European integration as a peace project

Abstract

Using the Norwegian Nobel Committee’s justification for awarding the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize to the European Union (EU) as a foil, this article examines the EU through the prism of being a peace project. It contends that European integration reflects a Wilsonian liberalism approach to building peace, which emphasizes free trade and democracy, but with a distinctly European twist; an additional emphasis on functional integration and institutionalization, as well as a regional focus. It also identifies three themes that run through the contributions to the special section. First, there has been a strong dialectic between the internal and external dimensions of security in the European integration project from the outset. In some ways, these have been reinforcing, but in others, they have been contradictory. Second, the European peace project has passed though successive, if often overlapping, chronological phases. These phases have been defined by different security challenges that called for different policy approaches. Russian aggression and jihadi terrorism characterize the most recent phase. The third theme is that, despite the changes in terms of threats and policies, there has been a remarkable consistency in two reinforcing respects: the persistent tension among the member states about closer integration with respect to the external security, and the tendency of the EU to emphasize institution building and to neglect strategy. The article concludes with a dialogic introduction to the individual contributions.

The EU’s CFSP/CSDP in 2030: Towards an alternative vision of power?

“…One of the initial rationales of European integration was peace, for which the EU received the Nobel Prize for Peace in 2012. Based on functionalist integration, the European project aimed at building solidarity and making war between Germany and France ‘unthinkable’ and ‘materially impossible’ (Robert Schuman cited in Birchfield et al, 2017: 6). One of the major lessons learned from the League of Nations was that a set of intergovernmental rules and regulations without a clear institutional structure is highly prone to disintegration.…”

“…Spillovers of governance failures and injustices in the near and far neighbourhood can rapidly have repercussions on Europe. The conceptual importance of this nexus is that security needs to be resituated and redefined (Birchfield et al, 2017: 4). Any such redefinition should take account of the internal security ramifications of investments, for example by the Chinese government in the framework of the Belt and Road strategy, as well as hybrid destabilizations by Russia or other actors.…”

“…Particularly on external security, EU action is subject to various regulations and plans instead of grand strategies (Birchfield et al, 2017: 4). The lack of strategic coherence in foreign, security and defence policy matters has not only impeded the EU to speak with one voice on many occasions, but it also obstructed the development of its operational capacity.…”

What Has Nonviolence Got To Do With The EU?

“…Deep down, this third research question unveils the problem of connecting EU politics and policy to a set of causal ideas that resonate in the minds of citizens as a proper historical project. During its founding years, the EU had a historical project of sorts: it centred on peace (Birchfield et al, ). Yet, what is/ought to be the historical narrative today, and how would a nonviolent lens contribute to defining it?…”

“…And yet, where shall we search, in order to identify a proper narrative account? A prominent theme is the narrative of Europe as a peace project (Birchfield et al, ). There are studies that evaluate to what extent this has been true, both externally (Lavenex, ; Ludlow, ) and internally.…”