一九五八年至一九六九年是歐洲統合史上一個重要的時期，不但建構了第一個共同政策和市場，順利完成關稅同盟和行政機關統一，六個會員國也簽署「盧森堡妥協」建立新的運作模式。所有學者都同意，在這十二年中，法國總統戴高樂實際主導了整個歐洲統合的發展，而德法合作是歐洲統合基石。一九八○年代中期以前，歐美史學與政治學者多數都傾向採用古典現實主義來詮釋這段史實，視歐洲統合為法國與西德相互競合的結果，不變的通則是：法德合作則成，不合作則敗。因此，這段期間的歐洲統合完全受制於法國總統戴高樂和西德總理艾德諾以及繼任者艾哈德間的互動。惟一九八○年代以降，古典現實主義受到其它統合理論的強烈質疑：自由政府間主義強調「國家利益係在國內各利益團體競逐中形成」以及「在國際談判中政府不過是國內各利益團體代言人」，否定國家領袖是界定國家利益的主導力量；新功能主義和理性制度主義則突出「超國家機關」和「超國家機關領袖」在統合中的角色；社會學制度主義和建構主義則批判古典現實主義忽略了「價值」、「準則」、「認同」等在歐洲統合所發揮的力量。作者因此將檢視古典現實主義對一九五八年到一九六九年這段歐洲統合發展的解釋力，逐一分析各個理論對它的批判，並在最後結論中認為古典現實主義仍較自由政府間主義、新功能主義和理性制度主義更能解釋這段期間歐洲統合的進展與挫折，但必須參考建構主義和社會制度主義加入關於「認知」的變數。

During the first twelve years after entry into effect of Rome Treaties in 1958, the then European Communities succeeded in establishing their first common policies, completing the customs union, and unifying administrative bodies. At the same time however, European leaders failed to constitute a political union, enlarge the Communities to the United Kingdom and establish the majority vote in the Council of Ministers. All scholars agree that European integration of this period was heavily influenced by the French President, De Gaulle’s European policy, which was in general explained with reference to the classical realism, De Gaulle based its European policy upon French raison d’Etat and would like to have restructured the European Communities into a unified political entity under French leadership. This classical realist interpretation was later challenged by several integration theories which emerged since the mid 1980s. Liberal intergovernmentalism put into doubt the assumption that state leaders alone decided and formulated national interests. Neofunctionalism and institutionalism both criticized realism for underestimating the importance of supranational institutions and their leaders in the European integration. The author therefore aims to reevaluate the classical realist interpretation of European integration between 1958 and 1969 and examine the abovementioned criticism against this interpretation before drawing into some conclusions. According to the author’s findings, classical realism still prevails over the intergovernmentalism, neofunctionalism and institutionalism in the explanation of successes and frustrations of European integration between 1958-1969, though it should have paid more attention to the power of perception as required by sociological institutionalism and constructivism.