The European Union as a Small Power, or Conceptualizing Europe’s Strategic Actorness

Toje, Asle

doi:10.1080/07036330802005425

Cited by 30 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…On the other hand, the finding that the EU is a milieu shaper towards Russia sets a new theoretical focus. Compared to power-based explanations of previous research that labeled the EU as a "civilian" and "economic power" (Bull 1982;Duchêne 1973), a "normative power" (Manners 2002), a "normal power" (Pacheco Pardo 2012), a "market power" (Damro 2012), a "regulatory power" (Goldthau and Sitter 2015), a "realist power" (Zimmermann 2007), a "military power" (Wagner 2006), a "small power" (Toje 2008) and even a "superpower" (McCormick 2007;Moravcsik 2002;Whitman 1998), the image of the EU as an external milieu shaper is theoretically more encompassing. As suggested by the case studies in this book, the dominance of milieu goals in the EU's external relations towards Russia is prevalent in policy areas as diverse as energy and human rights policy.…”

mentioning

confidence: 85%

Introduction: the EU's quest for a more coherent Russia policy

Thaler¹

2020

Shaping EU Foreign Policy Towards Russia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is always important that the EU speaks with a coherent voice to its partners (Interview 46). Russia is the epitome why it doesn't work (Interview 11). The two quotes above are at the heart of a paradox that inherently characterizes the foreign policy of the European Union (EU). On the one hand, there is widespread agreement that the EU should become a more coherent external actor. In the context of EU foreign policy-making, coherence-both between political actors and different external policies-is understood as a key element to increase the Union's international impact. On the other hand, the EU repeatedly fails to meet this aim. The effectiveness of its external approach is undermined by deep internal divisions between actors and across policy areas. In practice, the notion of the EU as an influential international actor frequently turns out to be wishful thinking rather than a reality. Relations with Russia are a prime example in this respect. The EU and its Member States have a major stake in the eastern neighbor, yet coherence of their external policies is frequently undermined by a fundamental conflict over interests and approach. Calls for a stronger external role of the EU are rooted in the uniqueness of the project of European integration. Since the Treaty of Rome, it has preserved peace among its Member States on a formerly war-prone continent, contributed to economic growth and prosperity for its citizens, and created a shared body of European law. The list is non-exhaustive and could be extended with many more exceptional attributes: the EU is one of the largest economies in the world with a gigantic internal market and a common currency, it has a system of shared values, and it grants fundamental rights to every citizen. Despite the fact that it is not a state per se, it shapes the lives of more than 500 million people. Due to such achievements, the EU is widely regarded as a success story. The vast majority of policy-makers and observers are of the opinion that these internal achievements should be reflected in a stronger international role of the EU. Since the early days of the EU as an international actor, its external performance has been subject to heated debates. Most practitioners and observers agree that the EU lacks international impact. Inter alia, it has been referred

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 85%

Introduction: the EU's quest for a more coherent Russia policy

Thaler¹

2020

Shaping EU Foreign Policy Towards Russia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The EU's fondness for multilateral institutions and international law, and its reluctance towards relying on coercive power must be seen in that light. 28 The US responded to 9-11 like a traditional great power would, by unleashing its formidable military power. In spite of many European states' willingness to offer varying degrees of military support to one or both of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the military response was not in fact the most important area of action for Europe.…”

Section: Threat Perceptions and Strategic Beingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Continued drift, but without the acrimony: US–European relations under Barack Obama

Nielsen

2013

Journal of Transatlantic Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

If the measure of Barack Obama's success in mending USÁEuropean relations is whether the tone has improved, his presidency has been a great success. If the measure of success, however, is halting the drifting apart of policy preferences, the picture looks a lot less rosy. This article argues that the 'drift' in relations did not start and end with the Bush administration. Rather it reflects deep-seated preferences and very different world views on both sides. Given this, the best any one leader on either side can hope for is to manage relations with as little friction and acrimony as possible. The Obama administration realises that, and by this more limited measure, it has succeeded brilliantly.

show abstract

“…To those familiar with European integration, this should not come as a surprise. The EU was in fact built in opposition to power politics (Toje, 2008b, pp. 205–6).…”

Section: Power In Institutionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…European integration was born out of a desire to prevent aggression by Germany against its neighbours. In other words, the ‘historical mission of the Union is to deliver Europe from Realpolitik not be the vehicle for it’ (Toje, 2008b, p. 210).…”

Section: Power In Institutionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Power, Institutions and the CSDP: The Promise of Institutionalist Theory

Menon

2010

J of Common Market Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The common security and defence policy (CSDP) represents an institutionalized attempt on the part of European Union Member States to respond to the security challenges they confront. As such, it is perhaps self-evident that theoretical approaches that focus on the role of institutions in shaping social life should have something to say about its nature, role and impact. This article argues that not only can institutionalist approaches enhance our understanding of CSDP, but using it as a case study can illustrate some of the strengths and weaknesses of institutionalism. In particular, it can indicate the importance of combining insights into the importance of institutional structures in shaping politics and policy with the crucial role power plays in mitigating some institutional effects. This argument is pursued via consideration of the evolution and workings of CSDP.

show abstract

The European Union as a Small Power, or Conceptualizing Europe’s Strategic Actorness

Cited by 30 publications

References 25 publications

Introduction: the EU's quest for a more coherent Russia policy

Introduction: the EU's quest for a more coherent Russia policy

Continued drift, but without the acrimony: US–European relations under Barack Obama

Power, Institutions and the CSDP: The Promise of Institutionalist Theory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About