Advertisement

The Development of the European Union as an International Actor

  • Mario Telò
Chapter
  • 35 Downloads

Abstract

In 50 years, western Europe has moved from a vision of itself which was primarily concerned with internal integration issues to one which entails a comprehensive and dynamic approach of the EU’s role in the governance of the partially globalized world. While there is still a clear gap between the significance of Europe in international economics and trade as compared to its political role on the world scene, the EU is, nonetheless, more than simply a sophisticated workshop of regional integration. Moreover, it promotes aspects of this historically successful experience through the influence it exerts and its interregional relations with other continents. As we argued earlier, the future of new regionalism and the role of the EU are now decisive and interdependent variables in the creation both of an improved multilateral regulatory system for the partially globalized world and of a more stable international order capable of reducing the uncertainties of the post-cold war era.

Keywords

Member State Foreign Policy International Actor Global Governance External Relation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    See also K.E. Smith, European Union Foreign Policy in a Changing World, Cambridge University Press, 2003Google Scholar
  2. and C. Rhodes (ed.), The European Union in the World Community, Lynne Rienner, Boulder, 1998Google Scholar
  3. M. Smith, Europe’s Foreign and Security Policy: the Institutionalisation of Co-operation, Cambridge University Press, 2004Google Scholar
  4. R. Ginsberg, ‘Conceptualizing the European Union as an International Actor: Narrowing the Theoretical Capability—Expectation Gap’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 37, 3, 1999, pp. 429–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. H. Smith, European Union Foreign Policy, Pluto Press, London, 2002Google Scholar
  6. B. White, Understanding European Foreign Policy, Palgrave, Basingstoke, 2001. See also www.fornet.info.Google Scholar
  7. 2.
    R.O. Keohane and J.S. Nye (eds), Transnational Relations and World Politics, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1972Google Scholar
  8. E.B. Haas, The Uniting of Europe. Political, Economic and Social Forces, Stanford University Press, Stanford, 1958.Google Scholar
  9. 3.
    K.W. Deutsch, S. Burrell and R.A. Kann, Political Community and the North Atlantic Area; International Organization in the Light of Historical Experience, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1957.Google Scholar
  10. 9.
    Ch. Deblock, L’Organization mondiale du commerce: où s’en va la mondialisation?, Fides, Quebec, 2002.Google Scholar
  11. 13.
    S. Hoffmann, R.O. Keohane and J.S. Nye (eds), After the Cold War, International Institutions and State Strategies in Europe 1989–1991, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1993Google Scholar
  12. C. Hill (ed.), The Actors in Europe’s Foreign Policy, Routledge, London-New York, 1996. See, in particular, the introduction by C. Hill and W. Wallace.Google Scholar
  13. 21.
    See K. Shake, ‘Rhetoric and Reality’, in J.H.H. Weiler, I. Begg and J. Peterson (eds), Integration in an Expanding European Union. Reassessing the Fundamentals, Blackwell, Oxford, 2003, pp. 301–6Google Scholar
  14. R. Kagan, Of Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World Order, A. Knopf, New York, 2003.Google Scholar
  15. 22.
    C. Piening, Global Europe. The EU in World Affairs, Lynne Rienner, Boulder, 1997, pp. 193–7Google Scholar
  16. M. Holland (ed.), Common Foreign and Security Policy. The Record and Reforms, Pinter, London, 1997.Google Scholar
  17. 23.
    See Piening, Global Europe, op. cit. and D. Allen and M. Smith, ‘Western Europe’s Presence in the Contemporary International Arena’, Review of International Affairs, 16, 1990, pp. 19–37.Google Scholar
  18. 24.
    J. Manners and R.G. Whitman, ‘Towards Identifying the International Identity of the European Union: a Framework for Analysis of the EU’s Network of Relationships’, Journal of European Integration, 21, 1998, pp. 231–49. According to the authors, the EU implements its ‘active identity’ by means of a considerable array of instruments.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 26.
    R. Kagan, ‘Power and Weakness’, Washington Policy Review, 113, 2002, pp. 30–45.Google Scholar
  20. 31.
    F. Duchêne, ‘The European Community and the Uncertainties of Interdependence’, in M. Kohnstamm and W. Hager (eds), A Nation Writ Large? Foreign Policy Problems before the European Community, Macmillan, London, 1973, pp. 1–21.Google Scholar
  21. 32.
    Keohane and Nye (eds), Transnational Relations and World Politics, op. cit.; R.B.J. Walker, Inside/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1993Google Scholar
  22. W. Carlsnaes and S. Smith (eds), European Foreign Policy: the EC and Changing Perspectives, Sage, London, 1994.Google Scholar
  23. 33.
    R.G. Whitman, From Civilian Power to Superpower? The International Identity of the European Union, Macmillan, London, 1988.Google Scholar
  24. 34.
    For a pessimistic view of the political implications of enlargement on the EU, see C. Saint-Etienne, La Puissance ou la mort. L’Europe face à l’Empire Americain, du Seuil, Paris, 2003.Google Scholar
  25. 35.
    T.J. Lowi, ‘Making Democracy Safe for the World: Foreign Policy and National Politics’, in J.N. Rosenau (ed.), Domestic Sources of Foreign Policy, Free Press, New York, 1967, pp. 295–331.Google Scholar
  26. 42.
    R.N. Rosecrance, The Rise ofthe Trading State: Commerce and Conquest in the Modern World, Basic Books, New York, 1986. On the socioeconomic dimension of this scenario and ‘EU as regulation of the deregulation’, see Chapter 3.Google Scholar
  27. 43.
    J. Habermas, Die postnationale Konstellation: politische Essays, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a.M., 1998.Google Scholar
  28. 44.
    Gilpin (The Political Economy of lnternational Relations, op. cit.) distinguishes between ‘benevolent’ and ‘malevolent’ types of neo-mercantilism. See also B. Hettne, ‘The Double Movement: Global Market versus Regionalism’, in R.W. Cox (ed.), The New Realism: Perspectives on Multilateralism and World Order, United Nations University Press, Tokyo-New York, 1997, pp. 223–44, and ‘The New Regionalism: a Prologue’, in B. Hettne, A. Inotai and O. Sunkel (eds), Globalism and the New Regionalism, Macmillan-St. Martin’s Press, London—New York, 1999, pp. xv—xxix.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 45.
    G. Bertrand, A. Michalski and L.R. Pench, ‘Scenarios Europe 2010: Five Possible Futures for Europe’, Working Paper, Forward Studies Unit from the European Commission, Brussels, 1999.Google Scholar
  30. 47.
    See A. Sapir, ‘The Political Economy of EC Regionalism’, European Economic Review, 42, 1998, pp. 717–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 50.
    On the Japanese evolving notion of ‘pacifist power’ see M. Telò, ‘L’UE, la gouvernance mondiale et l’ordre international. Le cas des relations avec l’Asie de l’Est’, in M. Dumulain (ed.), L’Europe et l’Asie, P. Lang, Brussels, 2004, pp. 79–93Google Scholar
  32. K. Matake, ‘The Evolution of an Actively Pacifist Nation’, Gaiko Forum, Japanese Perspectives on Foreign Affairs, spring 2004, pp. 12–20Google Scholar
  33. and J. Gilson, Japan and the EU, Palgrave, 2000.Google Scholar
  34. 53.
    Two opposing perspectives are provided by D. Piazolo, ‘European Regionalism and Multilateral Trade Negotiations’, Journal of European Integration, 21, 3, 1998, pp. 251–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. and S. Bilal, ‘Political Economy Considerations on the Supply of Trade Protection in Regional Integration Agreements’, Journal ofCommon Market Studies, 36, 1, 1998, pp. 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 54.
    P. Drulák (ed.), National and European Identities in EU Enlargement, Views from Central and Eastern Europe, Institute of International Relations, Prague, 2001Google Scholar
  37. I.B. Neumann, Users of the Other: the East in European Identity Formation, Manchester University Press, Manchester, 1999Google Scholar
  38. K. Henderson, Back to Europe. Central and Eastern Europe and the EU, UCL Press, Leuven, 1996.Google Scholar
  39. 59.
    R.O. Keohane and J.S. Nye (Power and Interdependence, HarperCollins, New York, 1989) examine the importance of transnational relations and the birth of new private and public actors within the international system as well as the decline of traditional hierarchies and power issues. The authors question the traditional division between a state’s domestic and foreign policies and explore the world of international cooperation as a possible positive-sum game. Such liberal institutionalist models highlight the impact of commercial interdependence on the construction of global and regional institutions.Google Scholar
  40. See also S. Haggard, ‘Regionalism in Asia and in the Americas’, in E.D. Mansfield and H.V. Milner (eds), The Political Economy of Regionalism, Columbia University Press, New York, 1997, pp. 47–8Google Scholar
  41. S.D. Krasner, International Regimes, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, 1983.Google Scholar
  42. 60.
    S. Strange, States and Markets, Pinter, London, 1988.Google Scholar
  43. 67.
    See F. Attinà and R. Rossi (eds), European Neighbourhood Policy: Political, Economic and Social Issues, Jean Monnet Project, Catania University, 2004. According to the new Treaty, this kind of ‘special agreement may include rights and mutual obligations and the possibility to conduct common actions as well’. They aim at establishing ‘a space of prosperity and good neighbourhood, based on the EU values and characterized by close and peaceful co-operation relations’ (Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe, op. cit., art. I-57 paras 1 and 2).Google Scholar
  44. 68.
    M.A. Molchanov, ‘Ukraine and the EU: a Perennial Neighbour?’, Journal of European Integration, 26, December 2004, pp. 451–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 69.
    Even a section of French scholarly (and policy advising, as the EU Institute of Security Studies, Paris) work on the subject considers the need to over-come the old debate between French and British security policies, both focused on the nuclear threat. See N. Gnesotto, La puissance et l’Europe, Presses de Science Politiques, Paris, 1998.Google Scholar
  46. 70.
    S. Sarfati, La tentation impériale, Odile Jacob, Paris, 2004Google Scholar
  47. P. Hassner, La terreur et l’empire, Seuil, Paris, 2003Google Scholar
  48. B. Badie, L’impuissance de la puissance, Fayard, Paris, 2004Google Scholar
  49. J. Rosenau, Distant Proximities, Princeton University Press, 2003; Keohane, Ironies ofSovereignty, op. cit. and Power and Governance in a Partially Globalized World, Routledge, London, 2002Google Scholar
  50. D.A. Lake, Entangling Relations. American Foreign Policy in Its Century, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1999.Google Scholar
  51. 71.
    D.L. Boren and E.J. Perkins (eds), PreparingAmerica’s Foreign Policy for the 21st Century, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, 1999.Google Scholar
  52. 73.
    B. Badie, Un monde sans souveraineté. Les Etats entre ruse et responsabilité, Fayard, Paris, 1999, pp. 223–85.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Mario Telò 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mario Telò
    • 1
  1. 1.Brussels Free University, ULBBelgium

Personalised recommendations