Late again, I didn't see all those new post while I was writing mine :)

Anyway, I agree with TheMinisterOfWar it's arbitrary which definition you use. It's political reality that matters.

@Nescio: that sounds fascinating, I will look that up.

Notwithstanding, I don't think it will sway me from the idea that - even in those days - the concept of which countries are "sovereign" and which are somehow lesser is a political construct created by the (relatively) more powerful. And power, like everything in life, does not follow a binary 1/0 logic, but a greyscale. Sovereignty does as well, and the notion of sovereignty as a binary only clouds discussions like this imho.

The EU is an entity sui generis in international law. It conforms under many aspects to an international organisation and in some to a stronger bond, which is in general called Staatenbund or Staatenverbund in the words of eg. Kelsen. In fact, the EU is somewhere in between which is why it is called a supranational organisation (as is eg. the WTO). The main difference to an IO is that the EU has its own compulsory pouvoir judicatif.

@TMOW In IL there exists a very precise definition of what a state is. It exists since 1933 (Code de Montevideo) and consists basically of what yassem outlined before (exc. some subtleties). What is not clear is to what degree an entity needs to fulfill these criteria and here things get political or about what we would like to have.

As you are all avid diplomacy players: Who does believe that Germany before 1918 had a permanent population? Or an army? Or its proper sovereignty? It should be of high interest to this debate to check the answers…

TheMinisterOfWar, I don't disagree with you

Wow, I love these Amarna Letters. Are they available in bound version somewhere? Would love to have the collection.

Diplomacy players could learn a thing or two from the press:

<QUO>
Kadashman Enlil of Babylon to Amenhotep of Egypt [....] How is it possible that, having written to you in order to ask for the hand of your daughter - oh my brother, you should have written me using such language, telling me that you will not give her to me as since earliest times no daughter of the king of Egypt has ever been given in marriage? Why are you telling me such things? You are the king. You may do as you wish. If you wanted to give me your daughter in marriage who could say you nay?

But you, keeping to your principle of not sending anybody, have not sent me a wife. Have you not been looking for a fraternal and amical relationship, when you suggested to me - in writing - a marriage, in order to make us become closer? Why hasn't my brother sent me a wife? [...] It is possible for you not to send me a wife, but how could I refuse you a wife and not send her to you, as you did? I have daughters, I will not refuse you in any way concerning this....

As to the gold about which I wrote you, send me now quickly during this summer [.... ] before your messenger reach me, gold in abundance, as much as is available. I could thus achieve the task I have undertaken. If you send me this summer [...] the gold concerning which I've written to you, I shall give you my daughter in marriage. Therefore, send gold, willingly, as much as you please. But if you do not send me gold [...] so I can achieve the task I have undertaken , why haven't you sent me any earlier willingly? After I have finished the task I have undertaken , why would I wish for gold? Even if you sent me 3000 talents of gold I would not accept them. I would return them and would not give you my daughter in marriage.
<UNQUO>

X3n0n, "permanent" is relative. The German Empire of 1871-1919 was less centralized than post-1945 Germany, but significantly more than the earlier Holy Roman Empire, or the European Union nowadays.
Nevertheless, I think the GE was sovereign; cf. the modern Russian Federation.

TheMinisterOfWar, yes, the Amarna letters are published in book form, decades ago. I'm not sure it's still for sale. You should inquire at a self-respecting university library.

@CB, so I don't understand your point. We just established that many states are not actually fully sovereign in their lawmaking, just like EU isn't.
BTW, I hope you know that Bosnia and Herzegovina is not a federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, it's a federation of Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbian Republic, so I don't really know what you mean by saying that Herzegovina has any power, as Herzegovina is not even a part of Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, it's just a geographical region that spans over most of Bosnia.
Interestingly though, even despite the above, and despite HUGE on ethnic and religious grounds (quite a lot of killing, Serbian Republic wants to join Serbia etc) they still decided to merge the armies of Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbian Republic. Of course the army is a joke, just as the whole country is, but nevertheless - doable : )

*...HUGE animosities on ethnic and religious grounds...
I have to start reading that stuff before hitting post

@nescio Relative to what? There were no German citizens or nationals until the declaration of the Republic in 1918. So there was no permanent population (because there was no population at all). Actually, the EU citizenship conveys much more rights to each of its holders than the mutual agreements between the member states to the German Reich.

X3n0n, don't confuse population with national citizenship. There was population within the German Empire, quite a few million people lived there; it was not Antarctica

And "permanent" is "relative" to time; even a permanent population is continuously changing :)

where is the EU different to the Kaiserreich in this regard? As far as I am informed, Europe is not Antarctica neither…

And the EU has a citizenship –> a population.

X3n0n, yeah, people live in the EU, therefore the EU has a population; so what? I don't see what population has to do with this discussion. The point is the EU is not a sovereign entity, and thus can't possibly have, control, or command an army.
Most people live in houses; all inhabited houses have a permanent population; does that make a house sovereign? No, not all.

This was your argument, I applied, not mine. And the EU does have sovereignty. This is precisely the reason why some political groups in some member states what to strip it off it.

No, the EU doesn't have complete sovereignty, you're mistaken. All decision require approval of all 28 member states.

1) you are wrong on approval (check at least wikipedia on the fly before claiming such nonsense)

2) The completeness of sovereignty is irrelevant to my initial comparison (the Kaiserreich had never complete sovereignty).

A short review of the criteria for statehood here (as found on cfr.org and authoritatively in the UNTS):

Is the EU a statelike entity? It should be if it exhibits all characteristics of a state as are laid down by treaty law and customary law as follows (Art I, Convention de Montevideo):

"The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a) a permanent population;
b) a defined territory;
c) government; and
d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states."

(aa) The population of the EU comprises all citizens to EU, which is AUTOMATICALLY the case for all citizens to its member states. Presuming that member states are states ie. have a permanent population, which is awarded through citizenship, by consequence the population is permanent.

(bb) The territory of the EU is defined by the territory of all member states, exception made for territories of said member states that enjoy special status within the member state in a way that they are not integral part of this member states territory. See (aa)

(cc) The government of the EU is formed by the organs of the Treaties and their agencies, namely the Council, the Parliament and the Commission.

(dd) The EU enjoys the capacity to enter into IR with any state within the limits of the Treaties, in particular in all matters concerning the Common Market.

It follows that the EU does fulfill the criteria for statehood. It can therefore not be denied statelike entity status on grounds that any of these criteria were not fulfilled. Hence, any discussion from a legal aspect needs to focus on clarifying the thresholds for each and across the criteria a) to d), before anything on these grounds could be argued. To contribute to this discussion, I posted my questions concerning the Kaiserreich.

X3n0n, did you read the earlier posts in this thread (e.g. CommanderByron's on page 5); correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe all those points were discussed yesterday.

"statelike" is not the same as "state", nor does it imply sovereignty.
The EU is an entity in which 28 sovereign nations cooperate, voluntarily. The EU consists of treaties and agreements between its members. Every member has the power to ignore, refuse to comply, or quit.
The EU can propose new legislation, it can not enforce it. For example, although the EU could suggest to legalize cocaine, e.g. in Germany; in the end it's up to the German national government to decide whether it will be legalized, or not. If it's legalized, then that's Germany's national decision, not the EU's.
Likewise the EU can't reform itself structurally, nor change its constitution, or alter its treaties. Germany can.
What the EU can do, and can't, is limited, and is always the result of a decision of all member states. Germany is sovereign, the EU is not.

*cracks neck* Nescio tag me in.

"International Organizations are established by States through international agreements and their powers are limited to those conferred on them in their constituent document. International organizations have a limited degree of international personality, especially vis-à-vis member States. They can enter into international agreements and their representatives have certain privileges and immunities. The constituent document may also provide that member States area
legally bound to comply with decisions on particular matters." (https://www.ilsa.org/jessup/intlawintro.pdf) This definition clearly matches the EU, the EU's privileges are granted upon it by member states and can be revoked at any given time by the member states. This definition doe not limit the privileges awarded, it only defies privileges. Thus if a state chooses to grant the EU the privilege to conduct international relations on its behalf then that does not qualify the EU to be considered a state.

"A State has the following characteristics: (1) a permanent population; (2) a defined territory; (3) a government; and (4) the capacity to enter into relations with other States. Some writers also argue that a State must be fully independent and be recognized as a State by other States. The international legal system is a horizontal system dominated by States which are, in principle,considered sovereign and equal. International law is predominately made and implemented by States. Only States can have sovereignty over territory. Only States can become members of the United Nations and other international organizations. Only States have access to the International Court of Justice." (https://www.ilsa.org/jessup/intlawintro.pdf) The same document further defines statehood. agreeing with X3n0n's assertions above but also adding that "some" writers believe that a state should be independent and recognized. The EU is not only not independent it is not recognized.

This. shant. die! ......................bump

Woah, I've been missing on a whole lot of posts here.
@Nascio, X3n0n and I have given you a lot of reasons why EU has the traits of a state and have sovereignty. Your only counterargument I can recall is that "it cannot make decisions, as it require approval of all 28 states". First of all, it isn't true - as I wrote before in a post you apparently didn't read. European Council is just one of the institutions but legislative is carried out by the Commission and the Parliament. Yes, some decisions require the approval of all 28 states either through approval of the Council or by ratification by national parliaments. However, isn't it the case that amendments to the US constitution require ratification by the states as well?
It also seems to me that you say that lack of sovereignty means that such project would be impossible due to problems with decision making or command. However NATO has absolutely no traits of a state, it has no or very little sovereignty, and yet it has functional command and is well capable of making decisions. Of course, it isn't a unified army, but I don't see how that wouldn't apply to such an army.

@Nescio I didn't read the earlier posts, I just replied to your arguments. If you already knew them beforehand, I can't understand why you did ignore them afterwards.

@CB Ofc, the EU does comply with the definition, never argued against it. It is just that it also exhibits all necessary characteristics of a state (this doesn't mean these were sufficient), and that IOs have int'l legal personality should be clear.

There are several things wrong with your assessment: The EU has the (1) capacity to entertain international relations in its own right and not only those on behalf of a state, in particular where the Common Market is touched upon, while (2) the member states do not have the capacity anymore to entertain relations absent approval from the EU institutions (one among many problems of the Greeks right now). (3) Many states can't change their constitutions or foundational legal frameworks by themselves – amongst which you might cite the US or the confoederatio helvetica as examples – and are states nonetheless. (4) By your own source, the EU would be already a state (which I would argue against) as:

(A) "Only States can become members of the United Nations and other international organizations."

<=> "A member of an IO is a state"

(B) The WTO is an International Organisation

(C) https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/countries_e/european_communities_e.htm

and by (A) ^ ( (B) ^ (C) ) => The EU is a state.

The only thing you could argue against here would be to argue against the WTO being an IO (which would be very difficult).

(5) "Having power" does not imply "having right to," gunfighter has the (fire) power to shot down people based on his own judgement and decision-making process within the territories of the US. By no means this denies the US statehood.

(6) The process of revoking privileges for the EU requires unanimity of the revoking parties which is paramount to changing a constitution in a sufficiently large subset of existing states.

(7) none of your arguments preclude any possibility to grant the EU an army by default. Pretty much as with the Kaiserreich. The whole point of my analogy.

You are mixing my arguments. I argue that a unified european army would be less effective if the command and control structure doesn't have complete control over the entire unified military.In other words like the US constitution doesn't allow for secession, the unified military shouldn't allow for secession either. Of course telling sovereign states that by being a part of the unified military they would lose complete control of their armed forces would never be agreed to by larger states like Germany, England, and France. Without those larger states the smaller states wouldn't have an effective fighting force to repel Russian aggression (which is one of the cited reasons for such a unification). Somehow this became a conversation about statehood and what constitutes a state. In that argument we both presented valid evidence for our claims but in the end as TMOW said there is no clear definition of a state. I along with many people around the world and every country currently in the world do not recognize the EU as a state, you do... so I am going to say the rest of the world trumps you.

So in the end I am arguing for the unification plan as long as it doesn't allow for individual countries to have unilateral control of their forces. I am arguing that the EU is not a state but a very strong International Organization that rides the line of statehood.

To respond to your newest arguments: While US constitutional amendments have to be ratified by 2/3 of the states once ratified states can not opt out of them. If the EU had the same power than explain to me why England doesn't use the Euro. Simply put a member state can withdraw from the EU at anytime, meaning that it is very different from the US and the US constitution, and if you look at how every thing the EU words is worded it makes it very clear that member states transition to newly laid out regulations on their own time as approved by their independent parliaments. In other words as a EU member I can choose to comply in say 30 years and there's nothing the EU can do except maybe politically pressure me into doing it, which is not the same as actually having the power.

^ to yassem. not x3n0n

Personally I would love to see europe get a unfied military it would only make NATO stronger (as I assume it would become part of NATO). I just point out that if it isn't holistically different than NATO it just becomes a solely european version of NATO.

I am also not against calling the EU a state I just think that defining the EU as a state will allow for confusion in IR. If I want to negotiate with the UK do I talk to the EU or UK? It just gets confusing for non-members to manage their diplomacy. I am a believer in streamlining. Hell if all of europe wanted to combine into 1 state (Imagine how the US has states with a larger federal government) than i would be in support. It again only strengthens the US interest and makes the world safer.