This paper criticizes existing conceptions of the EU as a 'civilian'/'normative'/'civilizing' power for lacking sufficient precision. Further, it argues that such conceptions are normatively biased. Implying that the EU is a 'force for goodness' they lack the necessary criteria and assessment standards to qualify or substantiate such conclusions. In order to rescue the argument of the EU as a 'normative' power the paper suggests that the core feature of a putative normative or civilizing power would be that it acts in order to transform the parameters of power politics through a focus on strengthening the international legal system. The paper concludes that from such a perspective there is a tension in the EU's approach to international affairs.

Why does the European Union (EU) enlarge and why does it make certain prioritizations amongst applicants in the enlargement process? In this article, different reasons that have been used in mobilizing for enlargement are examined. An analytical distinction is made between three different types of reasons: pragmatic, ethical-political and moral. The conclusion is that ethical-political reasons, which testify to a sense of kinship-based duty, are particularly important in mobilizing for enlargement to incorporate central and eastern Europe and thus also central to an appreciation of prioritizations in the EU's enlargement policy.

No abstract

The status of democracy in European foreign and security policy is increasingly questioned. In order to identify if there is something at the European Union (EU) level that requires legitimation, we need to establish whether there has been a move beyond intergovernmentalism. In this contribution an analytical scheme that makes it possible to identify such a move and its putative democratic implications is developed. Four constituent pillars of intergovernmentalism are identified and discussed. These pertain to actors, decision-making procedures, the scope of delegated powers and the raison d'être of the intergovernmental endeavour. These pillars constitute necessary requirements if intergovernmentalism is to be democratic. Developments within the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) are assessed with reference to this analytical scheme, with a view to identify whether, when and where a move beyond intergovernmentalism has created a democratic dilemma.

No abstract