of
the
theory
of
integration.
On
the
other
hand,
it
refers
to
the
idea
that
integration
is
a
possible
process
only
when
states
and/or
national
governments
are
treated
as
the
primary
factor
in
the
process
(Teodor
Moga:
2009)9.
According
to
Harvard
Law
School
(HLS),
the
term
intergovernmental
organization
(IGO)
refers
to
“an
entity
created
by
treaty,
involving
two
or
more
nations,
to
work
in
good
faith,
on
issues
of
common
interest10.”
This
definition
implies
two
crucial
points.
First,
the
legality
and
legitimacy
of
any
potential
intergovernmental
organization
are
established
only
within
the
framework
of
a
treaty;
otherwise,
the
presence
of
an
IGO
will
not
retain
any
legal
status.
An
example
of
this
situation,
according
to
HLS,
is
the
previously
known
G8;
now
G711,
which
is
a
group
of
seven
nations
that
have
annual
economic
and
political
summits,
but
none
of
these
nations
are
abided
by
enforceable
agreements
among
themselves.
The
absence
of
a
treaty
might
devalue
the
IGO
of
any
enforcing
mechanisms,
and
turn
it
into
a
mere
club,
as
was
clearly
stated
by
the
Russian
foreign
minister,
Sergei
Lavrov
Lavrov,
right
after
expelling
Russia
from
the
G8,
he
said:
"the
G8
is
an
informal
club.
No
one
hands
out
membership
cards
and
no
one
can
be
kicked
out
of
2
-­‐
“Intergovernmentalism”
as
defined
by
Princeton
University.
Consulted
on
March
12
th
2014.
Available
at:
http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Intergovernmentalism.html
3
-­‐
See
“UN
at
a
glance”,
at:
http://www.un.org/en/aboutun/index.shtml
4
-­‐
See
“History
of
the
NATO”
at:
www.nato.int
5
-­‐
See
“European
Union”
at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union
6
-­‐
See
“
OPEC
Brief
History”
at:
http://www.opec.org/opec_web/en/about_us/24.htm
7
-­‐
See
“About
ADB”
at:
http://www.afdb.org/en/about-­‐us/
8
-­‐
See
“What
is
the
WRO”
at:
http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/whatis_e.htm
9
-­‐
Teodor
Lucian
Moga
(2009).
“The
Contribution
of
the
Neofunctionalist
and
Intergovernmentalist
Theories
to
the
Evolution
of
the
European
Integration
Process.”
Journal
of
Alternative
Perspectives
in
the
Social
Sciences.
Retrieved
02
April
2014.
10
-­‐
“Intergovernmental
organization”
(IGO),
Harvard
Law
School
(HLS).
Consulted
on
March
17
th
2014.
Available
at:
http://www.law.harvard.edu/current/careers/opia/public-­‐interest-­‐law/public-­‐international/interngovernmental-­‐organizations.html
11
-­‐
Since
its
creation
in
1973,
The
Group
of
Eight
(G8)
has
been
a
forum
for
the
governments
of
a
group
of
eight
leading
industrialized
countries.
However,
as
a
result
of
its
involvement
in
the
2014
Ukrainian
crisis
of
Crimea,
Russia
was
excluded
from
the
forum
by
the
other
members
on
March
24
th
,
2014.
Accordingly,
the
group
now
comprises
seven
nations
and
will
continue
to
meet
as
the
G7.

5. 5
it.12"
A
statement
as
such
is
what
convinces
many
practitioners
in
advocating
the
idea
that
IGOs
that
are
formed
by
treaties
are
more
powerful
than
a
mere
grouping
of
nations
because
they
are
subject
to
international
law
and
have
the
ability
to
enter
into
legal
enforcement.
The
second
point
has
to
do
with
the
purpose
of
IGO.
According
to
the
definition
provided
above,
the
collaborating
entity
should
include
at
least
two
nations
willing
to
work
in
good
faith
by
establishing
operating
mechanisms
and
synergies
to
work
more
successfully
together
for
common
interest
in
areas
such
as:
politics,
economics,
social
affairs,
security,
and
environments,
or
all
of
these.
In
other
words,
there
must
be
a
common
ground
as
well
as
shared
interests
and
challenges
among
the
partnering
states
for
a
regional
integration
to
take
place.
In
today’s
globalized
and
interdependent
nations,
and
since
the
creation
of
the
UN
and
NATO,
the
role
of
intergovernmentalism
has
become
a
vertebral
method
in
international
decision-­‐making
and
global
governance
thanks
to
its
legal
ability
to
make
rules
and
exercise
power
among
member
states
while
recognizing
both
the
significance
of
institutionalisation
in
international
politics
and
the
impact
of
domestic
politics
upon
governmental
preferences.
II.2.
European
Supranationalism
The
term
"supranational"
is
sometimes
used
in
a
loose,
undefined
sense;
in
other
contexts,
sometimes
as
a
substitute
for
international,
transnational
or
global
structure.
In
the
case
of
Europe,
“
supranationalism”
is
a
method
of
decision-­‐making
in
a
multi-­‐national
political
community
where
sovereignty/power
is
moved
from
the
hands
of
individual
nations
to
a
broader
majority
government
of
member
states13.
The
notion
of
“supranational
democracy”
was
first
initiated
by
one
of
the
European
pioneers
behind
the
idea
of
the
European
Union,
Robert
Schuman,
previous
French
foreign
minister,
during
his
speeches
at
the
United
Nations14
at
the
signing
of
the
Council's
Statutes
and
at
a
series
of
other
speeches
across
Europe15.
The
term
was
then
adopted
and
first
occurred
in
the
Paris
Treaty16
on
April
18th
,
1951.
The
term
12
-­‐
The
WIRE:
“After
Kicking
Out
Russia,
the
G8
Is
Now
The
G7”.
Abby
Ohlheiser,
March
24
th
2014.
Retrieved
on
March
24
th
2014.
Available
at:
13
-­‐
Kiljunen,
Kimmo
(2004).
The
European
Constitution
in
the
Making.
Center
for
European
Policy
Studies.
P.p.
21–26
14
-­‐
Robert
Schuman.
September
28
th
,
1948.
A
Speech
at
the
United
Nations
General
Assembly,
3
rd
Session:
“Germany
and
the
European
Community.”
Consulted
April
12
th
,
2014.
Available
at:
http://www.schuman.info/UN4849.htm
15
-­‐
Robert
Schuman.
May
16
th
,
1949.
A
speech
at
Strasbourg:
Extracted
from
“The
Coming
Century
of
Supranational
Communities.”
Consulted
April
12
th
,
2014.
Available
at:
http://www.schuman.info/Strasbourg549.htm
16
-­‐
See
“Treaty
establishing
the
European
Coal
and
Steel
Community,
ECSC
Treaty”,
at:
http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/institutional_affairs/treaties/treaties_ecsc_en.htm

6. 6
came
to
allocate
new
meaning
to
democracy
and
legitimacy,
by
defining
the
relationship
between
the
Highest
Authority,
represented
by
the
European
Commission
(EC)
and
the
other
institutions
of
the
EU.
Since
its
emergence
in
the
vocabulary
of
the
world
politics
and
international
relations,
the
debate
over
the
concept
of
supranationalism
has
often
called
upon
the
concept
of
sovereignty,
among
others.
Because
decisions
in
some
supranational
states
are
taken
by
votes,
it
is
possible
for
a
member-­‐state
to
be
forced
by
the
other
member-­‐states
to
implement
a
decision;
but
unlike
the
federal
supra-­‐states,
member
states
retain
nominal
sovereignty,
and
any
member-­‐state
can
reclaim
its
sovereignty
by
withdrawing
from
the
supranational
arrangement.
In
theorizing
the
concept
of
supranationalism,
Joseph
Weiler
(1981)
differentiates
between
decisional
and
normative
supranationalism:
while
the
first
relates
to
the
institutional
framework
and
decision-­‐making
processes
by
which
the
Union
policies
and
measures
are,
in
the
first
place,
initiated,
debated
and
formulated,
then
promulgated,
and
finally
executed;
the
second
deals
with
the
relationships
and
hierarchy
which
exist
between
EU
policies
and
legal
measures
on
the
one
hand,
and
competing
policies
and
legal
measures
of
the
Member
States
on
the
other17.
The
establishment
of
this
theory
helps
in
a
way
to
understand
why
the
European
Union
is
said
to
be
the
only
entity
which
provides
for
international
popular
elections,
going
beyond
the
level
of
political
integration
normally
afforded
by
international
treaty.
II.3.
Regional
Integration
John
McCormick
(1999)
defines
regional
integration
as
“the
process
by
which
two
or
more
nation-­‐states
agree
to
co-­‐operate
and
work
closely
together
to
achieve
peace,
stability
and
wealth18.”
This
cooperation
could
take
different
shapes,
and
be
focused
on
one
or
more
areas
of
expertise,
managed,
monitored
and
executed
by
representative
bodies
of
member-­‐
states’
coordinators,
all
of
which
are
exhaustively
described
in
a
written
agreement.
Initially,
a
regional
integration
agreement
might
be
confined
to
a
single
area
of
cooperation,
such
as
17
-­‐
Weiler,
H.H.
Joseph.
“The
Community
System:
the
Dual
Character
of
Supranationalism”
(1981)
Y.E.L.
pp.
267-­‐280.
18
-­‐
John
McCormick.
The
European
Union:
Politics
and
Policies.
Westview
Press:
Boulder
Colorado,
1999.

7. 7
economic
or
political
integration;
then,
it
might
be
expanded
to
include
not
only
other
areas
of
collaboration
but
also
other
partners
(nation-­‐states).
For
instance,
if
two
or
more
nation-­‐states
agree
to
engage
into
a
complete
economic
integration,
they
indulge
in
a
process
of
trade-­‐
barriers
removal,
which
includes
removal
of
tariffs,
quotas,
and
border
restrictions;
thus,
fusing
into
a
single
market
with
a
customs
union,
meaning
common
external
tariff
on
goods
from
other
countries.
The
highest
level
of
economic
integration
would
be
an
adoption
of
a
common
currency,
with
monetary
policy
regulated
by
a
single
central
bank.
Yet,
reaching
this
highest
level
of
economic
integration
between
collaborating
states
entails
the
development
of
standardized
policies
in
certain
societal
institutions
-­‐
such
as
employment
regulations,
health
case
system,
which
paves
the
way
for
political
integration.
Similar
to
economic
integration,
the
culmination
of
political
integration
takes
shape
when
the
partnering
states
agree
to
share
not
only
foreign
polices
but
also
integrate
their
armies.
John
McCormick
argues
that
when
two
or
more
cooperating
countries
reach
highest
levels
of
economic
and
political
integration,
they
in
effect
form
“a
new
country.”
According
to
this
analysis,
integration
between
nation
states,
be
it
in
the
economic,
political
sphere
or
both,
may
have
different
level
of
cooperation.
John
McCormick
scales
up
integration’s
levels
from
(0)
representing
“no
integration”
and
(10)
representing
“complete
integration”
between
two
or
more
countries.
To
date,
the
European
Union
is
considered
to
be
the
best
model
of
regional
integration,
being
an
economic
and
political
union
operating
through
a
system
of
supranational
independent
establishment
and
intergovernmental
negotiated
decisions
by
the
28
member
sates.
Indeed,
the
EU
has
reached
this
level
of
integration
by
embarking,
on
the
one
hand,
on
a
single
market
agreement
manifested
in
the
total
removal
of
trade
barriers,
the
creation
of
a
monetary
union
(1999),
allowing
free
movement
of
goods,
services,
capital
within
the
Euro-­‐
zone19,
as
well
as
people
within
the
Schengen
Area20.
On
the
other
hand,
the
EU
political
integration
has
been
enacted
by
the
development
of
seven
institutions21:
namely,
i)
the
19
-­‐
“Countries,
language,
currencies.”
Interinstitutional
style
guide.
The
EU
Publications
Office.
Retrieved
April
12
th
2014.
Available
at:
http://www.ecb.europa.eu/euro/intro/html/map.en.html
20
-­‐
The
Schengen
Area.
December
12
th
,
2008.
European
Commission.
Retrieved
on
April
13
th
,
2014.
Available
at:
http://biblio.ucv.ro/bib_web/bib_pdf/EU_books/0056.pdf
21
-­‐
Based
on
Schuman
declaration,
most
EU
institutions
were
created
with
the
establishment
of
the
European
Coal
and
Steel
Community

8. 8
European
Commission
as
the
executive
branch
of
the
Union
(EC),
ii)
the
Council
of
the
European
Union
(CEU),
iii)
the
Council
of
Europe
(CE),
iv)
the
European
Parliament
(EP),
v)
the
Court
of
Justice
of
the
European
Union,
vi)
the
European
Central
Bank,
and
vii)
the
Courts
of
Auditors.
Partially
similar
to
but
significantly
different
from
the
regional
integration
of
Europe,
the
African
Union
is
a
continental
intergovernmental
union
which
includes
54
countries
except
Morocco22.
A
further
description
and
comparative
analysis
of
both
the
EU
and
AU
will
be
provided
in
the
coming
section.
An
important
question
that
floats
on
the
surface
relates
to
the
historical
contexts
that
paved
the
way
for
these
regional
integrations.
III.
A
Brief
Historical
Context
of
EU
and
AU
III.1.
EU:
From
the
Cold
War
to
the
Resurrection
of
Europe
Literature
about
the
formation
of
the
European
Union
speaks
of
the
British
Prime
Minister
Winston
Churchill23,
along
with
other
prominent
figures
like
Robert
Schuman
and
Jean
Monnet24,
as
the
founding
father
who
called
for
the
creation
of
the
United
States
of
Europe
in
his
famous
speech
to
the
Academic
Youth25,
held
at
the
University
of
Zurich
in
1946.
Following
this
speech,
the
so-­‐called
“Benelux
custom
union”
came
to
the
forth
when
three
of
the
early
European
community
(Belgium,
Luxembourg,
and
the
Netherlands)
signed
the
union
treaty26
in
March
1947,
the
same
year
in
which
the
General
Agreement
on
Tariffs
and
Trade27
(GATT)
was
established.
To
help
European
countries
recover
economically
from
the
scars
of
WWII,
the
back
then
Secretary
of
State,
General
George
Marshall,
announced
the
Marshall
Plan28
to
form
the
(ECSC)
in
the
1950s.
According
to
the
Maastricht
Treaty,
also
known
as
the
Treaty
on
the
European
Union
(TEU),
which
was
signed
by
the
members
of
the
European
community
on
February
7
th
,
1992,
in
the
Netherland,
the
EU
seven
institutions
are
listed
in
the
following
order:
1)
the
European
Parliament,
2)
the
Council
of
Europe,
3)
the
Council
of
the
European
Union,
4)
the
European
Commission,
5)
the
Court
of
Justice
of
the
European
Union,
6)
the
European
Central
Bank,
7)
the
Courts
of
Auditors.
Retrieved
on
March
25
th
,
2014,
Available
at:
http://eur-­‐
lex.europa.eu
22
-­‐
Due
to
its
opposition
to
the
membership
of
the
Polisario
Front
as
representative
of
the
separatist
movements
in
the
Moroccan
Western
Sahara,
Morocco
withdrew
its
membership
from
the
African
Union.
However,
Morocco
has
a
special
status
within
the
AU
and
benefits
from
the
services
available
to
all
AU
states
from
the
institutions
of
the
AU,
such
as
the
African
Development
Bank.
23
-­‐
Winston
Churchill:
Calling
for
a
United
States
of
Europe.
(1940-­‐1955).
Consulted
on,
March
16
th
2014.
Available
at:
http://europa.eu/about-­‐
eu/eu-­‐history/founding-­‐fathers/pdf/winston_churchill_en.pdf
24
-­‐
See
Robert
Schuman.
May
16
th
,
1949.
A
speech
at
Strasbourg:
Extracted
from
“The
Coming
Century
of
Supranational
Communities.”
Consulted
April
12
th
,
2014.
Available
at:
http://www.schuman.info/Strasbourg549.htm
25
-­‐
Ibid.
26
-­‐
See
“Historical
events
in
the
European
integration
process
1945-­‐2009.”
Consulted
on,
March
16
th
2014.
Available
at:
http://www.cvce.eu/collections/unit-­‐content/-­‐/unit/en/02bb76df-­‐d066-­‐4c08-­‐a58a-­‐d4686a3e68ff/02d476c7-­‐815d-­‐4d85-­‐8f88-­‐
9a2f0e559bb4/Resources#79027a01-­‐7de5-­‐4618-­‐962c-­‐5c9c1c41f5a2_en&overlay
27
-­‐
See
General
Agreement
on
Tariffs
and
Trade
(1947).
Consulted
on,
March
16
th
2014.
Available
at:
http://www.gatt.org
28
-­‐
See
The
Marshall
Plan
(1947).
onsulted
on,
March
16
th
2014.
Available
at:
http://www.marshallfoundation.org/TheMarshallPlan.htm

9. 9
Organization
for
European
Economic
Recovery
Cooperation29
(OEEC).
Meanwhile,
the
Eastern
Communist
bloc
had
already
seeded
its
ideology
that
would
split
Europe
into
two
rivalry
blocs,
rejecting
the
Marshall
plan,
and
imposing
the
blockade
of
Berlin30,
splitting
Germany
into
West
and
East
in
June
1948,
entering
thus
into
the
long
and
nerve
racking
forty-­‐year
Cold
War.
However,
with
the
creation
of
the
Council
of
Europe31
and
signing
of
the
NATO
treaty
in
1949,
and
the
Schuman
plan
to
form
a
European
Coal
and
Steel
Community
(ECSC),
the
European
integration
was
gaining
ground.
This
was
manifested
in
the
Treaty
of
Paris,
which
sealed
the
deal
in
March
1951,
with
France,
Italy,
and
the
Benelux
countries
and
West
Germany
which
hoped
to
gain
some
recognition
in
Europe
and
become
an
economic
partner.
As
part
of
a
desire
for
France
to
have
access
to
German
coal
and
steel,
while
ensuring
that
Germany
did
not
gain
further
influence
in
Europe,
French
Foreign
Minister,
Robert
Schuman,
designed
the
ECSC
under
a
common
High
Authority
of
Franco-­‐German
coal
and
steel
production.
Another
event
that
gave
the
idea
of
a
united
Europe
an
institutional
dimension
was
the
establishment
of
the
European
Parliament32
in
1952.
The
turning
point,
though,
was
the
signing
of
the
Treaty
of
Rome 33
in
March
1957,
establishing
the
European
Economic
Community
(EEC)
and
the
European
Atomic
Energy
Community34
(Euratom),
leading
to
the
foundation
for
the
Common
Market.
Indeed
the
foundation
of
the
common
market
was
a
touchstone
in
the
history
of
today’s
EU
single
market,
because
it
paved
the
way
for
a
series
of
treaties
and
agreements
that
lead,
on
the
one
hand,
to
the
inclusion
of
new
member
states,
and
to
expansion
of
the
union’s
activities.
Within
the
framework
of
the
Common
Market35,
the
Common
Agricultural
Policy
(CAP),
along
with
the
European
Monetary
Agreement36
(EMA)
were
established
and
entered
into
force
in
29
-­‐
Ibid.
30
-­‐
See:
“Berlin
blockade
and
airlift,”
at
Encyclopadia
Britannica.
Consulted
on
March
20th
2014.
Available
at:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/62154/Berlin-­‐blockade-­‐and-­‐airlift
31
-­‐
See:
“Council
of
Europe:
60
years
of
history”.
Consulted
on
March
20th
2014.
Available
at:
http://www.coe.int/60years/
32
-­‐
See:
“The
History
of
the
EU:
1952”.
Consulted
on
March
20th
2014.
Available
at:
http://europa.eu/about-­‐eu/eu-­‐history/1945-­‐
1959/1952/index_en.htm
33
-­‐
See:
“Establishing
the
European
Economic
Community
Treaty”.
Consulted
on
March
21
st
2014.
Available
at:
http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/institutional_affairs/treaties/treaties_eec_en.htm
34
-­‐
See:
“European
Atomic
Energy
Community.”
Consulted
on
March
21
st
2014.
Available
at:
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/euratom/euratom_en.htm
35
-­‐
See:
“
European
Common
Market,”
Consulted
on
March
21
st
2014.
Available
at:
http://www.europedia.moussis.eu/books/Book_2/3/6/index.tkl?all=1&pos=62
36
-­‐
See:
“European
Monetary
Agreement
(Paris,
5
August
1955).”
Consulted
on
March
21
st
2014.
Available
at:
http://www.cvce.eu/obj/european_monetary_agreement_paris_5_august_1955-­‐en-­‐58d18d59-­‐c3b0-­‐4bdc-­‐9756-­‐d23dd322382d.html

10. 10
1958.
One
year
later,
a
progressive
abolition
of
customs
and
quotas
was
introduced,
motivating
accordingly
Austria,
Denmark,
Norway,
Portugal,
Sweden,
Switzerland,
and
the
United
Kingdom
to
establish
a
European
Free
Trade
Association37
(EFTA)
in
1959,
which
resulted
to
fast
economic
growth
of
the
EEC
in
the
1960s.
By
then,
the
Union
had
already
started
considering
the
abolishment
all
remaining
trade
barriers
between
nation-­‐states
and
forming
an
internal
market;
hence,
the
Single
European
Act38
was
signed
in
Luxembourg,
in
February
1986.
This
goal
was
actualized
thanks
to
the
Treaty
of
Maastricht
on
the
European
Union
(TEU)
in
1992,
integrating
all
the
institutions
of
the
ECC
under
one
entity:
the
EU.
It
also
changed
the
EEC
to
European
Community
(EC),
and
expanded
the
mandate
of
the
EC
to
the
political
sphere.
Later
on,
other
treaties
for
clarifying
the
structure
of
the
EU
or
further
expansion
of
the
Union‘s
activities
were
followed,
including
the
Amsterdam,
the
Nice,
and
the
Lisbon
treaties.
The
year
2002
witnessed
the
unification
of
the
EU
currency,
the
Euro,
governing
a
market
with
the
free
movement
of
goods,
services,
people,
and
money.
The
economic
prosperity
of
the
EU
has
encouraged
other
countries
to
apply
for
membership.
The
wave
of
enlargement
in
the
1990s
and
2000s
allowed
European
countries
from
almost
all
regions—North,
South,
East,
and
Center—to
join
the
EU
expanding
the
union
from
six
member
states
during
its
infancy
stage,
to
fifteen
states
in
1995,
and
28
by
201339.
III.2.
AU:
From
Pan-­‐Africanism
to
the
African
Union
The
African
Union
project
has
been
so
much
inspired
by
and
aspired
for
the
EU
democratic
model
that
is
based
on
State-­‐relations
based
on
peace
and
stability,
affluence
and
freedom
for
generations
to
come;
and
a
functional
economic
integration
as
a
tool
to
advance
peace
and
to
promote
eventual
political
union
(Ludger
Kühnhardt,
2009).
In
deed,
with
almost
the
same
ambition
of
the
British
Prime
Minister
Winston
Churchill
of
the
United
States
of
Europe
with
harmonized
and
powerful
structures,
the
idea
of
African
Union
too
was
inspired
by
visionary
African
figures,
and
had
gone
through
different
stages
of
maturity.
However,
unlike
37
-­‐
See:
“European
Free
Trade
Association
(EFTA)
in
1959.”
Consulted
on
March
21
st
2014.
Available
at:
http://en.euabc.com/word/431
38
-­‐
See:
“Single
European
Act
1986.”
Consulted
on
March
21
st
2014.
Available
at:
http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/institutional_affairs/treaties/treaties_singleact_en.htm
39
-­‐
Croatia
was
the
28
th
state
that
joined
the
EU
on
July
1
st
2013.
See:
“Enlargement”
at:
http://ec.europa.eu

11. 11
the
EU,
which
was
based
on
the
determination
to
protect
Europe
from
the
threats
of
its
internal
ills,
namely
communism
and
Nazism,
the
project
of
the
African
Union
was
introduced
to
reclaim
the
history,
cultural
identity,
and
preserve
the
natural
resources
from
the
Western
domination
and
put
an
end
to
colonialism40.
This
idea
In
this
regards,
Sougrynoma
Sore41
(2010)
highlights
three
main
turning
points
in
the
history
of
the
African
Union
establishment:
1)
the
sprit
of
Pan-­‐Africanism
(1957);
2)
institutionalization
of
Pan-­‐Africanism
in
Africa
(1974);
and
3)
the
creation
of
the
African
Union
(1999).
W.
E.
B.
DuBois,
in
this
regard,
is
considered
to
be
the
founding
father
of
the
idea
of
Pan-­‐Africanism
or
Pan-­‐African
movement,
which
sought
to
fight
against
the
Western
domination
of
Africa,
and
to
restore
dignity,
self-­‐determination,
and
unity
within
Africa
and
its
Diaspora42.
W.
E.
B.
DuBois
perceived
of
the
movement
to
be
rooted
in
shared
racial,
historical,
and
economic
bonds,
committed
to
gaining
economic
and
political
self-­‐rule
for
the
colonized,
and
symbolized
in
a
worldwide
union
of
people
of
color43.
Pan-­‐
Africanism
was
materialized
through
three
main
stages
of
institutionalization.
First,
there
was
the
Pan-­‐African
Congress
convened
on
the
African
continent
in
1974
and
hosted
by
the
late
President
Mwalimu
Julius
Nyerere
in
Dar-­‐Es-­‐Salaam,
Tanzania,
representing
an
early
concrete
effort
toward
mobilizing
Africa
and
its
Diaspora44.
The
objectives
of
the
Congress
included
the
addressing
of
African
unity,
African
independence,
support
of
the
liberation
of
southern
African
people
and
the
establishment
of
a
permanent
Secretariat
of
the
Pan
African
Congress,
with
six
areas
of
focus:
agriculture,
health
and
nutrition,
research
in
science
and
technology,
communications,
political
cooperation,
and
support
for
the
Liberation
Movements
in
Africa45.
The
second
phase
involved
the
creation
of
the
Organization
of
African
Unity46
which
was
suggested
in
different
state
gatherings
and
summits,
believing
that
the
only
way
for
Africa
to
develop,
prosper,
and
forever
overthrow
the
colonizers
was
to
form
a
united
Africa.
The
Late
40
-­‐
Sore,
Sougrynoma
Z.
(2010)
"Establishing
Regional
Integration:
The
African
Union
and
the
European
Union,"
Macalester
International:
Vol.
25,
Article
13.
Consulted
on
March
1
st
2014
Available
at:
http://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/macintl/vol25/iss1/13
41
-­‐
Ibid.
Pp.
13.
42
-­‐
George
Akeya
Agbango
(1998).
Issues
and
Trends
in
Contemporary
African
Politics:
Stability,
Development,
and
Democratization.
Peter
Lang
43
-­‐
Ibid.
Pp.67
44
-­‐
Joseph
S.
Nye
Jr
(1965).
Pan-­‐Africanism
and
East
African
integration.
Harvard
University
Press
45
-­‐
Sylvia
Hill.
“From
the
Sixth
Pan-­‐African
Congress
to
the
Free
South
Africa
Movement.”
Consulted
on
March
3rd
2014,
Available
at:
http://www.noeasyvictories.org/select/08_hill.php
46
-­‐
See:
“History
of
African
Union.”
Consulted
on
March
3rd
2014.
Available
at:
http://www.un.org/popin/oau/oauhome.htm

12. 12
Ghanaian
President,
Kwame
Nkrumah47,
was
one
of
the
prominent
advocates
of
this
idea.
However,
given
the
fluctuating
events
of
power
struggle
and
state
of
ambivalence
that
the
newly
independent
African
countries
were
undergoing
in
the
1950s
and
1960s
in
the
continents,
along
with
the
assassination
of
the
first
Togolese
president48,
Sylvianus
Olympio,
in
1963
rendered
Nkrumah’s
ambition
for
the
Organization
of
African
Unity
of
little
resonance,
as
many
African
leaders
then
feared
for
their
lives.
Adding
to
that
the
tragedies
of
bloodiest
resistance
to
independence
of
some
African
states.
Hence,
the
OAU
looked
more
as
a
threat
to
the
sovereignty
for
those
newly
independent
states.
To
create
a
middle
ground
and
keep
the
OAU
project
on
the
table,
a
charter
of
the
OAU
was
signed
in
May
1963,
in
Addis
Ababa,
Ethiopia,
prohibiting
the
OAU
from
interfering
in
internal
state
matters.
The
third
turning
point
in
the
history
of
Africa
was
the
establishment
of
the
African
Union
which
came
as
an
alternative
to
the
failing
project
of
OAU
to
deliver
its
highlighted
promises
due
to
its
limited
ability
to
address
the
challenges
of
the
continent.
In
addition,
the
desire
of
some
prominent
African
leaders
to
revive
the
spirit
of
African
Unity
contributed
to
the
materialization
of
the
AU.
Following
these
forces,
African
states
called
for
the
creation
of
the
African
Union49
(AU)
at
an
extraordinary
summit
in
Libya,
in
September
1999,
under
the
leadership
of
President
Muammar
Al-­‐Gaddafi.
The
Constitutive
Act50
of
the
AU
was
signed
at
the
Lomé
Summit
in
Togo,
in
July
2000,
which
led
to
the
dissolvent
of
the
OAU
in
July
2002,
to
be
supplanted
by
the
AU.
The
political
climate
in
which
the
AU
was
born
greatly
contributed
to
the
creation
of
the
organization,
underlining
three
African
figures
who
became
then
the
leading
figures
behind
the
AU,
namely:
Muammar
Gaddafi
(Libya),
Thabo
Mbeki
(South
Africa),
and
Olusegun
Obasanjo
(Nigeria)51.
Although
the
establishment
of
the
AU
shifted
the
priorities
from
the
states
to
the
people,
the
violations
of
human
rights
and
massacres
that
occurred
under
the
rule
of
new
African
dictators
spoke
louder
than
the
spirit
of
the
African
Union,
due
to
the
European
East-­‐
47
-­‐Backed
by
the
back
then
Tanzanian
President
Nyerere
and
Egyptian
President
Gamal
Abdel
Nasser,
Kwame
Nkrumah,
being
the
first
sub-­‐
Saharan
African
countries
to
accede
to
independence
in
1957,
had
significant
leverage
in
continental
politics.
48
-­‐
Witte,
Wright,
et
al.
(2001).
The
Assassination
of
Lumumba.
London:
Verso
49
-­‐
See:
“About
AU”
at
the
African
Union
Website:
www.au.int
50
-­‐
Ibid.
51
-­‐
Schoeman,
Maxi
(2003).
The
African
Union
after
the
Durban
2002
Summit.
Centre
of
African
Studies.
University
of
Copenhagen

13. 13
West
ideological
struggles.
In
other
words,
the
years
of
the
capitalism-­‐socialism
divide,
the
fierce
competition
between
the
U.S.S.R.
and
the
capitalist
Western
nations
induced
both
blocs
to
scramble
for
allies
worldwide
including
Africa52.
There,
the
ultimate
goal
of
the
West
was
to
ensure
that
there
were
no
forms
of
socialist
order.
In
return,
the
Western
powers
turned
a
blind
eye
to
the
violations
of
human
rights
that
occurred
under
the
rule
of
dictators
that
were
their
allies.
Such
was
the
case
in
the
Congo
when
populist
and
revolutionary
Prime
Minister
Patrice
Lumumba
was
assassinated
by
his
successor,
Mobutu
Sese
Seko,
under
the
approving
eye
of
the
West,
particularly
Belgium53.
The
1980
Lagos
Plan
of
Action
for
the
Development54
of
Africa
and
the
1991
treaty
to
establish
the
African
Economic
Community
proposed
the
creation
of
Regional
Economic
Communities
(RECs)
as
one
of
the
key
objectives
to
the
achievement
of
the
African
greater
continental
integration.
The
1991
plan
set
a
timetable
for
regional
and
then
continental
integration
to
follow.
Currently,
there
are
eight
RECs
recognized
by
the
AU,
each
established
under
a
separate
regional
treaty.
Today,
the
African
Union
doubly
as
big
as
Europe’s,
with
850
million
people
living
in
the
53
African
Union
member
states,
with
the
exception
of
Morocco,
which
withdrew
its
membership
in
1984
following
the
Union’s
acceptance
of
the
so-­‐called
“Sahrawi
Arab
Democratic
Republic”
membership;
whereas,
EU
constitutes
of
28
member
states
(2013),
with
483
million
population.
Both
AU
and
EU
share
some
apparent
similarities
of
the
institutional
set-­‐up,
for
they
have
assembly
of
heads
of
states
of
the
member-­‐countries,
executive
councils
where
ministers
meet,
a
commission,
a
parliament,
or
an
advisory
council,
which
unites
various
social
groups.
But
there
are
substantial
differences
in
the
institutional
structures,
a
point
to
be
discussed
in
the
coming
section.
IV.
EU’s
Supranationalism
Vs.
AU’s
Intergovernmentalism
The
underlying
difference
between
the
EU
and
AU
resides
in
their
institutional
structures.
While
the
AU
is
characterized
by
solely
an
intergovernmental
arrangement,
the
EU’s
52
-­‐
Murithi,
Timothy
(2005)
.The
African
Union:
Pan-­‐Africanism,
Peace
building
and
Development.
Hampshire,
UK:
Ashgate
Publishing
53
-­‐
Bustin,
Edouard
(2001).
The
Assassination
of
Lumumba
by
Ludo
de
Witte;
Ann
Wright;
Renée
Fenby.
The
International
Journal
of
African
Historical
Studies
Vol.
34,
No.
1
(2001),
pp.
177-­‐185.
Boston
University
African
Studies
Center
54
-­‐
ORGANIZARION
OF
AFRICAN
UNIT:
Lagos
plan
of
action
for
the
economic
development
of
Africa
1980-­‐2000.
OAU:
Addis
Ababa
Ethiopia.
Consulted
on
March
23
rd
2014.
Available
at:
http://www.tni.org/sites/www.tni.org/archives/africa-­‐docs/lagosplan.pdf

14. 14
structure
has
followed
careful
and
progressive
intergovernmental
as
well
as
supranational
approaches.
Unlike
the
African
Union
that
counted
its
53
members
already
from
start,
or
the
OAU
of
1963,
which
organized
all
independent
African
states
at
that
time,
there
were
only
six
countries
to
start
the
process
of
European
integration
in
1951,
when
establishing
the
European
Coal
and
Steel
Community.
Thereby,
on
a
very
limited
field,
the
states
transferred
sovereignty
to
a
supranational
body.
Also
when
enlarging
this
scheme
to
a
European
Economic
Community
in
1957,
there
were
still
only
these
six
countries
participating.
Successive
rounds
of
enlargement
have
increased
the
number
of
members
to
28
by
now.
But
it
has
been
a
gradual
process
from
small
to
increasing
numbers
of
members,
while
others
are
still
waiting
to
join.
This
strategy
of
progressive
adoption
of
supranational
approach
to
decision
making
could
be
traced
back
to
the
enactment
of
the
Treaty
of
Maastricht
1992.
The
latter
states
that
the
European
Union
consists
of
a
supranational
“pillars
1”
which
contains
the
fields
were
integration
has
gone
furthest,
and
the
intergovernmental 55
“pillars
2”.
Accordingly,
the
governments
of
the
member
states
can
make
decisions
only
unanimously.
The
European
Court
of
Justice,
though
it
has
interfered
heavily
into
national
affairs
of
numerous
cases,
has
no
say,
and
the
role
of
parliament
and
commission
ranges
from
“very
limited”
to
“non-­‐existing”56.
By
contrast,
in
the
Internal
Market
policy
fields,
the
European
Union
resembles
a
federal
state;
and
the
sum
of
community
law
under
the
acquis
communautaire57
gives
immediate
rights
to
the
EU
citizens;
they
can
go
to
court
in
case
these
rights
become
infringed.
That
means
that
the
EU
laws
have
the
quality
of
federal
law.
Furthermore,
the
supranational
structure
has
grown
almost
constantly
covering
a
wide
range
of
fields
such
as
monetary
policy,
foreign
policy,
migration
policy,
social
policy,
health
care,
or
gender
relations.
For
instance,
under
the
Economic
and
Monetary
Union,
the
EMU
monetary
policy
has
become
a
supranational
now,
proving
a
sustainable
monetary
stability,
the
abolition
of
exchange-­‐rate
volatility
and,
perhaps
most
importantly,
very
low
long-­‐term
interest
rates58.
In
the
case
of
supranational
social
policy,
the
treaty
provisions
on
free
labor
market
55
-­‐
See:
“Treaty
of
Maastricht
1992.”
Available
at:
http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/institutional_affairs/treaties/treaties_maastricht_en.htm
56
-­‐
Ibid.
57
-­‐
Acquis
Communautaire,
refers
to
the
sum
of
community
law,
containing
some
90,000
pages.
58
-­‐
Wolfgang
Zank
(2007).
A
Comparative
European
View
on
African
Integration
–
Why
it
has
been
much
more
difficult
in
Africa
than
in
Europe.

15. 15
mobility
and
non-­‐discrimination,
in
combination
with
the
rulings
of
the
Court
of
Justice,
have
strengthened
the
position
of
women
considerably59.
Finally,
the
EU
has
been
a
unified
actor
for
long
on
fields
such
as
international
trade
or
development
aid.
More
recently,
the
EU
could
agree
on
the
principles
of
several
common
policies
such
as
the
European
Neighborhood
Policy,
or
a
Strategy
for
Africa.
Currently,
the
EU
is
in
a
process
of
“hardening”
as
a
foreign
political
actor.
These
horizontal
and
vertical
synergies
among
the
various
institutions
of
the
EU
member
countries
reveal
that
the
increasing
level
of
supranationalism
has
put
the
members
states
in
a
growing
coherence,
proving
that
finding
a
common
solution
is
possible,
if
not
a
necessary,
endeavor
faced
to
globalization.
This
compacted
cooperation
of
the
EU
is
exactly
what
is
missing
in
the
case
of
the
African
Union.
Conversely,
all
these
supranational
characteristics
are
inexistent
in
the
African
Union.
The
latter
is
an
intergovernmental-­‐oriented
grouping
whose
member
countries
retain
their
full
legal
sovereignty.
The
parliament
of
the
AU
is
purely
advisory
and
has
no
competences
to
make
laws
for
the
continent
or
make
any
decisions
which
bind
the
member
states,
leaving
no
field
of
politics
wherein
states
have
explicitly
transferred
national
sovereignty
to
an
AU
level.
Wolfgang
Zank
(2007)
decrees
that
the
African
Union
replicates
many
characteristics
of
the
United
Nations.
In
both
cases,
heads
of
governments
or
delegations
meet
and
discuss.
They
all
have
declared
their
firm
intention
to
respect
Human
Rights.
A
Security
Council
can
legitimately
impose
sanctions60,
armed
intervention
included,
against
member
states
in
case
of
grave
violations
of
basic
principles.
But
principles
are
formulated
in
rather
general
terms.
In
both
cases
general
assemblies
and
security
councils
may
pass
resolutions,
but
they
cannot
pass
legislation
which
binds
the
member
states,
and
which
the
citizens
could
use
in
court.
Both
the
UN
and
the
AU
are
useful
intergovernmental
formations.
But
their
efficiency
and
their
ability
to
impose
their
principles
are
very
restricted.
The
rationale
for
European
integration
was
the
idea
of
reconciliation
based
on
a
gradually
emerging
common
rule
of
law,
(Ludger
Kühnhardt,
2009).
The
rationale
for
African
integration
could
be
the
formative
idea
of
continental
stability
through
socioeconomic
progress
Working
Paper
No.
4.
Center
for
Comparative
Integration
Studies:
Aalborg
University,
Denmark
59
-­‐
Wolfgang
Zank
(2007).
A
Comparative
European
View
on
African
Integration
–
Why
it
has
been
much
more
difficult
in
Africa
than
in
Europe.
Working
Paper
No.
4.
Center
for
Comparative
Integration
Studies:
Aalborg
University,
Denmark
60
-­‐
Ibid.
P.p.
21.

16. 16
based
on
a
gradually
emerging
regionalized
common
rule
of
law.
One
fundamental
lesson
may
be
learned
from
the
European
integration
experience:
The
formative
idea
that
can
carry
the
rationale
for
regional
integration
for
decades
must
be
of
a
political
and
strategic
nature,
encompassing
many
aspects
of
public
life
and
influencing
several
social
and
political
dimensions.
The
limits
of
past
state-­‐centered
policies
need
to
be
transformed
by
the
opportunities
of
integration-­‐oriented
policies.
They
must
be
result-­‐
driven
and
open
to
the
world
in
order
to
link
Africa
with
the
age
of
globalization.
Furthermore,
it
is
high
time
that
African
leaders
actualized
the
Pan-­‐African
core
principle
of
putting
the
sate
at
the
service
of
its
citizens.
This
goal
could
be
actualize
through
a
formative
and
yet
goal
oriented
strategy,
as
put
forward
by
Kühnhardt
(2008):
“Africa
has
ample
room
to
identify
win-­‐win-­‐constellations
originating
in
deep
and
real
region-­‐building.
Infrastructure
measures
and
basic
need
provisions,
optimizing
human
resources
and
migration
potential,
generating
employment
and
sustainable
growth,
prioritizing
education
and
closing
the
digital
divide,
preserving
the
human
habitat
and
providing
work
conditions
in
line
with
human
dignity”
V.
Conclusion
The
EU
and
AU
could
be
further
compared
in
terms
of
other
variables
that
have
not
been
mentioned
in
this
paper,
given
the
limited
scope
of
the
paper
as
well
as
the
time
constraints
faced
up
with.
Still,
it
would
be
mistaken
not
to
see
the
progress
that
the
establishment
of
the
AU
has
already
meant.
After
all,
having
institutionalized
forms
for
dialogue
and
negotiation
is
very
useful.
And
having
a
Commission
with
the
explicit
mandate
to
think
on
common
African
initiatives
can
have
real
effects.
For
instance,
the
AU
countries
have
been
able
to
formulate
a
common
position
on
the
reform
of
the
United
Nations.
Last
but
not
least,
the
efforts
of
both
the
EU
and
AU
at
integration
have
faced
substantial
obstacles.
But
in
the
African
case,
the
obstacles
have
been
much
more
difficult
to
surmount
than
in
Europe.
Still
there
is
along
way
awaiting
for
the
AU
to
arrive
to
the
point
where
the
EU
is
standing
today.
Walking
this
long
itinerary
does
not
only
need
time,
it
calls
for
a
global
revision
of
the
institutional
structure
of
Union
as
well
its
operational
methods,
because
currently
Egypt
and
Morocco
are
among
the
many
African
countries
that
are
not
happy
with
the
working
methods
of
the
AU.
At

17. 17
this
time
the
AU
Bibliography
1. Bustin,
Edouard
(2001).
“The
Assassination
of
Lumumba
by
Ludo
de
Witte.”
The
International
Journal
of
African
Historical
Studies
Vol.
34,
No.
1.
Massachusetts:
Boston
University
African
Studies
Center.
Pp.
177-­‐185
2. George
Akeya
Agbango
(1998).
Issues
and
Trends
in
Contemporary
African
Politics:
Stability,
Development,
and
Democratization.
Peter
Lang.
3. John
McCormick
(1999).
The
European
Union:
Politics
and
Policies.
Westview
Press:
Boulder
Colorado.
4. Kiljunen,
Kimmo
(2004).
The
European
Constitution
in
the
Making.
Center
for
European
Policy
Studies,
pp.
21–26.
5. Kühnhardt,
Ludger
(2009).
Crises
in
European
Integration:
Challenges
and
Responses.
New
York:
Oxford
6. Kühnhardt,
Ludger
(2014).
Africa
Consensus:
New
Interests,
Initiatives
and
Partners,
Washington
D.C./Baltimore:
The
Woodrow
Wilson
Center
Press.
Johns
Hopkins
University
Press
7. Murithi,
Timothy
(2005).
The
African
Union:
Pan-­‐Africanism,
Peace
building
and
Development.
Hampshire,
UK:
Ashgate
Publishing.
8. Schoeman,
Maxi
(2003).
The
African
Union
after
the
Durban
2002
Summit.
Centre
of
African
Studies.
University
of
Copenhagen.
9. Weiler,
H.
Joseph
(1981).
“The
Community
System:
the
Dual
Character
of
Supranationalism”
Y.E.L.
pp.
267-­‐280.
10. Witte,
Wright,
et
al.
(2001).
The
Assassination
of
Lumumba.
London:
Verso.
11. Zank,
Wolfgang
(2007).
A
Comparative
European
View
on
African
Integration
–
Why
it
has
been
much
more
difficult
in
Africa
than
in
Europe.
Working
Paper
No.
4.
Center
for
Comparative
Integration
Studies:
Aalborg
University,
Denmark.

18. 18
Webibliography
1. Ludger
Kühnhardt
(2008).
“African
Regional
Integration
and
the
Role
of
the
European
Union,”
discussion
paper.
Bonn,
Germany:
Center
for
European
Integration
Studies.
Pp.
01-­‐42.
Consulted
on
June
14th
2014.
Available
online
at:
http://www.zei.uni-­‐
bonn.de/dateien/discussion-­‐paper/dp_c184_kuehnhardt.pdf
2. Marshall,
George
C.
(1947)
“The
Marshall
Plan,”
The
Marshall
Foundation.
Consulted
on,
March
16th
2014.
Available
at:
http://www.marshallfoundation.org/TheMarshallPlan.htm
3. Moga,
Teodor
Lucian
(2009).
“The
Contribution
of
the
Neofunctionalist
and
Intergovernmentalist
Theories
to
the
Evolution
of
the
European
Integration
Process.”
Journal
of
Alternative
Perspectives
in
the
Social
Sciences.
Retrieved
02
April
2014.
Available
at:
http://www.japss.org/upload/14._Mogaarticle.pdf
4. Robert
Schuman.
(May
16th,
1949).
“The
Coming
Century
of
Supranational
Communities,”
a
speech
at
Strasbourg.
Consulted
April
12th,
2014.
Available
at:
http://www.schuman.info/Strasbourg549.htm
5. Robert
Schuman
(September
28th
,
1948).
“Germany
and
the
European
Community.”
The
United
Nations
General
Assembly,
3rd
Session.
Consulted
April
12th
,
2014.
Available
at:
http://www.schuman.info/UN4849.htm
6. Sore,
Sougrynoma
Z.
(2010)
"Establishing
Regional
Integration:
The
African
Union
and
the
European
Union,"
Macalester
International:
Vol.
25,
Article
13.
Consulted
on
March
1st
2014
Available
at:
http://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/macintl/vol25/iss1/13
7. Sylvia
Hill.
“From
the
Sixth
Pan-­‐African
Congress
to
the
Free
South
Africa
Movement.”
Consulted
on
March
3rd
2014,
Available
at:
http://www.noeasyvictories.org/select/08_hill.php
8. Winston
Churchill
(1955).
“Calling
for
a
United
States
of
Europe.”
Consulted
on,
March
16th
2014.
Available
at:
http://europa.eu/about-­‐eu/eu-­‐history/founding-­‐
fathers/pdf/winston_churchill_en.pdf
9. Encyclopedia
Britannica.
“Berlin
Blockade
and
Airlift.”
Consulted
on
March
20th
2014.
Available
at:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/62154/Berlin-­‐blockade-­‐and-­‐
airlift
10. “Intergovernmental
organization”
(IGO),
Harvard
Law
School
(HLS).
Consulted
on
March
17th
2014.
Available
at:
http://www.law.harvard.edu/current/careers/opia/public-­‐
interest-­‐law/public-­‐international/interngovernmental-­‐organizations.html

19. 19
11. “The
History
of
the
EU:
1952”.
Consulted
on
March
20th
2014.
Available
at:
http://europa.eu/about-­‐eu/eu-­‐history/1945-­‐1959/1952/index_en.htm