Advertisement

Asia Europe Journal

, Volume 16, Issue 2, pp 199–212 | Cite as

Normative power Europe in crisis? Understanding the productive role of ambiguity for the EU’s transformative agenda

  • Bettina AhrensEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

The Euro, refugees, Brexit, thriving right-wing populism and time and again a lack of coherence and consistency in EU foreign policy, as in Iraq 2003 or in Libya in 2011—seem to point to the EU in crisis. The idea of normative power Europe (NPE) essentially entails that the EU has a transformative impact on international society also outside its own borders. In light of such developments, the question arises whether such a transformative impact still seems possible. Rather than dealing with all such different moments of crisis, this article focuses on an alleged EU foreign policy crisis and asks whether—as NPE sceptics argue—inconsistencies and a lack of coherence in EU foreign policy undermines the idea of a transformative agenda and thus puts NPE to crisis. This article introduces the concept of ambiguity as a particular way of studying NPE. Ambiguity in this sense is an inevitable feature of the social world—of the EU as a global actor and of processes of change. Thus, the argument is put forward that ambiguity does not necessarily impinge on the EU’s transformative agenda. Rather than being an indication of a foreign policy crisis, the ambiguous nature of the EU and resulting ambiguous policies actually do underpin the EU’s transformational potential.

References

  1. Bain W (2014) The pluralist-solidarist debate in the English school. In: Navari C, Green D (eds) Guide to the English school in international studies. Wiley-Blackwell: Hoboken 159–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bellamy AJ (2009) Realizing the responsibility to protect. Int Stud Perspect 10(2):111–128.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1528-3585.2009.00365.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Borg S (2013) European integration and the problem of the state: universality, particularity, and exemplarity in the crafting of the European Union. J Int Relat Dev 17:1–28.  https://doi.org/10.1057/jird.2013.8 Google Scholar
  4. Brockmeier S, Kurtz G, Junk J (2014) Emerging norm and rhetorical tool: Europe and a responsibility to protect. Confl Secur Dev 14(4):429–460.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14678802.2014.930587 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brodocz A (2005) Die Grundrechtecharta der Europäischen Union und ihre Chancen zur symbolischen Integration Europas. In: Ulbert C, Weller C (eds) Konstruktivistische Analysen der internationalen Politik. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden, pp 191–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bull H (1966) The Grotian conception of international society. In: Butterfield H, Wight M (eds) Diplomatic investigations. Allen & Unwin, London, pp 51–73Google Scholar
  7. Buzan B (2004) From international to world society? English school theory and the social structure of globalisation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Buzan B (2014) An introduction to the English school of international relations. The societal approach. Polity Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  9. Carstensen MB (2011) Paradigm man vs. the bricoleur. Bricolage as an alternative vision of agency in ideational change. Eur Pol Sci Rev 3(01):147–167.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773910000342 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chayes A, Chayes AH (1993) On compliance. Int Organ 47(02):175.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300027910 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cicero (1962) Vom Redner. De Oratore. Translated and with an introduction by Raphael Kühner. Goldmann, MünchenGoogle Scholar
  12. de Baere G (2012) Some reflections on the EU and the responsibility to protect. Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies Working Paper Series No. 79Google Scholar
  13. Diez T, Manners I, Whitman RG (2011) The changing nature of international institutions in Europe: the challenge of the European Union. J Eur Integr 33(2):117–138.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2011.543522 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. European Union (2016) Shared vision, common action: a stronger europe. A global strategy for the European Union’s Foreign and security policy. Accessed 15 Feb 2017Google Scholar
  15. Evans GJ (2014) The consequences of non-intervention in Syria: does the responsibility to protect have a future? In: Murray RW, McKay A (eds) Into the eleventh hour: R2P, Syria and humanitarianism in crisis. E-international relations, Bristol: 26–33Google Scholar
  16. Evans GJ, Sahnoun M (2001) The responsibility to protect. Report of the international commission on intervention and state sovereignty. International Development Research Centre, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  17. Gioia DA, Nag R, Corley KG (2012) Visionary ambiguity and strategic change. The virtue of vagueness in launching major organizational change. J Manag Inq 21(4):364–375.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492612447229 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Human Rights Council (2007a) Report of the high-level mission on the situation of human rights in darfur pursuant to human rights council decision S-4/101Google Scholar
  19. Human Rights Council (2007b) EU draft resolution on human rights situation in Darfur. http://www.humanrightsvoices.org/assets/attachments/documents/L7_EU_Darfur_490.doc
  20. Human Rights Council (2007c) Follow-up to decision S-4/101 of 13 December 2006 adopted by the Human Rights Council at its fourth special session entitled “Situation of human rights in Darfur”Google Scholar
  21. Knudsen TB (2013) The responsibility to protect: European contributions in a changing world order. In: Jørgensen KE, Laatikainen KV (eds) Routledge Handbook on the European Union and International Institutions. Performance, policy, power. Routledge, London, pp 157–170Google Scholar
  22. Levine DN (1985) The flight from ambiguity. Essays in social and cultural theory. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Luck EC (2009) Sovereignty, choice, and the responsibility to protect. Glob Responsibility Protect 1:10–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Manners I (2002) Normative power Europe: a contradiction in terms? J Common Mark Stud 40(2):235–258.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5965.00353 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Manners I (2008) The normative ethics of the European Union. Int Aff 84(1):65–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mérand F (2012) Bricolage: a sociological approach to the making of CSDP. In: Kurowska X, Breuer F (eds) Explaining the EU’s common security and defence policy. Theory in action. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp 136–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Morris J (2013) Libya and Syria: R2P and the spectre of the swinging pendulum. Int Aff 89(5):1265–1283.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12071 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nicolaidis K, Nicolaidis D (2006) The EuroMed beyond civilisational paradigms. In: Adler E, Bicchi F, Crawford B, Del Sarto RA (eds) The convergence of civilizations. Constructing a Mediterranean region. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, pp 337–375Google Scholar
  29. O'Mahoney J (2014) Rule tensions and the dynamics of institutional change. From ‘To the victor go the spoils’ to the Stimson doctrine. Eur J Int Rel 20(3):834–857.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066113483781 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Richards IA (1965 [1936]) The philosophy of rhetoric. The Mary Flexner lectures on the humanities, vol 3. Oxford University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  31. Sandholtz W (2008) Dynamics of international norm change. Rules against wartime plunder. Eur J Int Rel 14(1):101–131.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066107087766 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Scheffler I (1979) Beyond the letter. A Philosophical inquiry into ambiguity, vagueness and metaphor in language. International library of philosophy and scientific method. Routledge & Kegan Paul, LondonGoogle Scholar
  33. Shore C (2004) Whither European citizenship?: Eros and civilization revisited. Eur J Soc Theory 7(1):27–44.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1368431004040018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Smith M (2004) Toward a theory of EU foreign policy-making. Multi-level governance, domestic politics, and National Adaptation to Europe's common foreign and security policy. J Eur Publ Policy 11(4):740–758.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1350176042000248124 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Smith KE (2006) Speaking with one voice? European Union co-ordination on human rights issues at the United Nations. J Common Mark Stud 44(1):113–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Smith KE (2010) The European Union at the human rights council: speaking with one voice but having little influence. J Eur Publ Policy 17(2):224–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Smith KE (2014) European Union foreign policy in a changing world, 3rd ed. Polity Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  38. Thakur R (2013) R2P after Libya and Syria: engaging emerging powers. Wash Q 36(2):61–76.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0163660X.2013.791082 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Thomas DC (2012) Still punching below its weight? Coherence and effectiveness in European Union foreign policy. J Common Mark Stud 50(3):457–474.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5965.2011.02244.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tiilikainen T (2014) The EU’s international identity and the construction of the international order: What does the normative power debate offer to IR studies? Eur Rev Int Stud 1(1):125–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. UN General Assembly (2005) 2005 world summit outcome. New YorkGoogle Scholar
  42. Weimar K (2009) Modifikation der Eindeutigkeit: Eine Miszelle. In: Berndt F, Kammer S (eds) Amphibolie, Ambiguität, Ambivalenz. Königshausen & Neumann, Würzburg, pp 53–59Google Scholar
  43. Weinert MS (2011) Reframing the pluralist-solidarist debate. Millennium J Int Stud 40(1):21–41.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829811406036 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Weiss TG (2011) RtoP alive and well after Libya. Ethics Int Aff 25(3):287–292.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0892679411000220 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wheeler NJ (1992) Pluralist or solidarist conceptions of international society: bull and Vincent on humanitarian intervention. Millennium J Int Stud 21(3):463–487.  https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298920210030201 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wheeler NJ, Egerton F (2009) The responsibility to protect: ‘Precious commitment’ or a promise unfulfilled? Glob Responsibility Protect 1:114–132Google Scholar
  47. Wiener A (2004) Contested compliance: interventions on the normative structure of world politics. Eur J Int Rel 10(2):189–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Williams J (2005) Pluralism, solidarism and the emergence of world society in English school theory. Int Rel 19(1):19–38.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117805050060 Google Scholar
  49. Wittgenstein L (1971) Philosophische Untersuchungen. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am MainGoogle Scholar
  50. Wouters J, de Man P (2013) The responsibility to protect and regional organisations: the example of the European Union. Leuven Centre for Global Governance studies working paper series no 101:1–28. doi:  https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2274738

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of TubingenTübingenGermany

Personalised recommendations