Note
Studied by 2 people
EU Integration and Power Projection
Guiding Questions
How does the European Union project power?
What is the “Brussels Effect”?
How do British, French, and German foreign policies advance state security?
How does the “Strategic Compass” seek to advance EU security?
Will the EU “run the 21st century”?
Introduction
European integration is often cited as an alternative vision of politics, emphasizing soft power. It represents a move away from traditional hard power tactics, favoring diplomacy, economic incentives, and normative influence.
It involves pooling sovereignty to achieve joint goals. Member states cede certain aspects of their national sovereignty to the EU to collectively address common challenges and achieve shared objectives.
The EU uses soft power and economic leverage to extend influence, utilizing its economic strength and regulatory prowess to shape global norms and behaviors.
It emphasizes multilateralism to solve common challenges, promoting cooperation and collaboration among member states and with other international actors to address complex global issues.
The EU's alternative model to hard power politics is seen as better suited for cooperation in addressing common challenges. This model is particularly relevant in addressing transnational issues such as climate change, pandemics, and economic stability.
It is offered as a model for other regions facing conflict, presenting itself as a successful example of regional integration and conflict resolution through peaceful means.
However, a more aggressive Russia and concerns over US commitment to NATO are leading to re-evaluation, prompting the EU to reassess its security strategy and consider strengthening its defense capabilities.
Why Europe “Will Run the 21st Century” (Leonard 2005)
The world is changing with power shifting and global ideals proliferating. The rise of new global powers and the spread of diverse ideologies are transforming the international landscape.
Regional integration is common (e.g., ASEAN, MERCOSUR, etc.). Various regions around the world are pursuing integration initiatives to enhance economic cooperation and political stability.
The “European way of war” includes:
Peacekeeping and peace enforcing. The EU engages in peacekeeping and peace-enforcement operations to stabilize conflict zones and promote security.
Building state capacity in “war-torn states.” The EU provides assistance to rebuild institutions and governance structures in countries affected by conflict.
Augmenting soldiers with “an army of diplomats, police, election monitors and aid workers.” The EU combines military and civilian resources to address the root causes of conflict and promote long-term stability.
The goal is long-term transformation, not just quick intervention. The EU focuses on sustainable development and institution-building to achieve lasting peace and stability.
Use of force is counterproductive in the Post Cold War era; soft power is more effective. In the current global environment, non-military means are often more effective in achieving foreign policy objectives.
A soft power approach is well-suited to respond to common challenges. The EU's emphasis on diplomacy, economic incentives, and normative influence allows it to address complex global issues effectively.
Foreign aid and Single European Market (SEM) access can transform international relations. These tools can be used to promote economic development, good governance, and human rights in partner countries.
The EU can persuade without threatening others, using its economic and political influence to shape global norms and behaviors.
The attractiveness of the European model and quality of life is drawing attention. The EU's high living standards, social welfare systems, and commitment to democracy make it an attractive model for other countries.
Cooperation, not coercion, is the only way to resolve international challenges. The EU believes that multilateralism and dialogue are essential for addressing global issues such as climate change, terrorism, and economic instability.
Regional integration can be adapted to promote peace in other contexts. The EU's experience in fostering peace and cooperation among its member states can serve as a model for other regions facing conflict.
Europe will “run the 21st century because the ‘European way of doing things’ will have become the world’s [way of doing things].” The EU's values and approach to international relations will shape the future of global governance.
European Ascendancy? Not So Fast (Kagan 2003)
European integration should be lauded; war on the European continent is now nil due to integration. The absence of conflict among EU member states is a testament to the success of European integration.
Integration is good for the EU and the US, fostering closer economic and political ties between the two regions.
Europe emphasizes soft power, and the US emphasizes hard power, reflecting differing strategic cultures and priorities.
This is a function of European weakness, only an option due to US hard power protections (i.e., NATO). Europe's reliance on soft power is possible because of the security umbrella provided by the United States.
Integration is not necessarily the “wave of the future.” The EU model may not be universally applicable or desirable in other regions of the world.
Mars vs. Venus? (Kagan 2003)
US and EU view threats differently: US is Mars, EU is Venus. The US tends to view threats through a military lens, while the EU favors diplomatic and economic approaches.
US embraces the use of force in an anarchic (Hobbesian) world. The US believes that military power is necessary to maintain order and deter aggression in a world characterized by competition and conflict.
The technological gap in capabilities boosts willingness to fight. The US military's technological superiority enhances its ability to project power and intervene in conflicts.
The US prefers to act with others but is not compelled to do so. The US seeks to build alliances and partnerships but is willing to act unilaterally if necessary.
It sees the world in black and white, often viewing issues in terms of good versus evil.
Strength and perspective make it the primary target. The US is a major target for terrorist groups and other adversaries due to its global power and influence.
The US seeks to share the defense burden with the EU, encouraging European countries to increase their military spending and capabilities.
EU is unwilling/unable to increase defense spending significantly due to domestic political constraints and differing strategic priorities.
EU is moving “away from power” towards international law (Kantian), emphasizing diplomacy, multilateralism, and the rule of law in international relations.
UN Security Council legitimation of conflict. The EU prefers to seek UN approval for military interventions.
Universal applicability of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The EU supports the ICC and its efforts to hold individuals accountable for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
The EU sees the world in shades of gray and privileges diplomacy over force, favoring nuanced approaches to complex issues.
It is unclear if 9/11 targets them. The EU's vulnerability to terrorism is less clear-cut than that of the United States.
Strategic dependence on US military is worrisome, raising concerns about Europe's ability to act independently in defense matters.
Domestic politics prevents increases in defense spending. Public opinion and budgetary constraints limit the ability of European countries to increase their military spending.
Military power is still critical in the post-Cold War era, despite the rise of soft power and non-military threats.
The EU is not a superpower and not a new model for international politics. The EU lacks the military capabilities and political cohesion to be considered a superpower.
Economic power is not a superpower; it needs to be combined with military strength and political influence.
It lacks military capabilities, limiting its ability to project power and defend its interests.
The model is only possible given dependence on NATO military spending. The EU's security relies heavily on the military capabilities and resources of NATO.
It is unclear if soft power emphasis is workable without hard power. The EU's reliance on soft power may be insufficient in a world where military force remains a significant factor.
China and Russia will not respond to soft power, requiring a more assertive approach from the EU.
The transatlantic relationship can be a force of good for the US, EU, and international community, but relations are strained due to differences in worldview and strategic culture. These differences can lead to disagreements on issues such as trade, climate change, and security.
Enter the “Brussels Effect” (Bradford 2020)
Critiques of the EU’s lack of military power ignore how Europe wields international influence through the “Brussels Effect.” This concept highlights the EU's ability to shape global regulations and standards through its internal policies.
This refers to the ability of the EU to unilaterally regulate global markets, setting standards that businesses worldwide must adhere to in order to access the EU market.
The EU can parlay access to the Single European Market into expanding its regulatory power to shape how business is conducted globally. By leveraging the size and importance of its market, the EU influences international norms and practices.
It sets global standards in competition policy, ensuring fair competition and preventing anti-competitive practices.
It impacts environmental and food safety protections, promoting higher standards for environmental protection and food safety worldwide.
It shapes privacy policy and regulation of hate speech on social media, influencing how personal data is protected and how harmful content is regulated online.
The extension of EU influence is done voluntarily, not coercively. Companies and countries choose to adopt EU standards in order to access the EU market or maintain good relations with the EU.
External actors choose to abide by EU standards, recognizing the economic and political benefits of doing so.
Bottom line: in a world where regulatory power “matters”, EU is a superpower. The EU's regulatory power gives it significant influence in shaping the global economy and international relations.
De Jure vs. De Facto Brussels Effect (Bradford 2020)
“Brussels Effect” exists in two forms:
De facto: Multinational corporations (MNCs) accept EU regulations and adapt behavior to the EU.
Business incentives explain application to global operations. Companies find it more efficient and cost-effective to adopt EU standards globally rather than maintaining different standards for different markets.
No foreign governmental regulatory response is needed. The EU's regulations become the de facto standard without requiring formal adoption by other countries.
De jure: Foreign governments adopt EU regulations/standards.
MNCs have already adopted EU standards and lobby home governments to do likewise. Companies that have already adopted EU standards may lobby their home governments to adopt similar standards to create a level playing field.
State officials CHOOSE to adopt EU standards under the auspices that they are the “best practices.” Governments may adopt EU standards because they are seen as effective and well-designed.
Brussels Effect and Influence (Bradford 2020)
The “Brussels Effect” is limited to circumstances where:
“Market size” can be leveraged; the market must be attractive to business. The EU's large market size gives it leverage to influence global standards.
States possess “regulatory capacity;” they are willing to craft regulations and create institutions to enforce them. The EU's strong regulatory capacity allows it to effectively set and enforce standards.
Targets are “inelastic;” they are tied to a specific jurisdiction, and business is unable to “venue shop.” Companies are unable to avoid EU regulations by relocating to countries with weaker standards.
Corporation activity is “non-divisible;” the benefit of adopting one set of standards outweighs the benefit of adopting several. Companies find it more efficient to adopt a single set of standards that meet EU requirements.
Under these circumstances, the MOST “stringent regulations” gain influence, which tends to favor the European Union. The EU's stringent regulations often become the global standard due to the factors listed above.
Internal Basis for the “Brussels Effect” (Bradford 2020)
The Single European Market is a “regulatory state” advancing “mutual recognition.” The EU's Single Market promotes the harmonization of regulations and standards among member states.
This boosts size/effectiveness of Single European Market (SEM) AND projects EU values. The Single Market's regulatory framework enhances its economic power and promotes EU values such as consumer protection and environmental sustainability.
But why adopt the “most stringent standard?”
It signals that integration will not occur at the expense of health and safety. The EU's commitment to high standards ensures that integration does not come at the cost of public health and safety.
European citizens are more comfortable with public health regulations. European citizens generally support strong public health regulations and consumer protections.
It boosts legitimacy by tying integration to “non-economic” values. The EU's emphasis on non-economic values enhances its legitimacy and public support.
It pushes back against efforts to tie integration to neoliberalism, offering an alternative model of integration that prioritizes social and environmental concerns.
It is easier to convince states with weaker standards to “boost up.” It is easier for the EU to persuade member states with weaker standards to adopt higher standards than to persuade those with already high standards to lower them.
EU standards are the most stringent of the ones that markets respond to. The EU's standards are often the most stringent that companies are willing to adopt, making them the de facto global standard.
International Impact of “Brussels Effect” (Bradford 2020)
The EU can use regulatory impact to ACTIVELY set domestic AND global norms. The EU's regulatory power allows it to proactively shape global norms and standards.
It shapes “external action” and “external effects of internal policies” facets. The EU's internal policies have significant external effects, influencing global regulations and standards.
EU regulations are critical for aid conditionality, trade, and SEM access. The EU uses its regulations as a condition for providing aid, granting trade access, and allowing access to the Single Market.
International negotiations are used to adopt EU standards, promoting the adoption of EU standards through international agreements and partnerships.
Extension of EU standards makes EU exports more competitive, as companies that comply with EU standards gain a competitive advantage in the global market.
Global extension of EU standards undercuts efforts to challenge in WTO, making it difficult for countries to challenge EU standards in the World Trade Organization.
If other states adopt EU standards, they cannot be “discriminatory.” If other countries adopt EU standards, they cannot discriminate against EU products or companies.
It boosts EU “soft power superpower” and undermines that the EU is “irrelevant.” The Brussels Effect enhances the EU's soft power and demonstrates its relevance in the global arena.
The Commission shapes GLOBAL markets via INTERNAL regulation of the SEM. The European Commission plays a key role in shaping global markets through its regulation of the Single European Market.
The Commission projects influence via trade agreements and aid conditionality, using these tools to promote EU standards and values around the world.
Is Economic Power Enough? (Keukeleire and Delreux 2022)
Western dominance of the post-Cold War global order is being challenged, with the rise of new powers and the erosion of the liberal international order.
The rise of China, Russian aggression, and weakening relations with Turkey raise questions about the future role of the EU in any new global order. These developments challenge the EU's influence and strategic position.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine is particularly relevant, demonstrating the limits of the EU's soft power and the need for a stronger security policy.
War on the European continent is no longer unthinkable, highlighting the need for the EU to enhance its defense capabilities.
This creates new concerns over EU security, prompting a reassessment of the EU's security strategy and its relationship with NATO.
Concerns over security are forcing reflection on NATO dependence, leading to calls for greater European autonomy in defense matters.
The reliability of the United States as an alliance partner is no longer assured, raising questions about the future of transatlantic security cooperation.
Members are having to make decisions regarding their security, considering whether to prioritize relations with the EU, NATO, or both.
Do they emphasize relations with the EU, NATO, or both? Member states must balance their commitments to European integration with their obligations to the transatlantic alliance.
Structural Factors Shaping British Foreign Policy (White 2012)
Power: Middle power; post-Suez crisis focused on a “hug them [US] close” strategy. The UK's foreign policy has historically been shaped by its status as a middle power and its close relationship with the United States.
Institutions:
Globalization constrains autonomy given the role of the financial services industry. The UK's financial services industry is heavily integrated into the global economy, limiting its ability to pursue independent foreign policies.
EU membership was seen as too restrictive despite trade benefits of membership. Some in the UK viewed EU membership as a constraint on national sovereignty and decision-making.
Economically, Brexit has come at a cost in terms of economic well-being, highlighting the economic consequences of leaving the European Union.
Ideas:
Concept of insularity, a sense of separateness from continental Europe.
Atlanticism (Special Relationship): Common language, heritage, etc., but views on politics and society differ. The UK's close relationship with the United States is based on shared values and historical ties, but there are also differences in political and social views.
“Bridge-building” approach seeks to connect the US and EU. The UK has historically sought to bridge the gap between the United States and the European Union.
Brexit weakens this option, reducing the UK's ability to act as a bridge between the US and the EU.
Political Factors Shaping British Foreign Policy (White 2012)
PM/Government is the key actor. The Prime Minister and the Government play a central role in shaping British foreign policy.
Blair’s Iraq vote in Parliament was precedent-setting. The UK Parliament's decision to authorize military action in Iraq set a precedent for future interventions.
Increased role of Parliament, with Parliament playing a greater role in scrutinizing and influencing foreign policy decisions.
The opposition historically sides with the Government on national security, reflecting a bipartisan consensus on key foreign policy issues.
Support for Atlanticism is solid across parties, with both the Conservative and Labour parties supporting the close relationship with the United States.
Support for the EU WAS NOT solid across parties, with divisions within both the Conservative and Labour parties over EU membership.
Public opinion:
Supports Atlanticism but dislikes the perception of the UK as a “junior partner.” British public opinion generally supports the close relationship with the United States but wants the UK to be seen as an equal partner.
NOTE: post-Brexit, the emphasis is still on maintaining ties with the US BUT working with European NATO partners on national security. The UK is seeking to maintain close ties with the US while also strengthening its relationships with European allies within NATO.
Structural Factors Shaping French Foreign Policy (Treacher 2012)
Power: Middle power. France's foreign policy is shaped by its status as a middle power with global ambitions.
Interdependence:
Boosting the EU to project French influence and reduce dependence on the US. France sees the EU as a tool for projecting its influence and reducing its dependence on the United States.
Ideas:
Maintain or boost French status. A key goal of French foreign policy is to maintain or enhance France's international standing.
Nuclear force + ”understanding” of key regions ⇒ key role for France. France's nuclear arsenal and its understanding of key regions give it a unique role in international affairs.
(Pre-Sarkozy) Multipolar world with a European pillar. France has historically supported a multipolar world order with a strong European pillar.
(Post-Sarkozy) Use international setting to achieve common goals. France seeks to use international institutions and partnerships to achieve its foreign policy goals.
Political Factors Shaping French Foreign Policy (Treacher 2012)
The president is critical, but their ability to deliver is constrained. The French President plays a key role in shaping foreign policy, but their ability to deliver is constrained by domestic and international factors.
Return to Atlanticism (and NATO command structure) post-Chirac. France has moved closer to NATO since the end of the Chirac presidency.
Elite consensus on foreign policy goals, with a broad consensus among the French elite on key foreign policy goals.
More opposed to globalization, with greater skepticism towards globalization than in some other countries.
See climate change and protecting human rights as critical security goals. France views climate change and human rights as important security issues.
Focus on maintaining strong ties with Germany to boost French ideals within the EU BUT French EU influence is waning as the EU increasingly resembles German ideals. France seeks to work closely with Germany to promote its ideals within the EU, but its influence is waning as the EU increasingly reflects German priorities.
NOTE: Emphasis on a common European force is seen as critical to ensure security: ‘Strategic autonomy” + “principled pragmatism” is critical. France sees a common European force as essential for ensuring its security and promoting its interests: ‘Strategic autonomy” + “principled pragmatism” is critical.
Structural Factors Shaping German Foreign Policy (Harnisch 2012)
Power: Middle power, but too big to ignore. Germany's foreign policy is shaped by its status as a middle power with significant economic and political influence.
Interdependence:
Strong commitment to alliances. Germany is strongly committed to its alliances, particularly NATO and the EU.
Motor of the EU: accepted Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) for unification. Germany played a key role in the creation of the Economic and Monetary Union as part of its commitment to European integration.
Ideas:
Committed to the preservation of human rights and democracy. Germany is committed to promoting human rights and democracy around the world.
Collective/cooperative action. Germany favors collective and cooperative action to address international challenges.
Germany as a “civilian power” used to achieve civilian and national ends. Germany sees itself as a “civilian power” that uses non-military means to achieve its foreign policy goals.
Political Factors Shaping German Foreign Policy (Harnisch 2012)
Chancellor and cabinet are critical; big decisions are usually made by unanimity. The German Chancellor and cabinet play a key role in shaping foreign policy, with major decisions typically made by consensus.
Historically Atlanticist, but the incoming chancellor is skeptical of Trump. Germany has historically been a strong supporter of the transatlantic alliance, but the current chancellor is skeptical of the Trump administration.
“My absolute priority will be to strengthen Europe as quickly as possible so that, step by step, we can really achieve independence from the USA.” The German Chancellor has expressed a desire to strengthen Europe and reduce its dependence on the United States.
“I never thought I would have to say something like this… but after Donald Trump's statements last week at the latest, it is clear that the Americans, at least this part of the Americans, this administration, are largely indifferent to the fate of Europe.” The German Chancellor has expressed concern about the Trump administration's commitment to Europe.
Basic Law prohibits the mobilization of the army outside of regional, collective security purposes. The German Basic Law restricts the use of the German army to regional, collective security purposes.
The Federal Constitutional Court is critical regarding intervention. The German Federal Constitutional Court plays a key role in overseeing and limiting German military interventions.
Public opinion: pacifism, humanitarianism, opposition to nuclear weapons exert a large influence. German public opinion is strongly influenced by pacifism, humanitarianism, and opposition to nuclear weapons.
NOTE: Post-Ukraine invasion, struggling with balancing EU/NATO commitments in a context where it is being asked to assist with MILITARY rather than just ECONOMIC support. Germany is struggling to balance its commitments to the EU and NATO in the face of the Ukraine crisis, as it is being asked to provide military as well as economic support.
Re-Evaluating the Security Strategy (EEAS 2016; EEAS 2022)
The changing international context requires a “re-think” of EU security strategy. The EU needs to adapt its security strategy to address new and emerging threats.
Globally:
Increasing competition between global actors; “power has returned.” The rise of new powers and increased competition among global actors are challenging the existing international order.
Climate change promotes competition over scarce resources; subsequently, it is a security issue. Climate change is exacerbating competition over scarce resources and posing new security challenges.
The post-WW2 international order is questioned. The post-World War II international order is being questioned and challenged by new powers and emerging threats.
Regionally:
War on the European continent. The war in Ukraine has shattered the illusion of peace in Europe and highlighted the need for a stronger European security policy.
External interference from state/non-state actors. The EU is facing increasing external interference from state and non-state actors, including cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, and attempts to influence elections.
State fragility within the European neighborhood. State fragility in the EU's neighborhood poses a threat to European security, as it can lead to instability, migration, and terrorism.
Within the European Union:
External use of disruptive technologies and misinformation. The EU is facing the challenge of disruptive technologies and misinformation being used to undermine its security and stability.
Instrumentalization of irregular migration, using irregular migration as a tool to destabilize the EU.
Terrorism remains a threat to European security, despite efforts to counter it.
Responding to New International Challenges (EEAS 2022)
The EU MUST ACT “more quickly and decisively” in the face of a crisis. The EU needs to be able to respond more quickly and decisively to crises in its neighborhood and around the world.
Re-assess the need for unanimity in CFSP/CSDP. The EU needs to re-assess the need for unanimity in its Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) to improve its ability to act quickly and decisively.
Reinforce “constructive abstention.” The EU needs to reinforce the concept of “constructive abstention” to allow member states that do not want to participate in a particular action to abstain without blocking the action.
Create an EU Rapid Deployment Capacity using EU Battlegroups and member state resources. The EU needs to create a rapid deployment capacity using EU Battlegroups and member state resources to respond quickly to crises.
The EU MUST SECURE “citizens against fast-changing threats.” The EU needs to protect its citizens against fast-changing threats, including terrorism, cyberattacks, and hybrid threats.
Enhance intelligence gathering abilities. The EU needs to enhance its intelligence gathering abilities to better understand and respond to threats.
Create an EU Hybrid Toolbox to battle against misinformation and election interference. The EU needs to create a hybrid toolbox to combat misinformation and election interference.
Expand resources to counter cyberattacks + strengthen air, sea, and space protections. The EU needs to expand its resources to counter cyberattacks and strengthen its air, sea, and space protections.
The EU MUST INVEST in “capabilities and technologies” that are necessary. The EU needs to invest in the capabilities and technologies necessary to address new and emerging threats.
Spend more on military capabilities. The EU needs to spend more on military capabilities to improve its ability to defend its interests and protect its citizens.
Upgrade existing resources to meet future challenges. The EU needs to upgrade its existing resources to meet future challenges.
Create a Defense Integration Hub to coordinate resources across member states. The EU needs to create a Defense Integration Hub to coordinate resources across member states and improve its defense capabilities.
The EU MUST PARTNER “with others to achieve common goals.” The EU needs to partner with others to achieve common goals, including NATO, the UN, and other like-minded countries.
Continue to maintain/improve relationships with NATO/UN. The EU needs to continue to maintain and improve its relationships with NATO and the UN.
Boost bilateral relationships with partners sharing values (e.g., US, Japan, UK, Norway, etc.). The EU needs to boost its bilateral relationships with partners that share its values, such as the US, Japan, UK, and Norway.
The EU should continue to focus on ideals while recognizing the shifting context: “Principled pragmatism” + “strategic autonomy.” The EU should continue to focus on its ideals while recognizing the shifting international context and pursuing a strategy of “principled pragmatism” and “strategic autonomy.”
Conclusions
If this is a “hard power” world:
The EU is further integrating NATO into the foreign policy architecture. The EU is increasingly integrating NATO into its foreign policy architecture, recognizing the importance of military power in the current international environment.
It is increasingly speaking with one voice and viewing threats similarly to the US/NATO. The EU is increasingly speaking with one voice and viewing threats in a similar way to the US and NATO.
The EU is seeking to boost/invest in common military capabilities but still lacks a solid unified force. The EU is seeking to boost its common military capabilities but still lacks a solid unified force.
NATO membership creates challenges relationally. NATO membership creates relational challenges for the EU, as it can lead to tensions between member states with different views on security and defense.
Unanimity on CSDP creates challenges procedurally. The requirement for unanimity on CSDP creates procedural challenges for the EU, as it can be difficult to reach agreement on foreign policy and security issues.
BUT, if a superpower needs BOTH economic + military strength, the EU doesn’t have it…(yet?)
If this is a “soft power” world:
The Single European Market gives it a great deal of leverage via the “Brussels Effect.” The Single European Market gives the EU a great deal of leverage via the “Brussels Effect.”
The EU is adept at using persuasion to extend its influence through aid conditionality and state building. The EU is adept at using persuasion to extend its influence through aid conditionality and state building.
It has experience bringing various states together, which is critical for resolving common challenges. The EU has experience bringing various states together, which is critical for resolving common challenges.
It can be considered a “soft power superpower”… But is it enough in the current context?