Normative Power Europe and Conflict Transformation

Abstract

The starting point for this paper is twofold. On the one hand, the authors have recently been involved in a study on European integration and border conflict transformation, which established conditions under which integration and association can have a desecuritising effect on border conflicts. One core condition was an image of the EU as a positive force in world politics. On the other hand, both authors have been involved in the debate on normative power Europe and have argued that this concept is better seen as a discursive self-construction imbuing the integration project with new force and establishing an EU identity against Others, rather than an objective analytical concept. In this paper, we explore the degree to which this self-construction of the EU is shared by others in international society, and in particular in conflict areas. Our basic hypothesis is that the EU's chances to act as a mediator, or to transform conflicts through association agreements and other forms of partnerships, largely depends on this acceptance of the notion of normative power Europe. The paper draws upon the cases of Cyprus and Israel/Palestine as examples. Its aim is to develop a theoretical framework with which the basic hypothesis can be studied, to discuss initial examples, and to draw out the political and normative consequences from the relationship between normative power Europe and conflict transformation, especially in light of our earlier criticism of the EU's self-construction. Work in progress-incomplete references. Comments welcome.

Unpacking Interests in Normative Power Europe

“…Instead, sceptics analyse the normative power discourse as an a posteriori rationalization of power and interest – or lack thereof (Juncos, ; Smith, ). In the same vein, Diez and Pace contend that ‘although the EU's aims of its external policies are often dressed in “the universal good” clothes, in practice, this masks the short‐term focus of the EU's self‐interests' (Diez and Pace, , p. 224). Although he does not contribute to the above‐mentioned volume, Langan concurs with this view.…”

‘Moral power’ as objectification of the ‘civilian’/‘normative’ ‘EUlogy’: the European Union as a conflict-dealer in the South Caucasus

“…As bulwarks for a 'conceptual apparatus', Sjursen proposed establishing explicit normative standards, understanding the EU's constitution through norms together with its preference for specific norms, and investigating whether international developments affect the EU's external policy (ibid.). Some scholars (Diez and Pace 2007;Vasilyan 2007) have aimed at testing these concepts analytically in order to relieve them of their 'subjective, outbound and selfcentred' (Vasilyan 2007) attributes. Others have attempted to neutralise the EUlogising intrinsic to the 'civilian'/'normative' and 'ethical' 'power Europe' frameworks by assessing the role of the EU as a stage for the spectacle played out by its member-states.…”

Limits to the European Union’s Normative Power in a Post-conflict Society

“…12 Diez and Pace (2007) note the concept of self-representation as a normative power and a 'force for good' is especially common in the Commission and the Parliament, but also not a stranger to the Council. The Commission is defending the principle more forcefully than others as a guardian of the integration and associations processes (that can be part of the broader peacebuilding politico-strategic objective).…”