Europe: The quiet superpower

Abstract

This article challenges the conventional view that Europe's global influence is declining. Since 1989 realists have predicted Europe's demise, as well as greater intra-European and transatlantic conflict. The reverse has occurred. This outcome suggests the superior predictive power of liberal international relations theory, which stresses the importance of the varied national interests of states, reflecting specific social coalitions, patterns of global interdependence and domestic institutions. According to a liberal analysis, Europe is and will foreseeably remain the only superpower besides the United States in a bipolar world -and its relative power is rising. Europe is the world's pre-eminent civilian power, and its second military power, far more influential than China or India. None of this is likely to change much, because Europe's influence rests on stable factors such as high per capita income, long-term institutional advantages and convergence of underlying national interests between European countries and other great powers, notably the United States.

Bati Balkan Romanlari: Normati̇f Güç Avrupa'nin Turnusol Testi̇?

“…Numerous studies, particularly in the last two decades, offered different characterisations and depictions of the EU's international role, contribution and identity, focusing on the different facets of its external relations -the EU as a (vanishing) mediator (Nicolaïdis, 2004), a global conflict manager (Whitman, Wolff, 2012), a Kantian power (Kagan, 2004), an ethical power (Aggestam, 2008), a civilian or civilising power (Duchêne, 1972;Sjursen, 2006) and a quiet superpower (Moravcsik, 2002), among others. These depictions often approach the EU's identity as a determinant of its foreign policy behaviour and "the EU's role as an international actor and its international identity are considered a function of the significance of the EU and its member states in international affairs and of the effectiveness of its policy practice" (Sedelmeier, 2004: 125).…”

Stigma i internasjonal politikk: Norge, EU og søken etter «det normale» i en post-sovjetisk sikkerhetskontekst

“…EUs militaermakt er saerdeles begrenset av manglende vilje til samordning. En mulig sympatisk holdning ovenfor unionens militaere kapabiliteter ville vaere å bedømme den ut ifra dens potensiale, heller enn dens nåvaerende evne og vilje Á da er EU en supermakt (Moravcsik 2009). …”

Theorising the EU’s Diplomatic Service: Rational Player or Social Body?

“…Neorealists such as Waltz predicted that the only way in which the EU could achieve a foreign policy worthy of the name would be if it became a state, that is, if the federal project were compieted (Waitz, ZOOO).Hyde-Price (Z008) concluded that the polarity structure and lack of military resources meant that the EV was turning into a 'tragic power' with its attempt to build a common foreign policy that was doomed to fail. Liberals, from intergovernmentalists such as Moravcsik labelling the EV the (quiet superpower' (Moravcsik, 2010) to institutionalists such as Koenig-Archibugi (Z004), argued that there was potential for developing a common European foreign policy, but that it would (and should) remain intergovernmental (Wagner, 2003). Against this, constructivists and reflectivists claimed that the EU would indeed be -or already was -a power in the world (Manners, ZOOZ;Ruggie, 1998;Sjursen, Z006).…”