The Diplomacy of Opting Out: A Bourdieudian Approach to National Integration Strategies*

Abstract

How are controversial national opt-outs managed and perceived in the EU? This article argues that the United Kingdom and Denmark compensate diplomatically for the exclusionary effects of their exemptions. A Bourdieudian approach to national diplomacy in the EU is developed to explore how British and Danish officials handle their opt-outs. By drawing on extensive interview data, it is demonstrated that the two opt-out champions employ various sophisticated strategies to overcome the dilemma between autonomy and influence. Some diplomatic strategies reduce marginalization while others enhance it. National opt-outs are ambiguous attempts at avoiding further European integration. Copyright (c) 2008 The Author(s). Journal compilation (c) 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Hegemonic-order theory: A field-theoretic account

“…Thus, analysis of any field requires identifying its specific forms of key capital, such as what constitutes military capital -its subspecies, its performances -in the military field (see Mérand, 2008;Pouliot and Mérand, 2013[AQ: 6]). In the political field, political capital -the ability to attract allies -proves critical; scholars analyze diplomatic fields within specific international organizations in term of the nature and distribution of diplomatic capital (Adler-Nissen, 2008).…”

Theorising the EU’s Diplomatic Service: Rational Player or Social Body?

“…There is a call in parts of the literature on the EEAS (Batora, 2013;AdlerNissen, 2013) for renewed attention to an old concern with institutions in IR but this time round underpinned by a deeper theorising of institutions. Some of IR theory's focus on practice is oriented specifically towards unravelling the social life of institutions and the role-playing of diplomats (Adler-Nissen, 2008. This would put observations concerning the socialisation and norm-following behaviour of EEASand Commission officials into perspective, with an explicit focus on fields of power, roles and face work, including the actual decision-making processes that lead the EEASto adopt particular policies in, for example, developing countries, regarding everything from human rights to HIV policies.…”

Regional and International Relations of Central Europe

“…The problem relates to the fact that the CFSP is a consensual affair and it is hence analytically difficult to disentangle the dependent variable (Europeanized foreign policy of member states) and the independent variables (ideas and directives of EU-level actors and member states' representatives). As a number of studies show, defections and opt-outs of various kinds are relatively common in CFSP (e.g., Adler-Nissen 2008;Birnberg 2009). Various strategic approaches in the political establishments of the member states including 'Universalism', 'Atlanticism', 'Europeism', and 'Sovereignism' can have varying salience over time and across political constellations in influencing foreign policymaking .…”