Introduction. Asia-Europe dialogue on norms: revisiting the role of norm-receivers in the conceptualisation of the ‘normative power Europe’

Abstract

Contextualising the special issue This special issue sets out to explore the responses of norm-receivers to EU export of norms and values. The main focus of this special issue is on the Asian recipients of EU norms. The leading theoretical explanations-used by all contributors to this Issueare from the revisited analytical framework of 'Normative Power Europe' (NPE). NPE is a popular conceptual paradigm that has informed debate about the EU since the early 2000s. Introduced in the seminal work by Ian Manners (2002), it remains a useful and intellectually attractive model to understand the EU and its actions both internally and externally. Its appeal lies in its emphasis on ideas; its open, eclectic and critical nature; and its focus on explanations of power beyond state-centred models. In recent times, there appears to be a divergence of views with regard to the attractiveness, role and importance of NPE as a vehicle for deeper understanding of the EU and its actions. For some, the appeal of the NPE approach is waning (Nicolaïdis and Whitman 2013). For others, substantial revisions are needed (Whitman 2013). This situation is not in the least due to the fact that the topography of the NPE scholarly debate features a number of blind spots. The most recent attempts to map the NPE legacy (Nicolaїdis and Whitman 2013; Björkdahl et al. 2015) indicate a distinct analytical terra incognita, namely conceptualisation of the receiver of the NPE messages. While the majority of NPE scholarship has been-and remains-Eurocentric, there is a growing demand to understand the factor of external norm-takers in a

Importing EU norms: the case of anti-corruption reform in Ukraine

“…While acknowledging the contribution of Manners' work in highlighting the ideational and normative aspects of the EU's foreign policy, this work focuses on the normative impact of the EU's action and seeks to identify the factors influencing the results of the EU's norm export on the side of the 'norm receiver'. This approach follows the recent studies on the normative power Europe (Björkdahl et al 2015;Chaban, Masselot, and Vadura 2015;Gordon and Pardo 2015;Nicolaïdis and Whitman 2013), which have reversed the focus of the analysis from the EU to the 'norm-receiver' in order to understand 'when, how and why EU norms are imported' (Björkdahl et al 2015, 1). Discovering this 'terra incognita' responds to the growing need to realise the role of the norm-takers in the process of norm export (Chaban, Masselot, and Vadura 2015), since it is the complex nature of 'the local' and of its political, social, and cultural structures and contradictions, that determines whether the EU norms will be accepted or rejected (Gordon and Pardo 2015;Kinnvall 1995).…”

“…This approach follows the recent studies on the normative power Europe (Björkdahl et al 2015;Chaban, Masselot, and Vadura 2015;Gordon and Pardo 2015;Nicolaïdis and Whitman 2013), which have reversed the focus of the analysis from the EU to the 'norm-receiver' in order to understand 'when, how and why EU norms are imported' (Björkdahl et al 2015, 1). Discovering this 'terra incognita' responds to the growing need to realise the role of the norm-takers in the process of norm export (Chaban, Masselot, and Vadura 2015), since it is the complex nature of 'the local' and of its political, social, and cultural structures and contradictions, that determines whether the EU norms will be accepted or rejected (Gordon and Pardo 2015;Kinnvall 1995). A closer analysis of the domestic context is thus a sine qua non for understanding a variety of responses to the EU's normative power across countries, time, and issue areas (Delcour and Wolczuk 2015).…”

“…In order to grasp how the EU-exported norms are imported locally, we use the institutionalist perspective, which is sceptical of radical institutional change and instead, focuses on informal constraints embedded in historically developed rules, organisational practices and normative principles (North 1990;Olsen 2010). Largely missing in the research on the EU norm import, the institutionalist approach offers a useful view on the normative change, in particular in the field of the rule of law, whose understanding merely through formal institutions limits the conceptual space for treating it as a fundamentally cultural and political problem (Burlyuk 2015;Carothers 1998;Kleinfeld 2012;Natorski 2013). This bears two important implications for the rule of law reforms.…”

“…Firstly, the underlying condition for the rule of law is limiting the power of the state, while it is the government itself, who must take the necessary measures (Kleinfeld 2012) what necessarily disturbs established power relations. As a result, the main obstacles to the rule of law are usually not technical or financial, but rather political and human (Carothers 1998). Secondly, the implementation of the rule of law is largely a question of norms and culture, which determine the relation between the state and the society, and between citizens themselves.…”

“…This article aims to contribute to the scholarship studying the import of EU norms, which problematizes the EU-centric approach to the EU's normative power and sheds light on the receiving end of the EU's norms export -the 'norm receiver' (Björkdahl et al 2015). While numerous contributions on the EU's normative power have revealed how the EU norms are exported to third countries (Manners 2013;Whitman 2013), the empirical studies on why and how the EU norms are imported -and under what conditions -have been rather scarce (see Björkdahl et al 2015;Chaban, Masselot, and Vadura 2015;Gordon and Pardo 2015;Nicolaïdis and Whitman 2013). Following the approach of Bjӧrkdahl et al (2015), we suggest that understanding the local environment of norm-takers is key to evaluate whether and how the EU norms are imported and what are the outcomes of the EU's normative power.…”