Twenty years ago, in the pages of the, Journal of Common Market Studies, Hedley Bull launched a searing critique of the European Community's "civilian power" in international affairs. Since that time the increasing role of the European Union (EU) in areas of security and defence policy has led to a seductiveness in adopting the notion of "military power Europe". In contrast, I will attempt to argue that by thinking beyond traditional conceptions of the EU's international role and examining the case study of its international pursuit of the abolition of the death penalty, we may best conceive of the EU as a "normative power Europe".

Normative Power Europe: A Contradiction in Terms?

Part I. Introduction: Developing a Regional Approach to Global Security: 1. Theories and histories about the structure of contemporary international security 2. Levels: distinguishing the regional from the global 3. Security complexes: a theory of regional security Part II. Asia: 4. South Asia: inching towards internal and external transformation 5. Northeast and southeast Asian security complexes during the Cold War 6. The 1990s and beyond: an emergent east Asian complex Conclusion Part III. The Middle East and Africa: Introduction 7. The Middle East: a perennial conflict formation 8. Sub-saharan Africa: security dynamics in a setting of weak and failed states Conclusions Part IV. The Americas: 9. North America: the sole superpower and its surroundings 10. South America: an under-conflictual anomaly? Conclusion: scenarios for the RSCs of the Americas Part V. The Europes: Introduction: 11. EU-Europe: the European Union and its 'near abroad' 12. The Balkans and Turkey 13. The post-Soviet space: a regional security complex around Russia Conclusion: scenarios for the European supercomplex Part VI. Conclusions: 14. Regions and powers: summing up and looking ahead 15. Reflections on conceptualising international security.

http://ndl.ethernet.edu.et/bitstream/123456789/3437/1/75.pdf

Regions and Powers: The Structure of International Security

Recent work on the European Union (EU) indicates an emerging consensus that the boundaries between the ‘domestic’ and the ‘international’ spheres, as well as between the ‘state’ and ‘society’, have to be crossed when conceptualizing the EU. This article starts with reviewing the controversy between neofunctionalism and intergovernmentalism, arguing that it lacks some categories necessary to capture distinctive features of the EU. It then presents a framework combining insights from work on transnational politics by international relations scholars, on policy networks and Politikveflechtung (interlocking politics) by comparative policy analysis, and by historical institutionalism. Propositions are generated on the institutional and structural conditions under which network analysis is better suited than intergovernmentalism to capture the EU policy-making process. Finally, the article argues that social constructivism has to be taken more seriously in the study of the EU and that network analysis should move beyond rational choice models and incorporate theories of communicative action. More work is needed on the role of ideas and principled beliefs in the EU integration process.

Exploring the Nature of the Beast: International Relations Theory and Comparative Policy Analysis Meet the European Union

This article examines the European Union's Committee of Permanent Representatives, or COREPER, a group composed of the EU permanent representatives (permreps) and responsible for preparing upcoming ministerial meetings of the Council. As the heart of everyday decision making in the EU, COREPER is a key laboratory to test whether and how national officials become socialized into a Brussels-based collective culture and what difference this makes for EU negotiations. The key scope conditions for COREPER socialization are high issue density/intensity and insulation from domestic politics. COREPER also displays a range of socialization mechanisms, including strategic calculation, role playing, and normative suasion. Based on extensive interview data and a detailed case study of negotiations for a controversial EU citizenship directive, this article documents a socialization pathway in COREPER marked by adherence to a set of norm-guided rules and principled beliefs in collectively legitimating arguments and making decisions. COREPER socialization does not indicate a pattern of national identities being replaced or subsumed; rather, the evidence points to a socialization process based on a “logic of appropriateness” and an expanded conception of the self. For feedback on earlier versions, I am grateful to the project participants and especially Jeffrey Checkel, Matthew Evangelista, Iain Johnston, and Michael Zurn. I thank the editors and two anonymous reviewers for comments that greatly improved the final product. I also acknowledge generous support from the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies and the American Political Science Association's Small Grant Program, which funded portions of field research associated with this project.

/pdf/the-janus-face-of-brussels-socialization-and-everyday-1l2sea530o.pdf

The Janus Face of Brussels: Socialization and Everyday Decision Making in the European Union

This article undertakes a reading of political identifications in Europe from the security perspective. Who or what exist politically in Europe? This is investigated through the test of whether and how different units are able to carry out the move characteristic of ‘security’: that is, to say ‘our survival is threatened, therefore we have a right to use extraordinary measures against this particular threat’. Europe as an area is marked by a complex presence of different overlapping political subjectivities - security can be carried out most importantly with nation, state, Europe or the environment as referent object. ‘Europe’ itself is a security referent in a truly original way, where integration through a security argument becomes a matter of survival for ‘Europe’. Europe, security, integration and identity have been tied together in a specific narrative. Strikingly, the seemingly purely academic term ‘security identity’ has a political appearance exactly at this intersection.

European Security Identities

Western Europe is probably the area in the world where one meets the most advanced case of border fluidity and transgression of sovereignty. John Ruggie recently suggested that "the institutional, juridical and spatial complexes associated with the community may constitute nothing less than the emergence of the first truly postmodern international political form."(1) Postmodernity in the context of international relations first of all means post-sovereignty. The European Union (E.U.), as it now calls itself, is thus a prominent case to investigate if one is interested in issues like the changing nature of boundaries and the possibilities of constructing political communities beyond sovereignty. One way to address this question would be to see to what extent politics in the E.U. proceed according to old rules, and to what extent they follow new post-sovereign patterns. However, this is easier said than done. A principle like state sovereignty is neither an empirical designation nor an edict on limits of accepted behavior, so one cannot in a simple sense check empirical events against this description. Rather, sovereignty is an underlying organizing principle, a structure visible to the extent that events can be seen as effects of its particular generative grammar.(2) Thus it is impossible to find conclusive evidence for the status of generative grammars or organizing principles. In observing the simultaneity of European Court supremacy and the persistence of national legal systems, the postmodernist will see proof of new organizing principles, while the traditionalist will argue - legitimately - that the system is still constituted on the basis of sovereignty. As argued by Hedley Bull: Indeed, it is difficult to believe that anyone ever asserted the "statecentric" view of international politics that is today so knowingly rejected by those who seek to emphasize the role of "the new international actors." What was widely asserted about European international relations from the time of Vattel in the mid-eighteenth century until the end of the First World War was the legal fiction of a political universe that consisted of states alone, the doctrine that only states had rights and duties in international law.(3) There is good reason to be careful not to proclaim a radical transformation every time one sees change, or what Ruggie has referred to as: the prevailing superficiality of the proliferating literature on international transformations, in which the sheer momentum of processes sweeps the international polity along toward its next encounter with destiny.(4) Therefore, it is easy to write entertaining essays on how Western Europe has become "neo-medieval," "post-sovereign" or organized by "fractal politics." But it is difficult to substantiate such claims in a satisfactory way, unless one makes a straw-man out of sovereignty and transfers it from its role as underlying principle to a role of empirical regularity or judicial limitation. In order to overcome this dilemma, this article will look at the E.U. on a different level, through a discussion of the overall dynamics of the process, rather than the day-to-day operations and decision making (although they will, of course, be part of the analysis). Whether or not the E.U. is beyond sovereignty is an impossible discussion. It is definitely possible to make the case against transformation. The really interesting discussions are those that address the destiny of the project, whether the E.U. points realistically (and not just programmatically) beyond sovereignty; and if it points beyond the sovereignty of the present states, whether this necessarily leads to a sovereign E.U. or to something post-sovereign. This requires a return to the "big questions" of integration and integration theory. Classical Questions, Unconventional Approaches and False Starts To the founding fathers of integration theory, Ernst B. Haas, Karl W. …

Ole Waever

Papers

Identity, Integration and Security: Solving the Sovereignty Puzzle in E.U. Studies