Leading the way? The European Union at the WSSD

Abstract

The 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) presented an important test of how far the European Union's (EU's) commitment to sustainable development had evolved. This article applies the conception of the EU as a normative power to the EU's role at Johannesburg. It examines how the EU operationalized the concept of sustainable development before analysing the role the EU played in the outcomes of the WSSD and the factors that facilitated or constrained the potential extension of an EU norm in this field. In doing so, the article questions the depth of the EU's current commitment to sustainable development, suggesting that while it may represent a leader in some fields of environmental policy it remains some way short of a coherent adoption of sustainable development as an EU norm. As a result, the factors constraining the development of a norm prevented the EU offering strong leadership at the WSSD.

The EU energy and climate package: a showcase for European environmental leadership?

“…In addition to these leadership types, researchers have, following Manners' (2002) seminal study, looked at the EU as a 'normative power' in environmental issues (see, e.g., Burchell and Lightfoot, 2004;Lightfoot and Burchell, 2005;Scheipers and Sicurelli, 2007). This view claims that the strength of the Union in international affairs lies in its ideological power, i.e.…”

“…However, as many of the new member countries are relatively poor, the infl uence of the enlargements on structural power remains to be seen. Second, concerning directional leadership, researchers agree that the EU has potential, but only if it manages to gain more credibility through more coherent and effective internal and external policies (Vogler and Stephan, 2007;Lightfoot and Burchell, 2004;Andresen and Agrawala, 2002;Gupta and Ringius, 2001;Metz et al, 2001) that are effectively implemented (Oberthür, 2007). In other words, the Union should attempt to appear and act as a more unifi ed front.…”

“…the ability promote its central values in international settings. So far, it has been argued that the EU has pushed for a non-radical international model of sustainable development that has enabled it to maintain its economic competitiveness rather than promoting more radical models that might have a negative economic impact on the Union (Burchell and Lightfoot, 2004;Baker, 2000). The EU climate package was an opportunity for the EU to demonstrate its ideological power and to exert both instrumental and intellectual leadership on other nations before the Copenhagen climate negotiations.…”

A New Era for EU–Australia Relations? Sustainable Development and the Challenge of Climate Change as Litmus Test

“…Australia was concerned that the EU's moves to apply the principle universally would mean that countries could use the precautionary principle as a protectionist trade measure, thus damaging Australia's export interests (DFAT, 2003, p. 67). Moreover, there was considerable debate over the issue at the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development, with many commentators suggesting that Australia was willing to renege on previous commitments and that it was only through EU pressure that the principle was reaffirmed (see Burchell and Lightfoot, 2004;Lightfoot, 2006).…”

Multi‐level interactions in a sustainable development context: different routes for Flanders to decision‐making in the UN commission on sustainable development

“…Many authors have studied the role of multilateral organizations (e.g. Burchell and Lightfoot, 2004) and how the outcome of their discussions infl uences governance at lower levels (e.g. Lafferty et al, 2007, Meadowcroft, 2007.…”