The literature on international societies has widely recognised that the EU has formed a regional international society that has transcended the rules of Westphalian statecentred pluralism. However, the analysis of the consequences of this transcendence for global international society has so far been limited. For the most part, such studies have focused on the EU as a normative power, and even within that literature, there is much more attention given to the question of whether the EU acts as a normative power rather than to the consequences of its actions. This is intriguing given that Ian Manners, who originally coined the term, thought of the EU's ability to fundamentally transform the pluralist international society as the ultimate litmus test of normative power. In this paper, we want to explore this question further. Our argument is that the EU contributes to a solidarisation of international society, and we will show this in relation to two cases, human rights and regionalisation. However, we will also argue that this contribution is not unambiguous. Instead, it is characterised by internal contradictions and tensions.

No abstract

The European Union more often than not is either assumed or expected to play a leading role in international politics of climate change. This expectation emanates largely from the assumption that the EU as a normative power is able to induce change in international society. This paper intends to explore this assumed transformative potential of the EU in the specific context of climate politics. Suggesting an English School approach, in this paper I conceptualise the EU's potential transformative impact as the solidarisation of international society. The advantage of such an analytical perspective is that it directs the focus on tensions and ambiguities that always and unavoidably exist in processes of change. In the paper, I first elaborate on the conceptualisation of change as solidarisation. Second, I spell out in detail what such a solidarisation means in international climate politics. Third, an empirical analysis of the EU's discourse and practices in climate politics reveals whether the EU indeed acts as a source of solidarisation in this particular policy field. In contrast to the widespread assumption that consistency is key to change, this paper suggests that accepting and embracing ambiguities indeed enhances the EU's contribution to solidarisation.

No abstract

No abstract