Normative Europeanization: The case of Swedish foreign policy reorientation

Abstract

In this article, the concept Normative Europeanization is developed from a synthesis of Normative Power Europe (NPE) and Europeanization. It is argued that NPE has focused too narrowly on the external relations of the European Union (EU), while Europeanization has focused on changes in policy structures. The synthesis developed here overcomes these shortcomings by emphasizing normative internal relations within the EU. Normative Europeanization is defined as a top-down process based on the logic of appropriateness, where states with a close relationship to the EU, i.e. candidate and member states, develop a commitment to a European centre and their normative point of departure is changed. It is argued here that a process of normative Europeanization affects candidate countries and new EU members especially where pro-European norms are diffused through different mechanisms. The theoretical argument is illustrated through a case study on Swedish foreign policy reorientation during the 1990s. The empirical analysis is structured around two ideal types: internationalist foreign policy and normatively Europeanized foreign policy. Based on this analysis, it is concluded that Swedish foreign policy has undergone strong normative Europeanization.

An end to Nordic exceptionalism? Europeanisation and Nordic development policies

“…A European loyalty becomes the point of reference, rather than national loyalty. According to Brommesson (2010), tendencies of normative Europeanisation of Swedish foreign policy can be detected. Is the same true for development policy?…”

“Discovering” normative power as a state strategy in the framework of security, foreign, and defense policy: the case of Japan

“…This article does not aim to dwell on the theory of norms and normative power in detail, as this has already been done by other scholars (Manners 2002(Manners , 2006Diez 2004;Brommerson 2010;Koivisto 2012;Kavalski 2013). However, it is nevertheless necessary to define how normative power is perceived here and how it relates to other types and sources of power.…”

“…Stemming from this ideational background, various international actors -international organizations, countries, and others -can be endowed or can gain capacity to shape conceptions of "normal" in international relations. Manners successfully applied the theory of normative power to the case of the European Union; other scholars have further elaborated the theory, focusing on other case studies (Callahan and Barbantseva 2011;Hamilton 2007;Brommerson 2010;Crawford 2010;Kavalski 2013). Hamilton (2007, 77) rightly argues that the "normative power" label may be too categorical, too one-dimensional, and too static to capture the complex and dynamic nature of any country's policies.…”

“…The last decade has certainly brought some positive developments in this regard, resulting in some rigorous academic papers on normative power. However, it is interesting to note that the majority of them were written by authors from the Western world (Manners 2002(Manners , 2006Diez 2004;Brommerson 2010;Crawford 2010;Zupančič and Hribernik 2011;Koivisto 2012;Kavalski 2013).…”

British press attitudes towards the EU’s global presence: From the Russian-Georgian War to the 2009 Copenhagen Summit

“…Public opinion surveys highlight the same tendency for the general public, who is more willing to accept 'more Europe' (German, Marshall Fund 2010) in foreign policy than in other policy areas (European Commission, 2012, 2013YouGov-Cambridge, 2012), and even consider an individual British approach less desirable than a European unified policy 2 . The case of the UK seems to resemble that of the Nordic member states, where both citizens and policymakers convey more support for a common European approach in foreign policy than in other policy areas (Raunio, 2007;Brommesson, 2010;Fägersten, 2012;Miles and Wivel, 2013). Recent Eurobarometer surveys show for example that in Denmark or Sweden the population exhibits a more positive attitude towards a common EU foreign policy or the Common Security and Defense Policy (CSDP) -close to the EU average -than in the case of the Economic and Monetary Union (European Commission, 2012, 2013.…”