Why Europe Underperforms: Institutions, Legitimacy and Strategy in the EU > Journal

This article examines the structural paradoxes of the European Union (EU), focusing on why it struggles to translate substantial material resources into effective political power. The author identifies three foundational ”constitutional choices” that have guided European integration: the prioritization of nation-state preservation over supranational replacement, reliance on output rather than input legitimacy, and an emphasis on economic integration over military cooperation. While these choices initially fostered a ”permissive consensus,” the article argues they are increasingly dysfunctional in a world characterized by digital transformation, geopolitical instability, and a resurgence of sovereignism. The analysis reveals how member states’ insistence on national sovereignty creates a zero-sum logic that paralyzes EU decision-making. Furthermore, the mismatch between the EU’s statist institutional architecture and the reality of a ”neo-medieval” global order — marked by blurred borders and transnational networks — undermines both effective governance and democratic accountability. The author concludes that neither federalist dreams nor informal ”E3” concerts provide adequate solutions. Instead, the EU must move beyond outdated political paradigms and embrace bold, innovative governance models — such as multi-level e-democracy and flexible defence cooperation — to remain relevant and secure in a fragmenting international order.

The European State versus the Nation-State

Input versus Output Legitimacy

Economic versus Military Power

Conclusion

References