The Process of Treaty Reform: the International Dimension

  • Mario Telò


As we have seen, despite the various internal and international obstacles and internal political setbacks, there exists in Europe a multiple legacy of broad interests and rooted aspirations which is strong enough to create a new regional and global political actor, different from the traditional state. Taking an interdisciplinary focus, ranging from the history of political thought to international relations theory, in this chapter we will look at the conceptual basis of the EU as regards the constitutional dimension of its development.


Member State Foreign Policy European Council 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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 3.
    See J. Habermas, ‘Why Europe Needs a Constitution’, New Left Review, 11, September-October 2001, pp. 5–26, and Die postnationale Konstellation: poli-tische Essays, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a.M., 1998.Google Scholar
  2. Also see B. De Giovanni, L’ambigua potenza dell’Europa, Guida, Naples, 2002.Google Scholar
  3. 4.
    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
  4. 5.
    N. Matteucci, ‘Costituzionalismo’, in N. Bobbio, N. Matteucci and G. Pasquino, Dizionario di politica, UTET, Turin, 1983, p. 249.Google Scholar
  5. See also C.H. Mcliwain, Constitutionalism, Ancient and Modern, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, 1940. As regards the role of the constitutionalism of the EU against the background of the history of European constitutionalismGoogle Scholar
  6. see R.C. van Canegem, A Historical Introduction to Western Constitutional Law, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. P. Magnette (ed.), La Constitution de l’Europe, Université de Bruxelles, 2000.Google Scholar
  8. 6.
    F. Cerutti, ‘La Costituzione europea di fronte a pace e guerra’, Quaderni del Forum, XVI, 1, Florence, 2002.Google Scholar
  9. 7.
    J.H.H. Weiler, The Constitution of Europe: ‘Do the New Clothes have an Emperor?’ and Other Essays on European Integration, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge-New York, 1999Google Scholar
  10. and also the articles by Habermas and D. Grimm included in P. Gowan and P. Anderson, The Question of Europe, Verso, London, 1997.Google Scholar
  11. 8.
    Council of the EU, General Secretariat, Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe, 2 vols, July 2004.Google Scholar
  12. 9.
    J. Galtung, The EC: a Superpower in the Making, Allen & Unwin, London, 1973.Google Scholar
  13. 11.
    See Chapter 4 and the references to 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. 1–21Google Scholar
  14. and H. Bull, ‘Civilian Power Europe: a Contradiction in Terms’, in L. Tsoukalis (ed.), The European Community: Past, Present and Future, Blackwell, Oxford, 1983, pp. 150–7.Google Scholar
  15. 12.
    Among others, H. Wallace and W. Wallace, Policy Making in the European Union, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1996.Google Scholar
  16. 13.
    J.N. Rosenau and E.O. Czempiel (eds), Governance without Government: Order and Change in World Politics, Cambridge University Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  17. 16.
    N. Bobbio, Stato, governo e società. Per una teoria generale della politica, Einaudi, Turin, 1986.Google Scholar
  18. 17.
    K. Waltz, Theory of International Politics, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1979.Google Scholar
  19. 18.
    E.H. Hinsley, Sovereignty, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1986.Google Scholar
  20. 21.
    G.W.F. Hegel, Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Geschichte (1832–45), Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a.M., 1986.Google Scholar
  21. 22.
    R.O. Keohane and J.S. Nye, Power and Interdependence, HarperCollins, New York, 1989.Google Scholar
  22. 23.
    W. Wallace, The Nation State — ‘Rescue or Retreat?’, in P. Gowan and P. Anderson (eds), The Question of Europe, Verso, London, 1997, pp. 21–50.Google Scholar
  23. 24.
    M. Castells, La société en réseaux. L’ère de l’information, Fayard, Paris, 1997.Google Scholar
  24. 25.
    S. Strange, States and Markets, Pinter, London 1988; also The Retreat of the State: the Diffusion of Power in the World Economy, Cambridge University Press, New York, 1996.Google Scholar
  25. 26.
    J.G. Ruggie (ed.), Multilateralism Matters. The Theory and Praxis of an Institutional Form, Columbia University Press, New York, 1993. As regards Ruggie’s position, see section 1.7 of this book.Google Scholar
  26. 27.
    This parallelism was rightly emphasized by G.E. Rusconi, Germania, Italia, Europa. Dallo stato di potenza alla potenza civile, Einaudi, Turin 2003, particularly in Chapters 10–14.Google Scholar
  27. See also P. Katzenstein (ed.), Tamed Power. Germany in Europe, Cornell, Ithaca, 1997Google Scholar
  28. and W. Heydrich, J. Krause, U. Nerlich, J. Nötzold and R. Rummel (eds), Sicherheitspolitik Deutschlands: neue Konstellation, Risiken, Instrumente, Nomos, Baden-Baden, 1992, in particular the article by H.W. Maull, ‘Zivilmacht: die Konzeption und ihre sicherheit-spolitische Relevanz’, pp. 771–886. Twenty years after Duchêne, this German perspective, although excessively anchored to a normative conception, is important because it is connected to the national development of the main European power.Google Scholar
  29. 28.
    M.G. Cowles, J. Caporaso and T. Risse, Transforming Europe, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, 2001.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    R. Falk, ‘The United Nations and Cosmopolitan Democracy: Bad Dream, Utopian Fantasy, Political Project’, in D. Archibugi, D. Held and M. Köhler, Re-Imagining Political Community. Studies in Cosmopolitan Democracy, Polity Press, Cambridge, 1998, pp. 309–30.Google Scholar
  31. 33.
    P. Lamy and J. Pisani-Ferry, L’Europe de nos volontés, Fondation Jaurès, Paris, 2002.Google Scholar
  32. 35.
    K. Nicolaydis and R. Howse, The Federal Vision, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2001; also ‘This Is My EUtopia: Narrative as Power’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 40, 4, 2002, pp. 767–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 36.
    European Commission, White Paper on European Governance, Brussels, July 2001.Google Scholar
  34. 39.
    L. Strauss, On Tyranny, Free Press, New York, 1991, p. 256, mentioned by Nicolaydis and Howse, ‘This Is My EUtopia’, op. cit. The appropriation by American neo-conservatives of Léo Strauss’s liberal thought is an obvious abuse.Google Scholar
  35. 40.
    R. Kagan, ‘Power and Weakness’, Policy Review, 113, 2002, pp. 3–28.Google Scholar
  36. 41.
    See Chapter 1 of this book and R.O. Keohane, After Hegemony. Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1984.Google Scholar
  37. 42.
    A. Moravcsik, The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State Power from Messina to Maastricht, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, 1998.Google Scholar
  38. 43.
    C. Hill, ‘Closing the Capacity-Expectations Gap?’, in J. Peterson and H. Sjursen (eds), A Common Foreign Policy for Europe?, Routledge, London-New York, 1998, pp. 18–38.Google Scholar
  39. 48.
    This comment has nothing to do with the trivial opposition of the EU to NATO, as argued by J.L. Cinbalo, ‘Saving NATO from Europe’, Foreign Affairs, 83, 6, 2004, pp. 111–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 50.
    G. Majone (ed.), Regulating Europe, Routledge, London, 1998.Google Scholar
  41. 56.
    J. Habermas, Der gespaltene Westen, Suhrkamp Verlag, Frankfurt a.M., 2004.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Mario Telò 2006

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations