Thomas Diez

Europe's others and the return of geopolitics

In the context of European Union enlargement and the discussions about a European constitution, the question of Europes identity has once again entered the limelight of political debates. From a poststructuralist perspective, identities are constructed through practices of othering, articulating a difference. In this article, I follow Ole Wæver to argue that for most of the time after the Second World War the most important other in the construction of a European identity has been Europes own past. This temporal form of othering offered the possibility to form an identity through less antagonistic and exclusionary practices than was common in the modern international society. However, since the 1990s geographic and cultural otherings are on the increase, marking a return of geopolitics in European identity constructions and undermining the notion of European integration as a fundamental challenge to the world of nation‐states.1

The European Union and Border Conflicts: The Transformative Power of Integration

Our article analyzes the impact of the European Union (EU) on border conflicts, in particular how integration and association are related to conflict trans- formation. We approach this issue from a theoretically as well as empirically grounded constructivist perspective. On this basis we propose a stage model of conflict devel- opment, based on the degree of securitization and societal reach of conflict commu- nication. We argue that the EU can transform border conflicts and propose a four pathway-model of EU impact. This model comprises forms of EU impact that are, on the one hand, either actor-driven or indirectly caused by the integration process and have, on the other hand, as their main target either particular policies or the wider society in border conflict areas. We then apply this model to a comparative study of border conflicts, thereby analyzing the conflicts in Northern Ireland, Greece- Turkey, Cyprus, Europes North (EU-Russia) and Israel-Palestine. We finish with a specification of the conditions of positive and negative EU impact.

Normative power as hegemony

This article identifies four key problems in the debate about normative power Europe that may be fruitfully tackled when linking it to the concept of hegemony: the debate about whether EU foreign and external policy is driven by norms or interests; the problem of inconsistent behaviour as a result of competing and contested norms; the question of the role of state and non-state actors in EU foreign and external policy; and the problematic standing of normative power as an academic engagement, in particular in regard to whether the theory is of primarily explanatory, descriptive or normative value. The author suggests that the concept of hegemony may address these problems. First, it combines norms and interests, thus transcending the divide that has resulted in endless debates about the EU’s standing as a normative power. Second, hegemony does not start from a pre-given set of norms with fixed meanings, but rather puts the struggles about these norms at centre stage, thus seeing inconsistencies not as undermining but as part and parcel of normative power. Third, hegemony expands our understanding of the actors involved in the construction and exercise of normative power, thus bringing not only Member States but also social forces in a much broader sense into the picture. Finally, hegemony reorientates the debate about normative power so as to reinstate the critical purpose that the concept was supposed to have from the start.

Analysing European Integration: Reflecting on the English School

The English School of international relations has rarely been used to analyse European integration. But, as we argue in this article, there may be considerable value in adding the English School to the canon of approaches to European integration studies in order to contextualize European integration both historically and internationally. The concepts of international society, world society and empire in particular may be used to reconfigure the current debate about the nature of EEl governance and to compare the EU to other regional international systems, as well as to reconceptualize the EUs international role, and in particular the EUs power to influence affairs beyond its formal membership borders. Conversely, analysing the EU with the help of these English School concepts may also help to refine the latter in the current attempts to reinvigorate the English School as a research programme.

A useful dialogue? Habermas and International Relations

It is now more than twenty years since Jurgen Habermass work was first referred to in International Relations (IR) theory. Along with many other continental philosophers and social theorists, Habermas was initially mobilised in the critique of positivism, and in particular neorealism, in IR theory. As such, the interest in Habermas and IR must be located in the first instance within the context of the fourth debate. This Forum section of the Review provides us with the opportunity to take stock and ask whether the dialogue between Habermas and IR has, thus far, been useful in providing new conceptual and methodological tools to analyse international politics and in inspiring new research agendas in IR. We also ask whether the role that dialogue plays within Habermass work has been useful in formulating a critical theory of international relations.

Normative Power Europe and Conflict Transformation

The European Union (EU) is increasingly getting involved in conflicts and post-conflict settings outside its own boundaries. A lot of the discussion of the EU’s engagement has focused on the question of an increasing ‘militarization’ and the legitimacy of interventions involving military force. Yet the engagement of the EU in conflict and post-conflict settings does not often rely on such force, and is better treated as an attempt to act as a normative power. In this contribution, we explore an aspect of this ‘normative power’ that has so far been largely neglected: is this discourse of EU normative power shared by other actors in international society, and does this make a difference in the chances of the EU to help bring about conflict transformation?

International Ethics and European Integration: Federal State or Network Horizon?

Practical problems of international politics are often described in terms of building a bigger and better state—a European Union or an Atlantic Community or an Arab Union, without seeing that such an achievement would leave the problems of inter-state politics precisely where they were.

The Changing Nature of International Institutions in Europe: the Challenge of the European Union

Abstract The European Union is often compared to other political systems in order to better understand its basic features and how they structure politics. This article argues that this focus on comparative politics instils a domestic bias into the study of the EU, which also ignores the impact of enlargement. To remedy this, a comparison is suggested between the order of the EU as a regional international society and the order of the traditional, global international society as analysed by the English School of International Relations, and in particular by Hedley Bull. It is argued that the primary goal of the international order of the society of states, the preservation of states as its fundamental units, has been replaced by the goal of the preservation of peace in Europe. Consequently, the five core institutions of international order identified by Bull (balance of power, international law, diplomacy, war and great powers) have been modified or replaced. The new institutions of the European order are identified as the pooling of sovereignty, the acquis communautaire, multi‐managerialism, pacific democracy, member state coalitions and multiperspectivity. These sustain and enlarge a regional international society that not only combines international and domestic elements, but transforms politics to such an extent that it should better be called a multiperspectival society, confounding Bull’s expectation that the European integration will either lead to a European state or falter. This has potential ramifications for the organisation of international society at large, although whether the transformative potential of the EU can be realised remains to be seen, and will be decided above all in the EU’s treatment of its own borders.

Setting the limits: Discourse and EU foreign policy

This article discusses the relevance of discourse in the analysis of EU foreign policy. Instead of using discourse as a structure, the discursive struggles in meaning production are emphasised. The article argues that the literature trying to make a contribution to the explanation of EU foreign policy has so far overemphasised the positive function of discourses in influencing policies in their substance. In contrast, the article focuses on the delimiting function of discourses in providing the boundaries of the kinds of policies which can be legitimately pursued. From this point of view, important discursive struggles take place exactly about these limits, and it is only through the setting of these limits that identities and norms are provided with clearer meanings. The article illustrates this framework by focusing on the debate about normative power Europe. It argues that an important aspect of this debate which has been missing from the literature so far is that it is indeed engaging in a struggle over what is acceptable as a policy of a normative power and is what not, and that it is therefore engaged in setting the limits of legitimate EU foreign policy.

Turkey, the European Union and Security Complexes Revisited

In 1999, Barry Buzan and the author used Regional Security Complex Theory to argue that Turkey and the European Union (EU) should look for alternatives to full Turkish EU membership. This was based on the security stability that Turkey as an insulator in the international system would provide; on the argument that there was a conflation of westernization and Europeanization in Turkey that served to suppress civil society actors; and on the increasing differentiation of the EU. This article reviews the validity of this argument in the light of the changes that have taken place since 1999 in both Turkey and in the EU, including the constitutional and legal changes and the rise of the Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi (AKP) to power in Turkey, and the 2004 enlargement and the agreement of a constitutional treaty in the EU. It is argued that in the light of these developments, the proposals Buzan and the author presented in 1999 were mistaken. The EU should pursue the course of EU membership, as the perspective of such membership is better suited to provide stability and to strengthen civil society actors in Turkey. However, it is also contested that there will be increasing differentiation within the EU, which will affect what the full membership of Turkey actually means.