diez & whitman - jcms 40 (1-2002)

7/21/2019 Diez & Whitman - JCMS 40 (1-2002)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/diez-whitman-jcms-40-1-2002 1/25

© Bl ackw el l Pu b li sh er s Lt d 2002 , 108 Co w le y Ro ad , O xfo rd O X4 1JF, U K an d 3 50 M ai n Str eet , M ald en , M A 021 48 , U SA

JCMS 2002 Volume 40. Number 1. pp. 43–67

Abstract

The English School of international relations has rarely been used to analyse Euro-pean integration. But, as we argue in this article, there may be considerable value inadding the English School to the canon of approaches to European integration stud-ies in order to contextualize European integration both historically and internation-ally. The concepts of international society, world society and empire in particularmay be used to reconfigure the current debate about the nature of EU governanceand to compare the EU to other regional international systems, as well as to recon-

ceptualize the EU’s international role, and in particular the EU’s power to influenceaffairs beyond its formal membership borders. Conversely, analysing the EU withthe help of these English School concepts may also help to refine the latter in thecurrent attempts to reinvigorate the English School as a research programme.

Introduction: Contextualizing European Integration

Many readers of this journal will agree that the European Union (EU) is unique

in its transformation of political organization from the territorial state to amore complex form of governance. However, we do not as yet have an agreedvocabulary for this transformation. There is no doubt therefore that the EU

Analysing European Integration: Reflecting onthe English Scho ol – Scenar ios for an Encounter *

THOMAS DIEZUniversity of Birmingham

RICHARD WHITMANUniversity of Westminster

* This article represents part of a wider project to reconsider the utility of ‘English School’ thinking fora variety of areas in the study of international relations (Buzan, 1999). For further information, consult«http://www.ukc.ac.uk/politics/englishschool/». We are indebted to Barry Buzan for his encouragementto participate in this endeavour, and to the Copenhagen Peace Research Institute (COPRI) for enablingRichard Whitman to stay in Copenhagen in June and July 2000, where the first draft of this aticle, available

as COPRI Working Paper 20/2000, was written. We are also grateful to the two anonymous referees of this journal and the following individuals for their comments: Barry Buzan, Stefano Guzzini, LeneHansen, Ulla Holm, Ian Manners, Antje Wiener, Jaap de Wilde, Ole Wæver, and the participants at thepanels on the English School and European integration at the BISA annual conference, Bradford,December 2000, the ECSA biennial conference, Madison, WI, May–June 2001, as well as audiences inthe Universities of Birmingham, Keele, Lisbon and Munich.



44

© Bl ac kw el l Pu b li sh er s Lt d 2 00 2

THOMAS DIEZ AND RICHARD WHITMAN

requires special attention. The development of journals such as this one, pro-fessional organizations for the study of European affairs, as well as specialdegree programmes and accompanying textbooks, are testimony to the ad-

vancement and internal differentiation of European integration studies as afield of academic enquiry in its own right.

However welcome these developments are, they carry the risk of culmi-nating in a predominantly inward-looking field which fails to take into ac-count its wider context. This risk is twofold. First, by taking the EU as a casesui generis, one may neglect the fact that some of the problems faced byEuropean governance today, centred around how to organize governance be-yond the state in a legitimate and democratic way, pose and have posed them-selves in similar ways in different regional and historical contexts. Second,by focusing primarily on the EU’s internal development or the extent to whichthe EU becomes a state-like actor on the international scene, one may failadequately to theorize the varied relationships the EU develops beyond itsborders of membership.

European integration studies have not been unaware of these risks. In par-ticular since the early 1990s, many in the field have warned of the pitfalls of a ‘sui generis mentality’, and have urged students of European integration tobridge any emerging gap between their analyses and both comparative poli-

tics (e.g. Hix, 1994, 1999) and international relations (e.g. Risse-Kappen,1996; see the overview in Pollack, 2001).1 But the fate of one of the resultingworks, Andrew Moravcsik’s seminal The Choice for Europe (1998), illus-trates the problems with some of the bridge-building conducted so far, and inparticular towards international relations. On the one hand, while hotly de-bated in European integration circles, the book failed to make the splash itmay have deserved in the discipline of international relations. On the otherhand, by bringing European integration into the framework of a general inter-

national relations theory (outlined in Moravcsik, 1997), it reduced the par-ticularities of European governance to just another, albeit intense, form of intergovernmental co-operation. Ironically, the picture it thereby drew of in-ternational relations at large coincided with that painted by those who stressthe EU’s uniqueness in contrast to ‘normal’ international politics: interna-tional relations is the business of nation-states and their relations with eachother.2

1 It is, however, worth remembering that in the early years, studying European integration was meant tobe seen as a particular case, amongst others, which could be compared, or be accounted for by existingtheories, or (especially in the case of federalism) as a model for political organization beyond the nation-state.2 The comparative approach, too, often privileges the state model by making it the main point of comparison, rather than other post-international systems (Wiener, 2001, pp. 77–8).



45


ANALYSING EUROPEAN INTEGRATION: REFLECTING ON THE ENGLISH SCHOOL

That picture differs from the one drawn by constructivist scholarship ininternational relations theory (Pollack, 2001, p. 233), which has been a sec-ond source for bridge-building efforts (see, e.g., Christiansen et al., 2001;

Jørgensen, 1997a). But constructivist works on the EU have often failed toadd a comparative or international dimension to their analyses, even thoughthey have been very valuable in re-theorizing the path of European integra-tion and re-envisioning European governance.

There are, of course, a number of exceptions. These include Knud-ErikJørgensen’s study of the emergence of a ‘diplomatic republic of Europe’(Jørgensen, 1997b), Adrian Hyde-Price’s work on Germany and the emerg-ing European order (Hyde-Price, 2000), or Nick Rengger’s contextualizationof the EU in a neo-medieval international system (Rengger, 2000). What theseworks have in common is that they make use of analytical concepts devel-oped in a particular corner of international relations theory, close toconstructivism, that has so far been largely neglected by European integra-tion studies (and vice versa).3 This is, for lack of a better name, the so-called‘English School’ of international relations.

Our argument in this article is that from an English School perspective,the EU presents itself as an international society that has been formed withina particular regional context and is embedded in a wider, global international

society. This conceptualization opens up a distinctive comparative and inter-national agenda. Asking how this international society is organized invitescomparison with other international societies, both in other regional and his-torical contexts. And investigating the embeddedness of this internationalsociety in a wider, global context leads to the (re-)theorization of the EU’sinternational role. Conversely, we also argue that bringing European integra-tion into the focus of the English School may help to bring greater depth tosome of the latter’s concepts, such as ‘world society’.

In what follows, we therefore want to open up the dialogue on which suchcross-fertilization can build. In section I, we introduce the basic concepts of the English School that we think can be used when analysing European inte-gration – above all, ‘international society’, ‘world society’, and the notion of ‘empire’. In section II, we suggest that the EU’s legitimacy deficit derivesfrom the inherently ambiguous relationship between international and worldsociety, thereby building towards comparison with how international and worldsociety are related to each other in other regional and historical contexts. Insection III, we argue that the EU’s relationship with non-members is best

characterized as a form of a gradated empire, although we should hasten toadd that this ‘empire’ is very different from the formal empires of Europe’smodern history. We conclude in section IV by reflecting on what our use of

3 Exceptions include Morgan (2000), and the works of Wæver discussed below.



46



English School concepts in analysing European integration has done to theseconcepts, and by outlining the research programme that we envisage willemerge from this encounter.

Let us be clear about the scope of our argument. We do not claim that wecan explain European integration, or address current problems of Europeangovernance, better than other theoretical approaches already on offer, if ‘bet-ter’ means adding greater depth within the specific context of European inte-gration studies. Instead, we want to contextualize the discussions about thenature of and resistances to European governance, locating them in a generalproblematic of political organization without ignoring the EU’s particulari-ties, and thereby paving the way for comparison with other forms of interna-tional governance. English School concepts allow us to do so. More obvi-ously, it is not our aim either to present a detailed analysis of European gov-ernance and the EU’s international role within 20-odd pages. Instead, we wantto lay some of the groundwork to conduct such analyses and open up thespace for what we see as a fruitful research agenda to add a comparative andinternational dimension to European integration studies.

I. Core English School Concepts for Analysing the EU

The notion of a distinctive ‘English School’ approach to the study of interna-tional relations is a relatively recent categorization (Jones, 1981), and is, infact, something of a misnomer if one considers that many of the members of the ‘English School’ have not been British, let alone English. The develop-ment of this ‘school’ dates back to the founding of the British Committee forthe Study of International Politics in 1958 (Watson, 1998), bringing togetheracademics who were at that time teaching at British universities, and practi-tioners.

This is not the place to go into detail about the various strands of the Eng-lish School and the debates about its borders. More interesting for our contextis that it is probably more than coincidence that the school is currently invogue again.4 Its two main contributions to the study of international rela-tions have been its scepticism towards the value of behaviouralist social sci-ence for the study of international politics (Bull, 1966), and its assertion thatinternational politics is more than simply an anarchical system: that it does,in fact, have a societal quality to it. Both of these contributions make it closeto constructivism, and commend it as an alternative route to the universalistform of theorizing European integration present, for instance, in Moravcsik’swork.

4 Recent work includes Buzan (1999); Dunne (1998); Little (1998).



47



The reason why this route has hardly ever been taken to date may in partbe due to one particular encounter that took place in this journal about 20years ago. Then, probably the most well-known (and also most state-centric)

member of the English School, Hedley Bull, forcibly argued that the thenEuropean Community would not come to represent a civilian power radicallydifferent from the anarchical society of states, and would therefore not de-serve the attention that it enjoys today as a novel system of governance. Rep-licating the federalism versus intergovernmentalism divide, Bull argued thatEuropean Member States would either merge into yet another but bigger state,or would remain as separate entities (Bull, 1982). He therefore rejected, in hisclassic work, The Anarchical Society, the possibility that European integra-tion would move into the direction of a ‘new mediaevalism’ (Bull, 1977, pp.264–6) – a metaphor that, ironically, has come to some prominence latelywithin European integration studies to describe the current system of govern-ance in the EU (see, e.g., Hyde-Price, 2000, p. 89; Rengger, 2000, p. 59). Thetone and tenor of Bull’s piece has led many within European studies to thinkthat there is little of interest within English School theorizing to plunder forthe study of European integration.

We disagree with this impression. In what follows, most of our argumentbuilds around the distinction of international system, international society

and world society suggested by English School authors, and the various formsthat international society in particular can take.

International System and International Society

The distinction between the concepts of international system and internationalsociety is central to the English School account of international relations.Bull, for instance, defines them as follows:

A system of states (or international system) is formed when two or morestates have sufficient contact between them, and have sufficient impact onone another’s decisions, to cause them to behave – or at least in some measure– as parts of a whole. (Bull, 1977, pp. 10–11)

A society of states (or international society) exists when a group of states,conscious of certain common interests and common values, form a societyin the sense that they conceive themselves to be bound by a common set of rules in their relations with one another, and share in the working of commoninstitutions. (Bull, 1977, p. 13)

Whereas an international system thus operates more or less mechanically andby necessity, international society represents the conscious effort to trans-form and regulate relations amongst its constitutive units, alerting us to the



48



norms and institutions in the international realm that, while being set up by itsmembers for a specific purpose, also shape their identity.

The classic international society of English School writing, composed of

territorial states recognizing each other and a basic set of common rules be-tween themselves, can now be said to be nearly global in its reach (Bull andWatson, 1984). More interesting for our purposes though, is that within theEU this society is particularly well developed in that the set of common rulesis particularly dense. This suggests that the EU forms a specific sub-systemof the current international system in which the societal element is strongerthan elsewhere.

World Society

Although an integral part of English School theorizing (see Buzan, 2001), theconcept of world society has attracted much less attention in the English Schoolliterature. In its broadest sense, the term denotes transnational social relationson a global scale (see, e.g., Shaw, 1992, p. 429). While international systemand international society are constituted by aggregate political units, worldsociety’s referents are individuals and social groups who see themselves assharing a certain basic identity and interest (Buzan, 1993, pp. 336–7). Worldsociety can therefore exist at the same time as international society and, in-deed, like the possibility of there being more than one international society inexistence at any one time there can also be more than one world society (‘re-gional world’ societies), although both may ultimately be conceived of as em-bracing the entire globe. But while ‘classic’ international society has achievedsuch global reach, it is widely contested whether there are more than buildingblocks of a truly global world society (Bull, 1977, p. 317).

This raises the question of how one studies world society empirically, orin our particular context: how does one recognize a ‘European world’ soci-

ety? We suggest that any society is discursively created and upheld. This is astrue of a society of individuals as it is of a society of states. Norms and insti-tutions are part of societal discourse, but society does not have an essencebeyond discourse. Although this particular reading of international and worldsociety will be controversial, one of the early English School writers, C. A.W. Manning (1962, p. 5), recognized that ‘the social cosmos … has its verybeing in the fact of being imagined, being conceived of, in the mind andimagination of men [sic]’. The most important consequence of this for study-

ing the EU is that we can remain agnostic on the vexed question of whetherthere is a ‘European world’ society or not. Instead, we can record referencesto a European people and European identity, as well as their partial institu-tionalization, while noticing that these references are very much contested.



49



International and World Society

A central puzzle emerging from English School writing, and one that is of central importance for our account of the EU’s system of governance in thefollowing section, concerns the relationship of international and world soci-ety. Buzan makes the case for two strands within the English School: a civili-zational one represented by Manning, Wight and Watson, in which interna-tional society presupposes a minimum of world society to make it stable, anda functional one represented by Bull, in which international society at a mini-mum requires a common desire for international order, but not the commonculture or identity of a transnational world society (Buzan, 1993, pp. 336–8).Related to this argument about the emergence of international societies is a

controversy about their deepening. As Buzan (1993, p. 337) points out, Bull(1977, p. 152) warns that the expansion of world society, for instance throughmaking individuals subjects of international law, would undermine ‘the inter-national order based on the society of states’. Buzan himself sides with theopposite view that the further development of international society is depend-ent on an extension and deepening of world society (1993, p. 338; see alsoRengger, 1992).

Although Bull is indeed more concerned with preserving world order

through the society of states and takes a more functional view of the latter’semergence, he does not, as his definition of international society quoted aboveclearly shows, disregard world society elements in the form of a basic com-mon culture as a basis for international society. Furthermore, he clearly statesin his Anarchical Society that the ‘future of international society is likely tobe determined, among other things, by the preservation and extension of acosmopolitan culture’ on both the elite and the popular level (Bull, 1977, p.317). The problem then lies not in two clear-cut alternative views, but that thesupporting and the undermining tendencies of world society vis-à-vis inter-

national society remain unconnected. Making this ambiguity explicit and treat-ing it as an inherent characteristic of the international, will help us under-stand the conflicts surrounding the future of European governance.

Empire

A final concept that we will use is the one of empire. While Bull primarilyfocused upon contemporary international society and the modern territorialstate as its member, work on comparing historically situated international

systems has been taken forward by Adam Watson, building upon the earlierwork of Martin Wight (Watson, 1992; Wight, 1977). In their view, and incontrast to Bull, the system’s units do not have to be modern territorial statesas we know them. This makes it possible to investigate the changes in inter-



50



national systems with a variety of membership forms across time and space(see also Buzan and Little, 2000), and allows us to characterize the EU as aninternational system without assuming a priori that the units of this system

come in the form of the modern territorial state only.On this basis, Watson identifies a spectrum of possible international sys-

tems with five categories of internal relationships: independence, hegemony,suzerainty, dominion and empire (Watson, 1992, pp. 13–18). What is particu-larly interesting is Watson’s notion that a system does not remain fixed at anypoint on this spectrum. Rather, the relationship between political communi-ties shifts across time. To capture these historical transformations, Watsonintroduces the metaphor of a pendulum. The spectrum of possible interna-tional relationships forms the arc through which the pendulum swings. Whilethe international society of the post-colonial era was leaning more to the in-dependence pole, the EU may be an indication that the pendulum is onceagain swinging towards the more hierarchical side of the arc, and its ‘empire’pole.

Building on Watson’s work, and in particular on his analysis of the Sumerianempire, Ole Wæver has convincingly argued that empires are usually notstrictly hierarchical, but come in the form of ‘gradated’ political structures, inwhich a more hierarchically organized centre’s influence fades in concentric

circles (1996, p. 225). Wæver thus argues that the ‘EU is built around a so-cially constructed centre which emerges from the political will to have a cen-tre’ (1996, p. 246) – but without that centre developing as an autonomousforce able to impose its own will. Instead of neo-medieval, the EU would thusbe rather ‘neo-Sumerian’ (Wæver 1996, p. 250). This, however, leads us toour next section, in which we use the English School concepts outlined aboveto explore the EU’s system of governance.

II. Exploring the EU’s System of Governance

A Post-modern Empire?

A central puzzle that the EU poses for its analysts is its system of governance,how this may be compared to the modern, territorial state system, and theimplications this has for legitimacy and democracy (see the overview inJachtenfuchs, 2001). The number of attempts to clarify the ‘nature of the beast’(Risse-Kappen, 1996) are legion, but what they all share is an understanding

of the EU that stands in stark contrast to Bull’s dismissal of its transformativepotential to the modern state system. More recently, authors inspired by theEnglish School have also taken up this challenge, and Ole Wæver’s concep-tualization of the EU as a ‘Watsonian’ empire is one of the most well-knowncases.



51



For the most part, Wæver treats the EU as a whole as the centre of thisempire, and we will return to this in the next section on the EU’s internationalrole. But it is clear right away in his analysis that there is also an imaginary,

non-territorial centre within the centre, which may only metaphorically belocated in Brussels. Wæver thus casts the internal conflicts about the futuredevelopment of the EU in terms of ‘centre’ and ‘periphery’. Thus, the rejec-tion of the original Maastricht Treaty by the Danish electorate in 1992 is seenas ‘driven by a fear of coming too close to the centre’ (1996, p. 227).

While this statement makes sense within the Danish discourse on Euro-pean integration (Hansen, 2001a; Larsen, 2000), it remains problematic in amore general perspective because it is unclear what exactly the centre is. AsWæver himself has argued, there are different ways to construct ‘Europe’,and so the ‘political will to have a centre’ is quite varied (Wæver, 1998, 2001;see also Jachtenfuchs et al., 1998; Diez, 2001). It is only when the differentconstructions of ‘Europe’ are presented as incompatible that the centre–pe-riphery rhetoric sets in. Keeping a distance from the centre of the EU is thuseffectively a matter of the discursive construction of this centre. This makes itless a matter of ‘centre’ and ‘periphery’ than a dispute about particularity anduniversality, the English School expression of which is the interrelationshipbetween international and world society.

International and World Society Within the EU

In another example of English School inspired theorizing about Europeanintegration, Andrew Linklater (1998) sees Europe being transformed into a‘post-Westphalian’ international society (p. 183), involving a ‘multiplicationof human loyalties’ (p. 194), and the transformation of relations between statesfrom being characterized by violent conflict to peaceful co-operation (p. 204).One of the main aspects of post-Westphalian international society is the exist-

ence of EU citizenship, however thin this may be (p. 199). Central to the post-Westphalian international society is therefore the simultaneous reinforcementof the universal (European) and particular (national and regional). This proc-ess, however, is far from smooth.

Our argument is that one finds strong elements of both international andworld society in today’s EU. Both operate as discourses that help constructactor identities within the EU and are reproduced by these actors. We alsofind the world society discourse both underpins and undermines the EU inter-

national society. As argued above, we contend that the relationship betweenthese discourses is inherently ambiguous, and always needs to be balancedthrough political practice. This ambiguity helps us understand why it waspossible to build this ‘postmodern polity’ (Ruggie, 1993, p. 140), but alsowhy these structures themselves remain contested.



52



Articulations of an EU international society discourse are still abundant intoday’s EU. Ideal typically, they are reflected in the intergovernmentalist sce-nario of integration: states participate in a dense structure of commonly rec-

ognized norms and rules, codified in the treaties, but ultimately retain theirright to determine these norms and rules. As in the more realist Bullian branchof the English School, it is states that bring about this particularly dense formof international society. They therefore have the legitimate right ultimately tocontrol the integration process. The post-Maastricht referendums have been areminder of the prevalence of this discourse. So has the ruling of the Germanfederal constitutional court ( Bundesverfassungsgericht ) of October 1993, inwhich the EU was denied the so-called Kompetenzkompetenz, i.e. the compe-tence to delineate competencies within the Union. This right, the court ruled,rested with the Member States, unless a new EU-wide demos is formed andfinds its expression in adequate democratic institutions (therefore fulfillingBull’s expectation that eventually, the EU would only reproduce the state ona higher level).

Institutionally, this discourse finds its expression in the Council of Minis-ters and the European Council, and in particular in the right by Member Statesto use a veto if vital national interests are at stake. Although a number of analyses have shown that beyond these formal institutions the identity of state

agents changes through interaction on the European level in a process of ‘inter-governmentalist integration’ (Øhrgaard, 1997; Glarbo, 1999), this does notaffect the continuing importance of the international society discourse in thesense that it is still the Member States that are constructed as central politicalunits within these contexts, even though their common values and interestsmay have been transformed. As a social constructivist reading of EnglishSchool works would argue, states set up international society, but the latterfeeds back into their own identity (Dunne, 1995).

Finding articulations of a world society discourse is more difficult. Asargued above, world society does not have to be conceptualized as a globalsociety, but may be regionally defined. Just as we found international societyto be particularly dense in today’s EU (and, as the next section will show, inits surroundings), we argue that articulations of an ‘EU world’ society, al-though less prevalent than those of an EU international society and muchmore contested (Cederman, 2001, pp. 153–60), are more widespread at leastthan on a global level – whether this is also true in relation to other regionalinternational systems would be one task for further comparative research.

Articulations of an ‘EU world’ society discourse can be found in threerespects. First, we find references to a common European history and whatBull (1977, p. 316) terms a ‘common intellectual culture’, for instance in justifications for the EU membership of applicant countries, or in attempts to



53



foster a European ‘consciousness’ as by the Adonnino committee of the 1980s.These are of course just another variation of the process of imagining a com-munity rather than ‘hard facts’, but again, what is important to us is the exist-

ence of these articulations, not their referent. Second, there are articulationsof what Bull (1977, p. 316) terms ‘common values’ (see also Hyde-Price,2000, p. 59). These values take on various forms, from human rights to a‘social’ form of market liberalism. Their most visible outlet is Art. 6 EU Treaty.Third, we find a high number of transnational activities amongst civil societyactors on an EU level (Hyde-Price, 2000, p. 59), from common interest repre-sentations to student exchange programmes, although such activities are stillmore focused on individual Member States than they are Europe-wide (Kohler-Koch et al., 1998). Again, such a ‘European world society’ is institutionalizedin EU treaty provisions, including EU citizenship as a complement to na-tional citizenship, the European Parliament, or the fundamental freedoms of the European market. These provisions may as yet not amount to a ‘thick’conception of ‘Post-Westphalian citizenship’ (Linklater, 1996, pp. 95–6), butas Antje Wiener (2001, p. 87) demonstrates, the introduction of a union citi-zenship in Maastricht did have the effect of providing a reference point forincreased political activism and awareness of the EU dimension. Even thoughthis awareness was often critical towards the EU institutions, it at least brought

to the foreground a debate about different conceptions of society and identitywithin the EU and, in a comparative perspective, the existence of this debateas such is indicative of a regional world society discourse that is stronger atleast than the global one.

These elements of a ‘European world society’ provide the necessary basisfor the shared values of the European ‘community of states’, which in turnhas allowed integration to proceed (Morgan, 2000, p. 563). The single marketrequires, for instance, a basic common conviction that a market economy is

to be preferred over a statist economy, even though this leaves enough roomfor internal disagreements about the concrete rules to be followed. Similarly,common positions in foreign policy are easier to achieve the more compatiblebasic values, such as human rights, are. Furthermore, financial redistributionamongst Member States is more likely to be regarded as legitimate if there isa sense of having a common identity with a common history.

All of this reflects Rengger’s claim that ‘the values and shared under-standings that mark out international society must be culturally generated andsustained’ (1992, p. 88). This does not mean uniformity of culture across the

whole of European society. It does imply, however, a shared general consen-sus of what the basic foundations of this society are, if only in the acceptanceof some defining problems. One may argue that such a foundation is not anexpression of a genuine EU world society, but rather the outcome of hegemony



54



of a few great powers in Europe (usually Britain, France and Germany). Buteven if this were true, hegemony can only work if those on whom it is im-posed accept it.

However, much as it supports it, the world society discourse also carrieswith it the potential to undermine international society because its referencepoint ultimately is the universal, while international society exists, amongstother things, to ‘preserve the independence of the member communities’(Wight, 1978, p. 96). Three examples taken from recent integration historyillustrate this point. After the insertion of European citizenship into the Maas-tricht Treaty, some Member States insisted on a clarification that this wouldnot replace national citizenship. Accordingly, the first paragraph of Art. 8 (1)now explicitly states that ‘[c]itizenship of the Union shall complement andnot replace national citizenship’. Although such a delineation is still rathervague, it nonetheless functions as a warning against the incremental exten-sion of a theoretically unbound European citizenship, which would have un-dermined national categories of belonging.

As a second example, we may recall Wæver’s discussion of Denmark andits struggle against being drawn too much into the centre. Here is a country inwhich mentioning the word ‘union’ was traditionally met with fierce opposi-tion. While co-operating according to fixed rules was fine up to a certain

limit, any deepening of integration continues to be seen by a substantial pro-portion of Danes as a threat to their distinctiveness, their welfare state andself-determination (Hansen, 2001a; Larsen, 2000). Thirdly, the boycotting of Austria’s right-wing government including the FPÖ, which is seen by manyas belonging to the extreme right, was waged in the name of European normsand values, but violated the basic international society norm of the independ-ence of its member communities (see Merlingen et al., 2001).

In all of these cases, world society discourse, although enabling the deep-

ening of international society on the one hand, was threatening, or seen asthreatening, the very foundation of international society on the other hand.The presence of both discourses within the EU, not least institutionalized inthe EU Treaty, enables actors to make legitimate claims that are not necessar-ily compatible with each other. At the same time, the project of an EU as thecentre of a particular form of international society would not be possible with-out a corresponding world society discourse.

As argued above, this ambiguity is built into the relationship of interna-tional and world society. The post-World War II international system worked

with the fiction that the two societies were in balance, but in the final analy-sis, the solution of universality and particularity in this system worked verymuch in favour of the classic international rather than world society (Walker,1993, p. 62). Deepening international society requires a deepening of world



55



society, a process which embodies the potential of undermining the basics of international society. This is the basic dilemma that has haunted Europeanintegration right from the start. In the end, it will depend on the creativity of

political practice to find new ways of balancing in the further dissolution of the distinction between a ‘purely’ international and a universal world order(see Hyde-Price, 2000, p. 57). For some, such a balance is found in an Eco-nomic Community with supranationality limited to the market (Jachtenfuchset al., 1998). For others, only an increasing flexibilization of membership canensure the balance (Stubb, 1997). Whatever the solution, any balancing willtransform the units that make up international society and the relationshipsbetween them. However, any balancing will be only of a temporary nature,since neither the discourse on international nor on world society will come toa halt.

The questions that arise from this for comparative research are centredaround the development of international and world society and their relation-ship in other international systems. The legitimacy deficit may seem to havethe clearest address in the EU, but it is present wherever international sys-tems are changing, and new forms of international governance are developed.Comparing the EU with other regional international systems will tell us moreabout different forms of balancing particularity and universality, and the con-

ditions for this to be successful, and will answer the question of whether Eu-rope, as Linklater (1998, p. 204) suggests, may ‘become a model of post-Westphalian political organization which is emulated by regions elsewhere’.

III. The International Role of the EU

Turning our analysis from the EU’s internal system of governance to its inter-national role, English School concepts are helpful in conceptualizing, for in-

stance, the EU’s relations with its neighbours, although this will involve adeparture in our understanding of ‘EU international society’ from the above.One of the central questions of the existing literature on the foreign policy of the EU is whether the EU in its international role is comparable to other so-cial institutions, i.e. states or international organizations, or whether it is unique(Tonra, 2000). In short, the literature on the EU’s foreign policy can largelybe divided into approaches that treat EU foreign policy either in comparativist

or in sui generis terms. An English School approach exploring the EU’s posi-tion in the international system suggests an alternative vista which takes as itsstarting point the existence of an EU international society embedded in otherinternational societies. In this sense, the argument here has much more incommon with governance (Friis and Murphy, 1999) and negotiated order per-



56



spectives (Smith, 1996) on the relationship of the EU to the world beyonditself.

Our argument in this section of the article has three components. The first

issue addressed is how to differentiate between EU, European and global in-ternational society. This strand argues that each of these international socie-ties operate as different layers, or planes. The second aspect explored is themanner in which the EU, as an international society, is characterized by anempire-like structure and a power relationship between EU Member Statesand non-Member States. The third component of our argument finally ex-plores the relationship between EU international society, European interna-tional society, and global international society.

Differentiating between Societies

Bull’s definition of an international society implies that differentiation be-tween international societies is connected to the ‘consciousness’ of commoninterests and values as well as the acceptance of the binding nature of com-mon rules and institutions. Considered in these terms, we have argued abovethat the EU represents a particularly ‘thick’ international society existing be-tween its Member States and underpinned by EU world society. Moving ouranalytical focus from the EU-internal system of governance to the EU’s inter-national role, it makes sense to reconsider what we mean by membership inEU international society.

We suggest that, although there is a ‘core’ EU international society thatwas the focus of the previous section, membership of EU international soci-ety should be distinguished from formal membership of the EU. All interna-tional societies are delineated through the self-identification of their mem-bers with common interests and values, and furthermore the acceptance of being bound by rules and institutions. As a consequence, although EU mem-

bership formalizes being part of EU international society, in principle the EUand European international society cannot be distinguished solely on the ba-sis of formal membership. The decisive criterion for distinction rather is thedegree of self-identification and of the acceptance of being bound by the rulesand norms of the respective international society.

EU international society discourse embraces all states that self-identifywith the common interests and common values of the EU and accept com-mon sets of rules in their relations with other members of the society. States

that define themselves as candidates for entry or re-entry into ‘Europe’ do notall fall within the category of candidate Member States for the EU, e.g. Croatia.Therefore the EU international society discourse embraces more states thanthose that are formally applicant states to the EU. The degrees of self-identi-fication can also be differential. This is true not only beyond the borders of



57



the EU, but also for EU members. More importantly for our purpose here,however, considering EU international society in this manner places both EUMember States and prospective Member States of the EU within the same

international society.In comparison, European international society is founded upon more in-

formal norms, rules, institutions and boundaries than those of the EU interna-tional society. The EU remains at the core of European international society,the origins of which date back to the seventeenth century, and the develop-ment of which has been charted primarily by early English School writing.After World War II, it was strengthened and institutionalized through arrange-ments such as the Council of Europe and its conventions, or the Organizationfor Security and Co-operation in Europe. As these examples show, Europeaninternational society is still characterized by a number of norms that make it‘deeper’ than global international society, but in terms of institutionalization,amount of norms and degree of self-identification, it is of far less significanceif compared to EU international society.

The classic international society of English School writing such as Bull’sthen is a global international society, operating alongside EU internationalsociety and European international society. The self-identification of its mem-bers does not involve a particularly strong sense of community, and its norms

and values as well as its institutionalization lack the depth and breadth of bothEU and European international society. It may therefore be described as be-ing ‘thinner’ than the latter.

Each of these three layers or planes of EU, European, and global interna-tional society are interrelated and interpenetrated, and the boundaries betweeneach are fuzzily drawn. This interrelationship can be illustrated, for example,through the EU’s common foreign and security policy (CFSP), which has tobe in conformity with the values of both European and global international

society and to be implemented through their respective institutions (Whitman,1998a).

The Structure of EU International Society

As discussed above, EU Member States form the core of EU internationalsociety. The gradated relationship of other states to the core is dependentupon both their self-identification with the common interests and values of the core and the degree to which they accept the EU rules and institutions.

This places EU applicant states in a dominion or suzerain relationship withinthe EU international society, where the EU can extend its governance regimebeyond its formal borders (Friis and Murphy, 1999; Smith, 1996). The fuzzinessof the borders of the EU’s system of governance (see also Christiansen et al.,

2000) is therefore a result of a two-way relationship.



58



On the one hand, the choice by the EU to use particular kinds of trade andaid instruments to deepen the relationship with a third-party state, such as amembership applicant, can be understood as being reflective of the position

in which the EU puts that third party within its gradated empire (Manners andWhitman, 1998). Considered in these terms, the act of the EU promulgatingviews about the structure of the relationship that it wishes to develop withthird parties (for example, the issuing of common strategies under the CFSPor a Commission communication setting out new strategies towards coun-tries or regions) takes on a different significance.

On the other hand, the effectiveness of such policies and the nature of thepower relations within the EU international society are not dependent on theEU and its Member States alone. Rather, the self-identification of those statesto which the policies are directed, and its overlap with the values and interestsof the EU core are equally important to determine these states’ position in theEU’s empire, and the EU’s possibilities of imposing its system of governanceon them (Diez, 2000).

The relationships within EU international society considered in terms of multiple independencies, through hegemony to suzerainty, dominion andempire, offer a redrawn map of the EU’s relations with its neighbours in par-ticular. Analysed in these terms, considerations of whether the EU possesses

a foreign policy in state-like terms (or not) become second order to consid-erations of the form of the relationship that the EU and the states surroundingit have created for themselves.

The Relationship between International Societies

The relationship between EU international society, European internationalsociety and global international society provides the basis on which to con-ceptualize the role of the EU beyond EU international society. This approach

to the international role of the EU is on a somewhat different tack from thenormal approach to the EU’s relationship with the world beyond itself thatfocuses upon the relationships that the EU has cultivated primarily throughregion-to-region relationships or studies of bilateral EU–third party relations(Edwards and Regelsberger, 1990; Piening, 1997).

With membership of an international society considered to be a productof self-definition, the relationship between EU international society and mem-bers of European and global international society becomes a relationship to

be comprehended in terms of identity (Whitman, 1997, 1998b). This self-definitional relationship between the members of the EU international soci-ety can be illustrated by the practice of the prospective Member States of theEU aligning themselves with the foreign policy positions developed withinthe core by EU Member States. It is common practice for the applicant states



60



tion today: the structure of the EU’s system of governance, and its relation-ship to the wider world. By way of conclusion, we now first summarize whatwe see as our major findings, then draw out some questions for further re-

search, and finally reflect upon how our scenarios have affected the EnglishSchool concepts that we use.

The EU Seen Through the Lens of the English School

Our primary observation is that, seen through an English School lens, we candelineate three different international systems that overlap in Europe. Each of these systems is characterized by different degrees of international and worldsociety. Thus, we distinguished an EU international system with a dense in-

ternational society and, at least at its core, a fairly developed ‘EU world’society, from a European international system with an international society of much less density, and where world society is equally less developed. In ad-dition to these international systems the global international system has onlya basic international society, and at best a rudimentary world society. Further-more, we noted that the international societies of these different planes of international systems do not have clear borders but blur into each other as faras their membership is concerned, and that they are interdependent as far astheir rules and institutions are concerned.

Focusing on the EU international system, we argued that its internationalsociety is structured as a gradated empire, in which the core is formed by theEU Member States, with applicant states surrounding them in circles untilthey blur into European international society. In the EU international society,the EU centre is able to impose its system of governance, or parts of it, due toits hegemonic power as the centre of an empire, and the applicant states’ self-identification in belonging to this society with its norms, values and interests.As the empire is gradated, however, this power also weakens towards the

empire’s fringes.The development of the core of the EU international system exhibits a

particularly deep discourse of both international and world society and ac-cordingly a particularly dense network of rules and institutions. We arguedthat the debate about the future of these rules and institutions is characterizedby the inherent ambiguity of the relationship between world and internationalsociety and that while a deepening of the former allows a deepening of thelatter, it also has the potential to undermine international society. We there-

fore concluded that international and world society always need to be bal-anced, and that the debate about the EU’s future can be read as a debate abouthow to balance these two societies. This debate is of interest not only to thecore, but also to EU international society at large to the extent that, due to the



61



core’s hegemonic power, members of this society that are not members of theEU must be concerned with the core’s development for the sake of their ownfuture.

Finally, we found the global international relations of the EU to be charac-terized by the promotion of the values and interests of the EU internationaland world societies, exhibiting what is usually referred to as ‘civilian power’.This is a characteristic not only of the EU’s relations with the outside world,but rather extends to the whole of EU international society, as is visible in theapplicant countries regularly signing common positions under the roof of CFSP.

Questions for Further Research

These preliminary findings enable us to chart four sets of research questionsfor future encounters of English School and European integration research.The first two sets are of a comparative nature, while the second two shouldpromote a more critical analysis.

1. If we compare across time, how have the discourses on internationaland world society developed within the EU, and what attempts weremade at balancing them? How has the relationship of the EUinternational society and the wider international society developed,

in particular, if one looks at specific policy areas, such as global tradeor human rights policies?

2. If we compare across space, how do the discourses on internationaland world society, as well as the nature of their balance within the EUdiffer from those in other international systems? Furthermore, howare these related to each other? Again, it would be fruitful to pursuethis question in relation to specific policy areas.

3. Which are the major actors enabled by, and making use of, internationaland world society discourses, both in relation to the future developmentof the EU and to stake out claims vis-à-vis the EU, and which politicalpractices are employed in this process?

4. How are the values of EU international and world society used by EUactors to expand a particular understanding of the world both withinthe EU’s empire and beyond EU international society?

This agenda, we admit, is fairly abstract, but we believe nonetheless that thesequestions could fruitfully guide both empirical research and further theoreti-

cal explorations of the EU, placing English School concepts at the centre of the analysis.



62



English School Concepts Seen Through the Lens of European Integration

Finally, however, we also need to reflect on how our attempt to bring togetherEnglish School and European integration has affected the concepts that wetook to be central to such an encounter. Here, five remarks are in order, thefirst three of which can be dealt with promptly, since we have elaborated onthem above: first, we have treated international and world society as discoursesrather than material reality, a theme that would be fruitful to explore furtherin relation to the debate about an inherent, but also implicit, constructivism inthe English School. Second, we found the relationship between internationaland world society not to be a matter of world society either supporting orundermining international society, but to be inherently ambiguous. Third, we

argued for the existence of multiple international and world societies thatneed not be geographically separate.

The two final comments are related to a refinement of the concept of ‘worldsociety’. In section I we found world society to be rather underdeveloped inprevious English School writing. Our discussion of world society has broughtabout three concretizations of the concept. One was that we argue that worldsociety does not have to be global in nature, but that it refers to transnationalrelations that are not inherently bound to geography, although they may, and

usually would be, in their historical contexts. Such world societies are, fur-thermore, related to the values, interests, and rules attributed to individuals ornon-governmental organizations, or the relationships between the latter. Herewe understand a non-governmental organization to be differentiated from apolitical unit that is a constitutive part of international (rather than world)society in that the latter, like the state, has the capacity and function to pro-duce binding rules for society at large. We admit, however, that this latterdifferentiation is becoming increasingly blurred, as is visible for instance inthe process of comitology within the EU (Joerges and Neyer, 1997). Finally,

we find world society also to be institutionalized in the forms of citizenship,by guaranteeing individual rights, and of representation, by guaranteeing par-ticipation, beyond the constitutive units of the international system. In bothrespects, the EU shows a much further development of world society thanother international systems (see, e.g., Wiener, 1998).

Finally, we treated international and world societies as territorially, moreor less, congruous. It is theoretically possible to distinguish between societieson a functional basis, for instance according to sectors in which they operate

(Buzan and Little, 2000), and it is often claimed on empirical grounds thatthere is, indeed, an increasing functional differentiation of the world (Albert,1999; Albert and Brock, 1996). While we agree that an analysis of EU inter-national society, in particular, shows elements of such a functional differen-tiation in that states both inside and outside the EU increasingly ‘opt-in’ to



63



pursue specific policy areas in a more integrated fashion (or ‘opt-out’ of suchendeavours), we also think that these developments have not, as yet, pro-gressed so far as to justify the alignment of international and world societies

primarily along functional lines. This is reflected, for instance, in the reluc-tance both of EU Member States and applicant countries to accept variedforms of EU membership.

This does not mean, however, that in the near future the process of func-tional differentiation may not become a more dominant feature, especially of EU international society. This would make analyses informed by the abovescenarios more complex, but it would not reduce the value of English Schoolconcepts to analyse issues of European integration, in particular if interna-tional society is not tied to the state and if its borders are conceptualized to befuzzy. Having outlined our scenarios for an encounter between the EnglishSchool and European integration research, we find it more than surprisingthat these fields have as yet largely neglected each other. It is our hope thatthis article will help in creating awareness, on both sides, that there is muchmore to be gained from each other than the literature so far seems to suggest.

Correspondence:

Thomas Diez

Department of Political Science and International StudiesUniversity of Birmingham, Edgbaston

Birmingham B15 2TT, EnglandTel: (+44) 0 121 414 6527 Fax: (+44) 0 121 414 3496

email: [email protected]

Richard Whitman

Centre for the Study of Democracy

University of Westminster, 100 Park Village East

London NW1 3SR, EnglandTel: (+44) 0 20 7911 5138 Fax: (+44) 0 20 7911 5164

email: [email protected]

References

Albert, M. (1999) ‘Observing World Politics: Luhmann’s Systems Theory of Societyand International Relations’. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Vol.28, No. 2, pp. 239–65.

Albert, M. and Brock, L. (1996) ‘Debordering the World of States: New Spaces inInternational Relations’. New Political Science, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 69–106.

Bull, H. (1966) ‘International Theory: The Case for the Classical Approach’. World

Politics, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 361–77.



64



Bull, H. (1977) The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics (London:Macmillan).

Bull, H. (1982) ‘Civilian Power Europe: A Contradiction in Terms?’, Journal of

Common Market Studies, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 149–70.Bull, H. and Watson, A. (eds) (1984) The Expansion of International Society (Oxford:Clarendon).

Buzan, B. (1993) ‘From International System to International Society: StructuralRealism and Regime Theory Meet the English School’. International Organiza-

tion, Vol. 47, No. 3, pp. 327–52.Buzan, B. (1999) ‘The English School as a Research Program: An Overview, and a

Proposal for Reconvening’. Paper presented to the panel ‘A Reconsideration of theEnglish School: Close or Reconvene?’. BISA Conference Manchester, December,at «http://www.ukc.ac.uk/politics/englishschool/ buzan99.htm».

Buzan, B. (2001) World Society: An Approach through English School Theory.Unpublished ms, English School workshop, Bristol, June.

Buzan, B. and Little, R. (2000) International Systems in World History: Remaking the

Study of International Relations (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Cederman, L-E. (2001) ‘Nationalism and Bounded Integration: What It Would Take

to Construct a European Demos’. European Journal of International Relations,

Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 139–74.Christiansen, T., Jørgensen, K.E. and Wiener, A. (eds) (2001) The Social Construction

of Europe (London: Sage).Christiansen, T., Petito, F. and Tonra, B. (2000) ‘Fuzzy Politics Around Fuzzy

Borders: The European Union’s “Near Abroad’’. Cooperation and Conflict, Vol.35, No. 4, pp. 389–415.

Diez, T. (2000) ‘The Imposition of Governance, and the Transformation of ForeignPolicy through EU Enlargement’. Paper presented at the workshop ‘Governanceby Enlargement’. Darmstadt, Germany, 23–25 June.

Diez, T. (2001) ‘Europe as a Discursive Battleground: The Study of Discourse and theAnalysis of European Integration Policy’. Cooperation and Conflict, Vol. 36, No.1, pp. 5–38.

Duchêne, F. (1973) ‘The European Community and the Uncertainties of Interdepend-ence’ In Kohnstamm, M. and Hager, W. (eds) A Nation Writ Large? Foreign

Policy Problems before the European Community (London: Macmillan), pp. 1–21.

Dunne, T. (1995) ‘International Society: Theoretical Promises Fulfilled?’, Coopera-

tion and Conflict, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 125–54.Dunne, T. (1998) Inventing International Society: A History of the English School

(Basingstoke: Macmillan).Edwards, G. and Regelsberger, E. (eds) (1990) Europe’s Global Links: The European

Community and Inter-Regional Cooperation (London: Pinter).Friis, L. and Murphy, A. (1999) ‘The European Union and Central and Eastern

Europe: Governance and Boundaries’. Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol.37, No. 3, pp. 429–54.



65



Glarbo, K. (1999) ‘Wide-awake Diplomacy: Reconstructing the Common Foreignand Security Policy of the European Union’. Journal of European Public Policy,

Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 634–51.

Hansen, L. (2001a) ‘Sustaining Sovereignty: The Danish Approach to Europe’. InHansen, L. and Wæver, O. (eds), pp. 50–87.Hansen, L. and Wæver, O. (eds) (2001b) European Integration and National Identity:

The Challenge of the Nordic States (London: Routledge)Hix, S. (1994) ‘The Study of the European Community: The Challenge to Compara-

tive Politics’. West European Politics, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 1–30.Hix, S. (1999) The Political System of the European Union (Basingstoke: Macmillan).Hyde-Price, A. (2000) Germany and European Order: Enlarging NATO and the EU

(Manchester: Manchester University Press).Jachtenfuchs, M. (2001) ‘The Governance Approach to European Integration’.

Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 39, No. 2, pp. 245–64.Jachtenfuchs, M., Diez, T. and Jung, S. (1998) ‘Which Europe? Conflicting Models

of a Legitimate European Political Order’. European Journal of International

Relations, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 409–45.Joerges, C. and Neyer, J. (1997) ‘From Intergovernmental Bargaining to Deliberative

Political Processes: The Constitutionalisation of Comitology’. European Law

Journal, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 273–99.Jones, R.E. (1981) ‘The English School of International Relations: A Case for

Closure’. Review of International Studies, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 1–13.Jørgensen, K.E. (ed.) (1997a) Reflective Approaches to European Governance

(Basingstoke: Macmillan).Jørgensen, K.E. (1997b) ‘Polo: The Diplomatic Republic of Europe’. In Jørgensen,

K.E. (1997a) (ed.), pp. 167–80.Kohler-Koch, B. (ed.) (1998) Interaktive Politik in Europa: Regionen im Netzwerk der

Integration (Opladen: Leske + Budrich).Larsen, H. (2000) ‘Danish CFSP Policy in the Post-Cold War Period: Continuity or

Change?’. Cooperation and Conflict, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 37–65.Laursen, F. (1991) ‘The EC in the World Context: Civilian Power or Superpower?’

Futures, September, pp. 747–59.Linklater, A. (1996) ‘Citizenship and Sovereignty in the Post-Westphalian State’.

European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 77–103.Linklater, A. (1998) The Transformation of Political Community (Cambridge: Polity).Little, R. (1998) ‘International System, International Society and World Society: A

Re-evaluation of the English School’. In Roberson, B.A. (ed.) International

Society and the Development of International Relations Theory (London/Wash-ington: Pinter).

Lodge, J. (1993) ‘From Civilian Power to Speaking with a Common Voice: The

Transition to a CFSP’. In Lodge, J. (ed.) The European Community and theChallenge of the Future, 2nd edn (London: Pinter).

Manners, I.J. and Whitman, R.G. (1998) ‘Towards Identifying the InternationalIdentity of the European Union: A Framework of Analysis of the EU’s Networkof Relationships’. Journal of European Integration, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 231–49.



66



Merlingen, M., Mudde. C. and Sedelmeier, U. (2001) ‘European Norms, DomesticPolitics and the Sanctions Against Austria’. Journal of Common Market Studies,

Vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 59–77.

Moravcsik, A. (1997) ‘Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of Interna-tional Politics’, International Organization, Vol. 51, No. 4, pp. 513–53.Moravcsik, A. (1998) The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State Power from

Messina to Maastricht (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press).Morgan, R. (2000) ‘A European “Society of States” – But Only States of Mind?’.

International Affairs, Vol. 76, No. 3, pp. 559–74.Øhrgaard, J. C. (1997) ‘“Less than Supranational, More than Intergovernmental”:

European Political Cooperation and the Dynamics of Intergovernmental Integra-tion’. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 1–29.

Piening, C. (1997) Global Europe: The European Union in World Affairs (Boulder,CO: Lynne Rienner)

Pollack, M.A. (2001) ‘International Relations Theory and European Integration’. Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 39, No. 2, pp. 221–44.

Rengger, N.J. (1992) ‘Culture, Society, and Order in World Politics’. In Baylis, J. andRengger, N.J. (eds) Dilemmas of World Politics: International Issues in a

Changing World (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 85–103.Rengger, N.J. (2000) ‘European Communities in a Neo-Medieval Global Polity: The

Dilemmas of Fairyland?’. In Kelstrup, M. and Williams, M.C. (eds) International

Relations Theory and the Politics of European Integration: Power, Security and

Community (London: Routledge), pp. 57–71.Risse-Kappen, T. (1996) ‘Exploring the Nature of the Beast: International Relations

Theory and Comparative Policy Analysis Meet the European Union’. Journal of

Common Market Studies, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 53–80.Ruggie, J.G. (1993) ‘Territoriality and Beyond: Problematizing Modernity in Interna-

tional Relations’. International Organization, Vol. 47, No. 1, pp. 139–74.Shaw, M. (1992) ‘Global Society and Global Responsibility: The Theoretical,

Historical and Political Limits of “International Society”’. Millennium: Journal of

International Studies, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 421–34.

Smith, M. (1996) ‘The European Union and a Changing Europe: Establishing theBoundaries of Order’. Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 43, No.1, pp. 5–28.

Stubb, A.C. (1997) ‘A Categorization of Differentiated Integration’. Journal of

Common Market Studies, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 283–95.Tonra, B. (2000) ‘Mapping EU Foreign Policy Studies’. Journal of European Public

Policy, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp.163–9.Tsakaloyannis, P. (1989), ‘The EC from Civilian Power to Military Integration’. In

Lodge, J. (ed.) The European Community and the Challenge of the Future

(London: Pinter).Wæver, O. (1996) ‘Europe’s Three Empires: A Watsonian Interpretation of Post-Wall

European Security’. In Fawn, R. and Larkins, J. (eds) International Society after

the Cold War (Basingstoke: Macmillan), pp. 220–60.



67



Wæver, O. (1998) ‘Explaining Europe by Decoding Discourses’. In Wivel, A. (ed.) Explaining European Integration (Copenhagen: Copenhagen Political StudiesPress), pp. 100–46.

Wæver, O. (2001) ‘Identity, Communities and Foreign Policy: Discourse Analysis asForeign Policy Theory’. In Hansen, L. and Wæver, O. (eds), pp. 20–49.Walker, R.B.J. (1993) Inside/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory

(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Watson, A. (1992) The Evolution of International Society (London: Routledge).Watson, A. (1998) ‘The British Committee for the Theory of International Politics:

Some Historical Notes, November, available at «http://www.ukc.ac.uk/politics/ englishschool/watson98.htm», accessed 25 January 2002.

Whitman, R.G. (1997) ‘The International Identity of the EU: Instruments as Identity’.In Landau, A. and Whitman, R.G. (eds) Rethinking the European Union: Institu-

tions, Interests and Identities (Basingstoke: Macmillan), pp. 54–71.Whitman, R.G. (1998a) ‘The Common Foreign and Security Policy: Past Practice and

Future Prospects’. Current Economics and Politics of Europe, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp.35–57.

Whitman, R.G. (1998b) From Civilian Power to Superpower? The International

Identity of the European Union (Basingstoke: Macmillan).Whitman, R.G. (1999) ‘The Common Foreign and Security Policy after Enlarge-

ment’. In Curzon-Price, V., Landau, A. and Whitman, R.G. (eds) The Enlargement

of the European Union: Issues and Strategies (London: Routledge), pp. 135–60.Wiener, A. (1998) ‘European Citizenship’ Practice: Building Institutions of a Non-

State (Boulder, CO: Westview).Wiener, A. (2001) ‘Zur Verfassungspolitik jenseits des Staates: Die Vermittlung von

Bedeutung am Beispiel der Unionsbürgerschaft’. Zeitschrift für Internationale

Beziehungen, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 73–104.Wight, M. (1977) Systems of States (Leicester: Leicester University Press).Wight, M. (1978) Power Politics (London: Penguin), 2nd edn.

diez & whitman - jcms 40 (1-2002)

Documents