On 16 September 2026, during the State of the Union address, the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, expressed her intention to “open the doors for Canada to become the EU’s first associate member” at a time of growing tensions with the United States. This announcement has attracted considerable attention, given the absence of provisions for such a status in the Treaties of Maastricht (1992) or Lisbon (2007), foreshadowing a possible reconfiguration of dynamics and cooperative relationships between actors within the international system.
The proposal, however, should come as no surprise given the unique nature of the European Union, which cannot easily be classified under traditional categories of states or international organisations, and stands as the most successful historical example of a pan-European organisation. The point, in any case, is that the proposal for Canada to become the EU’s first associate member also raises questions about what it really means to be a member, and could lead to countries cooperating under conditions similar to those proposed by von der Leyen.
Today, in this article, we ask ourselves: what exactly does the Canada–EU case tell us about the reshaping of international cooperation?. Specifically, we argue that the case between Canada and the European Union shows that modern alliances can shift from specific agreements to more flexible forms of collaboration. This evolution occurs out of necessity in a changing environment, but it also depends on how institutions are established and on the level of trust between the parties.
An analysis using the ECOOPx model
To assess the strength of this cooperation and understand what facilitates it, what limits it and what new interdependencies it generates, we turn to the ECOOPx model. Specifically, this model distinguishes between the instrumental and relational dimensions: that is, communication, organisation and urgency on the one hand, and trust, shared vision and resonance on the other. The first, the instrumental dimension, refers to practical mechanisms that enable a shift from intentions to specific actions, whilst the relational dimension has an emotional underpinning and is deeply rooted in trust, but which, in turn, ensures genuine resilience.
Communication and shared vision: a discourse to be translated into action
Applied to the case study, the State of the Union address and the declaration of intent that followed would appear to fall within the instrumental sphere. The proposal does not arise out of thin air; rather, von der Leyen employs specific rhetoric and a discourse of shared vision. “Europe and Canada believe in democracy” based on the principle that political power need not reside with “the strongest, the richest, or those who make the most noise, but with all of us”. However, it is worth remembering that a shared vision does not have to be established through a mere declaration, but requires a genuine and sustained commitment over time.
Urgency as a driving force behind new alliances
As for urgency, the relationship between Canada and the US combines pockets of cooperation that still survive, such as NATO, with the growing conflict manifested by the trade war and, more generally, the rhetoric of President Donald Trump. The most visible example in this regard is the US’s explicit desire to impose higher tariffs, or to make Canada the 51st state of the US – an idea that has featured in numerous public appearances by the US President and which has been categorically rejected by Canada. Be that as it may, the EU’s attempt to forge closer ties with Canada can be understood not as a desire to fill the void previously occupied by the US, but rather to strengthen and institutionalise new forms of cooperation within a framework of multilateralism.
Cooperation seeking to become institutionalised
Furthermore, from the organisation’s perspective, cooperation between the EU and Canada, based on the participants involved, would be bilateral in nature, but in essence also multilateral, given that the EU is a bloc comprising 27 countries. As regards the level of institutionalisation of this cooperation, efforts will now be made to reach an agreement allowing Canada to join as an associate member, following a gradual progression stemming from good relations and previous partial agreements in specific areas such as the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the EU (CETA). Notably, this willingness to cooperate – which would, in any case, stem from a joining of forces in the field of security – would also have an impact in other areas. Conceptually, this relates to the concept of functional spillover, according to which the logic of cooperation could also lead to the facilitation of cooperation in other areas, such as education through the expansion of the Erasmus+ programme, or the free movement of people.
The limits to cooperation and the issue of trust
There are, however, a number of limits to cooperation. Essentially, we are talking about limits of different kinds: constraints arising from the speed of the process, and from a lack of institutional conceptualisation. Firstly, given that this is a process which has come to the fore in recent days, it presents limitations because the speed at which the issue is unfolding would, both rhetorically and systematically, break with decades of integration with the US. In this regard, Canada finds itself at a juncture where speed and fragility converge, given that it is making rapid progress towards the EU thanks to genuine cooperation, yet remains vulnerable due to its dependence on the US, which absorbs 70 per cent of Canada’s exports – a relationship Canada now wishes to move beyond.
Furthermore, regarding the limitations arising from a lack of institutional precedents, it is worth noting that this is not the first time the term associate member has been used, as the German Chancellor proposed including Ukraine in the EU under the same status due to its conflict situation. Be that as it may, von der Leyen is proposing this category to achieve substantial and necessary progress, moving from CETA towards a ‘Partnership for the Future’ and the creation of a common area of prosperity and economic security, even if it remains an ambiguous concept. This ambiguity, however, could precisely undermine the future process, which would necessarily have to lay the foundations for building genuine trust between the EU and Canada, and for defining conditions and commitments. Nevertheless, this is not a dire situation, as the ability – or lack thereof – to propose minimum conditions for establishing cooperation mechanisms can be offset by explicit demonstrations of trust and interest. In this regard, a summit is scheduled to take place in Montreal on 29–30 October to explore key issues relating to economic and security cooperation.
There is, however, a more optimistic view, according to which prior cooperation can speed up a future response, as it revives existing trust that does not need to be built from scratch. According to a study by G-LAB-2B using the ECOOPx model, countries that had previously established cooperation mechanisms through decades of collaboration within the EU framework could organise faster and more effective responses – for example, to the crisis in Ukraine – than other regions without a history of cooperation. Applied to the case of Canada and the EU, we could therefore consider that, given that both regions have a concrete history of cooperation – as demonstrated by the CETA agreements since 2016 and PESCO since 2021 – there is an accumulated predisposition that lays the foundations for greater cooperation.
Towards a new horizon?
Canada’s rapprochement with the EU suggests that alliances and forms of cooperation are being reconfigured, moving beyond conventional allies and becoming more flexible and even innovative in coordinating efforts to tackle common challenges. From this perspective, the UE should not be understood as a static entity; rather, its institutional framework appears capable of adapting to new arrangements in the international environment. This is reflected in the category of associate member, which could provide a framework for closer alignment with states that share common values, in accordance with the principles of multilateralism. The prospect of Canada’s accession as an associate member has also suggested that other states might follow similar paths, as the President of the European Parliament, Roberta Metsola, has already suggested that Australia or New Zealand could join under a similar framework. This now raises questions about how alliances and forms of international cooperation may evolve in the coming decades, and whether more flexible institutional arrangements could become relevant.
Not having fully resolved Canada’s accession as an associate member, other collaboration pathways are now being explored, including its participation in the Erasmus+ programme. Although fundamentally different from other fields such as AI or defence, this still highlights something important: the development of trust and identity through the mobility of people and the creation of shared experiences. In this sense, this might contribute to generating social legitimacy that precedes potential institutional mechanisms on a larger scale.
