Advertisement

The European Union Between Solidarist Change and Pluralist Re-Enactment

  • Bettina Ahrens
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in International Relations book series (PSIR)

Abstract

This chapter engages with the EU’s contribution to solidarist change in international society in two perspectives. The first part focuses on the internal dynamics of European integration, the second on the EU’s potential to induce external change in the global international society. The analyses provide two major findings: First, against the criticism that the EU would ultimately fail to pursue a transformative agenda, the EU indeed is a solidarising force in international society. Second, solidarising processes must take into account existing pluralist structures. Hence, any solidarist change does also require pluralist re-enactment to some extent.

References

  1. Adler, Emanuel, and Vincent Pouliot. 2011. International Practices. International Theory 3 (1): 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahrens, Bettina, and Thomas Diez. 2015. Solidarisation and Its Limits: The EU and the Transformation of International Society. Global Discourse 5 (3): 341–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Annan, Kofi. 2005. In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights for All. General Assembly. New York (A/59/2005). Available online at http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/59/2005
  4. Bain, William. 2014. The Pluralist-Solidarist Debate in the English School. In Guide to the English School in International Studies, ed. Cornelia Navari and Daniel Green, 159–169. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barkin, J. Samuel. 1998. The Evolution of the Constitution of Sovereignty and the Emergence of Human Rights Norms. Millennium – Journal of International Studies 27 (2): 229–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Basu, Sudeshna. 2012. The European Union in the Human Rights Council. In The European Union and Multilateral Governance. Assessing EU Participation in United Nations Human Rights and Environmental Fora, ed. Jan Wouters et al., 86–102. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  7. Bellamy, Alex J. 2009. Realizing the Responsibility to Protect. International Studies Perspectives 10 (2): 111–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Borg, Stefan. 2013. European Integration and the Problem of the State: Universality, Particularity, and Exemplarity in the Crafting of the European Union. Journal of International Relations and Development: 1–28.Google Scholar
  9. Brockmeier, Sarah, Gerrit Kurtz, and Julian Junk. 2014. Emerging Norm and Rhetorical Tool: Europe and a Responsibility to Protect. Conflict, Security & Development 14 (4): 429–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bull, Hedley. 2002. The Anarchical Society. A Study of Order in World Politics. 3rd ed. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Burgess, Michael. 1984. Federal Ideas in the European Community: Altiero Spinelli and ‘European Union’, 1981–84. Government & Opposition 19 (3): 339–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. ———. 2000. Federalism and European Union. The Building of Europe, 1950–2000. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Buzan, Barry. 2004. From International to World Society? English School Theory and the Social Structure of Globalisation. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. ———. 2014. An Introduction to the English School of International Relations. The Societal Approach. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  15. Davies, Mathew. 2010. Rhetorical Inaction? Compliance and the Human Rights Council of the United Nations. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 35 (4): 449–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. de Baere, Geert. 2012. Some Reflections on the EU and the Responsibility to Protect. Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies Working Paper Series No. 79, Leuven. https://lirias.kuleuven.be/bitstream/123456789/336069/1/WP79_DeBaere+%282%29.pdf
  17. Diez, Thomas, Ian Manners, and Richard G. Whitman. 2011. The Changing Nature of International Institutions in Europe: The Challenge of the European Union. Journal of European Integration 33 (2): 117–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. European Parliament. 1984. Draft Treaty Establishing the European Union. Available online at http://www.cvce.eu/obj/draft_treaty_establishing_the_european_union_14_february_1984-en-0c1f92e8-db44-4408-b569-c464cc1e73c9.html
  19. Evans, Gareth J. 2014. The Consequences of Non-intervention in Syria: Does the Responsibility to Protect Have a Future? In Into the Eleventh Hour: R2P, Syria and Humanitarianism in Crisis, ed. Robert W. Murray and Alasdair McKay, 26–33. Bristol: E-International Relations.Google Scholar
  20. Evans, Gareth J., and Mohamed Sahnoun. 2001. The Responsibility to Protect. Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre.Google Scholar
  21. Falk, Richard A. 1998. Law in an Emerging Global Village. A Post-Westphalian Perspective. Ardsley: Transnational Publishers. (Innovation in international law).Google Scholar
  22. Focarelli, Carlo. 2008. The Responsibility to Protect Doctrine and Humanitarian Intervention: Too Many Ambiguities for a Working Doctrine. Journal of Conflict and Security Law 13 (2): 191–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. General Assembly. 2005. 2005 World Summit Outcome. New York (A/RES/60/1). Available online at https://undocs.org/en/A/RES/60/1
  24. Gutter, Jeroen. 2007. Special Procedures and the Human Rights Council. Achievements and Challenges Ahead. Human Rights Law Review 7 (1): 93–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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-4/101. Human Rights Council (A/HRC/4/80). Available online at http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/Sudan%20AHRC480.pdf
  26. ———. 2007b. EU Draft Resolution on Human Rights Situation in Darfur (A/HRC/4/L.7). Available online at http://www.humanrightsvoices.org/assets/attachments/documents/L7_EU_Darfur_490.doc
  27. ———. 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” (A/HRC/4/8). Available online at http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/E/HRC/resolutions/A-HRC-RES-4-8.doc
  28. Ki-Moon, Ban. 2009. Implementing the Responsibility to Protect. Report of the Secretary-General (A/63/677). Available online at http://responsibilitytoprotect.org/implementing%20the%20rtop.pdf
  29. Knudsen, Tonny Brems. 2013. The Responsibility to Protect: European Contributions in a Changing World Order. In Routledge Handbook on the European Union and International Institutions. Performance, Policy, Power, ed. Knud Erik Jørgensen and Katie Verlin Laatikainen, 157–170. London/New York: Routledge (Routledge handbooks).Google Scholar
  30. ———. 2015. Primary Institutions and International Organizations: Theorizing Continuity and Change. Paper Presented at the 9th Pan-European Conference on International Relations, Sicily, 23–26 September, 1–28.Google Scholar
  31. Limon, Marc, and Ted Piccone. 2014. Human Rights Special Procedures: Determinants of Influence. Understanding and Strengthening the Effectiveness of the UN’s Independent Human Rights Experts. Universal Rights Group. Available online at http://www.academia.edu/download/36713427/URG_Human_rights_special_procedures_pge_by_pge_hd-3.pdf. Checked on 25 Apr 2017.
  32. Limon, Marc, and Hilary Power. 2014. History of the United Nations Special Procedures Mechanism. Origins, Evolution and Reform. Universal Rights Group. Available online at http://www.universal-rights.org/download.php?file=http://www.universal-rights.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/URG_HUNSP_28.01.2015_spread.pdf. Checked on 3 Mar 2016.
  33. Little, Richard. 1989. Deconstructing the Balance of Power. Two Traditions of Thought. Review of International Studies 15 (2): 87–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. ———. 2006. The Balance of Power and Great Power Management. In The Anarchical Society in a Globalized World, ed. Richard Little and John Williams, 97–120. Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Luck, Edward C. 2009. Sovereignty, Choice, and the Responsibility to Protect. Global Responsibility to Protect 1: 10–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Manners, Ian. 2002. Normative Power Europe: A Contradiction in Terms? Journal of Common Market Studies 40 (2): 235–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. ———. 2008. The Normative Ethics of the European Union. International Affairs 84 (1): 65–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mayall, James. 1990. Nationalism and International Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Cambridge studies in international relations, 10).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Moravcsik, Andrew. 1991. Negotiating the Single European Act. National Interests and Conventional Statecraft in the European Community. International Organization 45 (1): 19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Morris, Justin. 2013. Libya and Syria: R2P and the Spectre of the Swinging Pendulum. International Affairs 89 (5): 1265–1283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Navari, Cornelia. 2011. The Concept of Practice in the English School. European Journal of International Relations 17 (4): 611–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Neumann, Iver B. 2002. Returning Practice to the Linguistic Turn: The Case of Diplomacy. Millennium – Journal of International Studies 31 (3): 627–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. OHCHR. 2017. Standing Invitations. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Available online at http://spinternet.ohchr.org/_Layouts/SpecialProceduresInternet/StandingInvitations.aspx
  44. Oxfam. 2008. The Responsibility to Protect and the European Union (Oxfam Report, March 2008). Available online at http://responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.php?module=uploads&func=download&fileId=583
  45. Pinder, John. 1985. European Community and Nation-State. A Case for a Neo-Federalism? International Affairs 62 (1): 41–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. ———. 2007. Altiero Spinelli’s European Federal Odyssey. The International Spectator 42 (4): 571–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Reckwitz, Andreas. 2002. Toward a Theory of Social Practices: A Development in Culturalist Theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory 5 (2): 243–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. ———. 2003. Grundelemente einer Theorie sozialer Praktiken: Eine sozialtheoretische Perspektive. Zeitschrift für Soziologie 32 (4): 282–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Reus-Smit, Christian. 2001. Human Rights and the Social Construction of Sovereignty. Review of International Studies 27 (4): 519–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schäfer, Hilmar. 2013. Die Instabilität der Praxis. Reproduktion und Transformation des Sozialen in der Praxistheorie. Weilerswist: Velbrück.Google Scholar
  51. Schuman, Robert. 1950. Declaration of 9th May 1950 Delivered by Robert Schuman. Available online at http://www.cvce.eu/obj/the_schuman_declaration_paris_9_may_1950-en-9cc6ac38-32f5-4c0a-a337-9a8ae4d5740f.html
  52. Shore, Cris. 2004. Whither European Citizenship?: Eros and Civilization Revisited. European Journal of Social Theory 7 (1): 27–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Smith, Karen E. 2011. The European Union and the Review of the Human Rights Council. Directorate-General for External Policies of the Union. Available online at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2011/433870/EXPO-DROI_ET(2011)433870_EN.pdf. Retrieved on Febuary 27, 2018.
  54. Spinelli, Altiero, and Ernesto Rossi. 1941. The Manifesto of Ventotene. CVCE. Available online at http://www.cvce.eu/obj/the_manifesto_of_ventotene_1941-en-316aa96c-e7ff-4b9e-b43a-958e96afbecc.html. Checked on 11 Aug 2016.
  55. Sweeney, Gareth, and Yuri Saito. 2009. An NGO Assessment of the New Mechanisms of the UN Human Rights Council. Human Rights Law Review 9 (2): 203–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Thakur, Ramesh. 2002. Outlook: Intervention, Sovereignty and the Responsibility to Protect: Experiences from ICISS. Security Dialogue 33 (3): 323–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. ———. 2013. R2P After Libya and Syria: Engaging Emerging Powers. The Washington Quarterly 36 (2): 61–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. ———. 2014. Syria and the Responsibility to Protect. In Into the Eleventh Hour: R2P, Syria and Humanitarianism in Crisis, ed. Robert W. Murray and Alasdair McKay, 38–42. E-International Relations: Bristol.Google Scholar
  59. Tiilikainen, Teija. 2014. The EU’s International Identity and the Construction of the International Order: What Does the Normative Power Debate Offer to IR Studies? European Review of International Studies 1 (1): 125–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Weinert, Matthew S. 2011. Reframing the Pluralist-Solidarist Debate. Millennium – Journal of International Studies 40 (1): 21–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Weiss, Thomas G. 2011. RtoP Alive and Well After Libya. Ethics & International Affairs 25 (3): 287–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wendt, Alexander, and Raymond Duvall. 1989. Institutions and International Order. In Global Changes and Theoretical Challenges. Approaches to World Politics for the 1990s, ed. Ernst Otto Czempiel and James N. Rosenau, 51–73. Lexington: Lexington Books. (Issues in world politics).Google Scholar
  63. Wheeler, Nicholas J., and Timothy Dunne. 1996. Hedley Bull’s Pluralism of the Intellect and Solidarism of the Will. International Affairs 72 (1): 91–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wheeler, Nicholas J., and Frazer Egerton. 2009. The Responsibility to Protect: ‘Precious Commitment’ or a Promise Unfulfilled? Global Responsibility to Protect 1: 114–132.Google Scholar
  65. Wouters, Jan, and Philip de Man. 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.Google Scholar
  66. Wouters, Jan, and Katrien Meuwissen. 2013. The European Union at the UN Human Rights Council: Multilateral Human Rights Protection Coming of Age? Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies Working Paper Series No. 126, 1–26.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bettina Ahrens
    • 1
  1. 1.University of TübingenTübingenGermany

Personalised recommendations