From Neo‐Functional Peace to a Logic of Spillover in EU External Policy: A Response to Visoka and Doyle

Abstract

In their recently published JCMS article, Gezim Visoka and John Doyle have proposed the concept of 'neofunctional peace' as a means to conceptualize the EU's peacemaking practices in the case of the EU-facilitated Belgrade-Pristina dialogue. This article challenges the 'neo-functional peace' on conceptual and empirical grounds. We critically discuss Visoka and Doyle's (2016) reading of neofunctionalism and question parts of their empirical evidence given for the existence of a 'neo-functional peace'. Going beyond a mere critique of the article by Visoka and Doyle and arguing that the authors may not have fully exploited neofunctionalism's potential for theorizing EU external policy, we stipulate a neofunctionalist logic for explaining integration in the area of EU external policy. Focusing on three spillover dynamics to explain the initiation of the Belgrade-Pristina dialoguefunctional discrepancies, supranational entrepreneurship and external spilloverwe illustrate how neofunctionalism can be used to explain the extension of the scope of EU competences and action in the external policy realm. helpful suggestions on the literature.

The Promise and Future of Neo‐Functional Peace: A Reply to Bergmann and Niemann

“…The response written by Bergmann and Niemann is a welcome step in recognizing the unexplored potential of neo‐functionalism to explain not only the EU's internal integration but also some of its approach to peace‐making and its external actions more generally. Bergmann and Niemann's response is premised on the claim that our evidence ‘is not sufficiently convincing to empirically substantiate the neo‐functionalist footing of the EU peace support policies’ (, p. 3). In this reply, we want to challenge their key premises and argue that neo‐functionalist peace does offer a possible research programme, but one which we acknowledge requires further empirical and conceptual work.…”

“…Bergmann and Niemann claim that our account of neo‐functional peace suffers from ‘several substantial conceptual and empirical flaws’ (, p. 2). They question our explanatory ambition, considering it as ‘unclear’, largely based on a context‐setting sentence made in our introduction, where we made the case for using neo‐functionalism ‘as a framework to explain the EU's strategy for dealing with protracted disputes’ (Visoka and Doyle, , p. 863).…”

“…They question our explanatory ambition, considering it as ‘unclear’, largely based on a context‐setting sentence made in our introduction, where we made the case for using neo‐functionalism ‘as a framework to explain the EU's strategy for dealing with protracted disputes’ (Visoka and Doyle, , p. 863). Bergmann and Niemann claim to contribute to the literature in two ways: first, by elaborating and modifying neo‐functionalist assumptions in the context of the EU's external policy; and second, by illustrating empirically the added value of their refined neo‐functionalist assumptions (, p. 2). Their critique claims that our empirical evidence provides insufficient grounds to assume that neo‐functionalist logics were behind EU's facilitation of talks between Kosovo and Serbia and they suggest that ‘considerably more efforts would be necessary to solidly establish links between theory and reality …’ (p. 4).…”

“…In our original article, we conceptualize neo‐functional peace in the case of the Kosovo‐Serbia dialogue around five features: ‘suitable background conditions; the path‐breaking role of technical dialogue and low politics; the emergence of high‐level political dialogue as a spillover effect of technical dialogue; ambiguous meaning and co‐existence of multiple intentions; and the prioritization of process over outcomes and impact’ (Visoka and Doyle, , p. 863). Bergmann and Niemann challenge each of these features, offering their own reading of how neo‐functionalism could contribute to ‘our understanding of EU external policy in general and the EU's peace‐making activities in particular’ (, p. 7). In doing so, they discuss functional discrepancies and rationales, socialization and learning processes, the role of supranational institutions, and add external spillover as a new modified factor.…”

“…Firstly, Bergmann and Niemann claim that our analysis of background conditions does not ‘reflect neo‐functionalist logic at play’ (, p. 5). Our reading of background conditions was entirely in line with neo‐functionalist assumptions, allowing for the possibility that other accidental historical factors and events should be considered when exploring neo‐functionalist processes.…”