Skip to content

How to use this

Two grids on the same template. The first is empty - print it, fill in each cell with a one-line note while you revise. The second is a worked example to check yourself against.

Each cell asks one question: does this organisation strengthen the column quality (mark +) or weaken it (mark -)? Then add a one-line note saying why. The plus and minus columns are deliberately not pre-printed - your judgement is the work.

Economic integration = does it deepen trade and economic ties between members? Political institutions = has it built shared bodies of its own? Supranational = can it bind a member state against that state's wishes? Sovereignty cost = does membership significantly limit national freedom of action? Security role = does it act on defence and security for its region? Global voice = does membership give members more weight in world politics than they would have alone? Delivered its aims = has it achieved what its members set it up to do?

Regional organisations - judgement grid +   -

Empty version. Print and fill in.
Organisation+   - Economic integration Political institutions Supranational Sovereignty cost Security role Global voice Delivered its aims
EU
(1957 / 1992)
USMCA
(2020)
African
Union
(2002)
Arab
League
(1945)
ASEAN
(1967)
Mercosur
(1991)
SCO
(1996 / 2001)
How to use the grid in an essay. Pick the column the question is asking about (most exam questions on regional organisations turn on Sovereignty cost, Supranational, or Global voice). Read down that column. The Supranational column has a single plus - that single plus IS the answer to "have regional organisations eroded state sovereignty?": erosion depends entirely on which bloc you mean. Group your essay paragraphs by the cluster the column produces - not by organisation-by-organisation description, which the examiner marks down.

Regional organisations - judgement grid +   -

Filled version. Use this to check your own grid - and tap any cell for the full detail behind the judgement.
Organisation+   - Economic integration Political institutions Supranational Sovereignty cost Security role Global voice Delivered its aims
EU
(1957 / 1992)		 +Single market with the four freedoms plus the euro for most members - the deepest economic integration anywhere. +Directly elected Parliament, Commission, Council - the fullest institutional set of any bloc. +A court whose rulings bind member states, and majority voting in many policy areas. +Members pool sovereignty across trade, regulation and rights - the agree case in the 2021 sovereignty question. -A growing security role, but defence stays with member states and NATO; foreign policy needs unanimity. +Negotiates trade as one bloc; small member states gain a global voice they could never have alone. +The single market and peace between members delivered - though Brexit shows membership is reversible.
USMCA
(2020)		 +Tariff-free trade across North America; replaced NAFTA in 2020. -No parliament, no court of its own, no political project. -Purely intergovernmental; the sunset clause keeps it under constant member renegotiation. -Almost none - the three states keep full freedom of action. -None - trade only. -Members act alone in world politics; the bloc adds nothing to their individual weight. +Its narrow aim - tariff-free trade - is delivered. It never promised more.
African
Union
(2002)		 +The African Continental Free Trade Area - ambitious, still being implemented. +Assembly, Commission and Pan-African Parliament, modelled in part on the EU. -Institutions advise and coordinate; power stays with member governments. -Light - members accept few binding constraints. +The African Standby Force and missions such as AMISOM in Somalia - real but stretched. +Can speak for 55 states when it agrees - though it often does not. -Broad ambitions, thin delivery - most areas are still developing.
Arab
League
(1945)		 -Limited free trade; efforts towards the Greater Arab Free Trade Area only. -Minimal shared institutions beyond its Council. -None - a forum of governments. -None - founded in 1945 to safeguard members' independence and sovereignty. -Only occasional joint action. -Rarely speaks with one voice on the region's big questions. -A political forum more than an integrated bloc - deep integration was never seriously attempted.
ASEAN
(1967)		 +The ASEAN Free Trade Area - real economic integration. -Deliberately light institutions; decisions by consensus. -The ASEAN Way - non-interference and no majority voting - keeps it firmly intergovernmental. -Costs members almost no sovereignty, by design. -No collective defence; dialogue rather than guarantees. +Ten states negotiate with China, the US and the EU with more weight than any one alone. +Has achieved exactly what its members want: trade without political integration.
Mercosur
(1991)		 +A customs union with a common external tariff - deeper than a free trade area. +Real institutions: the Common Market Council, the executive Group and the consultative Parlasur. -The institutions exist, but decisions stay with member governments. +The common external tariff removes members' independent trade policy - a real but narrow cost. -None - economic by design. +Negotiated a trade agreement with the EU as a single bloc. +Works as a trade bloc; the political project stalled - Venezuela suspended since 2016.
SCO
(1996 / 2001)		 -Minimal - security came first and stayed first. +A standing political forum for China, Russia and Central Asia, widened to India and Pakistan. -None - members reject any authority above the state. -Designed to protect sovereignty: outside interference declared unacceptable. +Border management, counter-terrorism and joint exercises - its core business. +A deliberate non-Western pole in world politics. +Did what it was built for: settled borders and security cooperation.
What the filled grid shows. Read down the columns. Economic integration is the busiest plus column - trade is where regionalism starts, because the gains are immediate and the sovereignty cost is low. Supranational has a single plus: only the EU can bind a member against its wishes. Sovereignty cost has pluses only for the EU and (narrowly) Mercosur - so "regional organisations have eroded state sovereignty" depends entirely on which bloc you mean, and that is your line of argument for the 2021 question. Global voice is the disagree side's best column the other way: most organisations give members more weight than they would have alone, which is why states keep joining. Delivered its aims shows the trap of judging every bloc by the EU's standard - USMCA, ASEAN and the SCO all deliver exactly the narrow job their members gave them.
See also
David Clayton Tutoring | davidjclayton@proton.me