This article was downloaded by: [University of Saskatchewan Library]On: 27 September 2012, At: 06:50Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of European IntegrationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/geui20

European Integration Revisited—Fromthe Founding Fathers to the NormativePower EuropeAssem Dandashly aa Freie Universität Berlin

Version of record first published: 16 May 2012.

To cite this article: Assem Dandashly (2012): European Integration Revisited—From the FoundingFathers to the Normative Power Europe, Journal of European Integration, 34:4, 419-426

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2012.679835

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

BOOK REVIEW

European IntegrationRevisited——From the FoundingFathers to the Normative Power

EuropeBooks Reviewed:

- Dehousse, R. (Ed.) (2011), The Community Method. Obstinate orObsolete?, London: Palgrave.

- Dyson, K. and A. Sepos (Eds.) (2010), Which Europe. Politics ofDifferentiated Integration, London: Palgrave.

- Guisan, C. (2012), A Political Theory of Identity in European Inte-gration, London: Routledge.

- Seidel, K. (2010), The Process of Politics in Europe. The Rise ofEuropean Elites and Supranational Institutions, London: I.B. TaurisPublishers.

- Whiteman, R. G. (Eds.) (2011), Normative Power Europe. Empiricaland Theoretical Perspectives, London: Palgrave.

Introduction

Since the end of the Second World War, west European countries soughtto find methods to avoid future wars. The founding fathers (such asRobert Schuman and Jean Monnet) of what is known now as the Euro-pean Union (EU) focused on uniting the west European countries. OnMay 9, 1950, Robert Schuman (French Foreign Minister at that time)invited some west European countries, including Germany, to support theFrench efforts “in creating an independent authority that would regulatethe markets for coal and steel” (Dehousse, 2011: 3)——what came to beknown later as the High Authority of the Coal and Steel Community(HA-ECSC). Since that time, scholars from different fields (politics, eco-nomics, sociology, etc.) concentrated on studying this European projectand answering questions of European integration. There were attempts tofind theories that help understand the creation of European institutionsand the European Community/Union (EC/EU). By focusing on the maininstitutions, policies and the atmosphere in which the EU was created, lit-tle attention was paid to studying the actors’ effect and attitudes thatshaped the entire integration project. Recently, there has been more focuson studying European integration from the perspective, intention, position,

European IntegrationVol. 34, No. 4, 419–426, June 2012

ISSN 0703-6337 print/ISSN 1477-2280 online/12/040419-08

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2012.679835

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:50

27

Sept

embe

r 20

12

manners and “biographical background” of the integration architecturesand “European civil servants” (Seidel, 2010: 1). The study of the actors isthe main focus of Katja Seidel’s book (2010) The Process of Politics inEurope——The Rise of European Elites and Supranational Institutions andCatherine Guisan’s book (2012) A Political Theory of Identity inEuropean Integration——Memory and Policies.

The EC/EU has used different methods to achieve various goals thatenhance the power of Europe——not only in the European continent butalso across the Mediterranean, the Atlantic and further east. From theCommunity Method (CM) to the various modes of governance, the EUtried different approaches and policies to strengthen the cooperationamong its member states and to deepen the integration. However, withthe various treaties and the various enlargements, integration moved indifferent directions and at different speeds. Instead of deepening the inte-gration in the 2000s, the EU widened the integration and brought tenNew Member States (NMS) on board.

The European integration scholars have studied the CM’s successes andfailures) and the modes of governance thoroughly. Among the new criticalstudies that dealt with these topics are the edited volumes by RenaudDehousse (2011) The ‘Community Method’——Obstinate or Obsolete andthe one by Kenneth Dyson and Angelos Sepos (2010) WhichEurope——The Politics of Differentiated Integration. Having a strong andstable union, the EU had focused not only on the domestic concerns butalso the external environment——mainly the neighboring countries. There-fore, the EU’s role in spreading its norms——such as democracy, humanrights, civil liberties and market economy——through the use of soft power(Nye, 1990), gave the EU an unprecedented influential power in the world.This normative power is discussed by several scholars in the edited volumeNormative Power Europe——Empirical and Theoretical Perspectives byRichard G. Whitman.

The Building Blocks: Revisiting Sixty years of European Integration——TheHow and Why?

To understand the integration process, it is important to go back to the cre-ation of the European institutions and administrations. These administra-tions were shaped by the early bureaucrats that occupied them and by thethoughts and ideas of Schuman, Monnet, Hallstein and others. Seidel(2010) offers a delicate summary of the biographies of the actors thatshaped the creation and progress of the European institutions since the endof the Second World War. She reminds the scholars of European integrationthat studying the early individuals, that created the institutions and shapedthem with their ideas and thoughts, is crucial for forming a more thoroughidea about the EU creation and development. The book offers a betterunderstanding of the European administration during the first two decades(1950s and 1960s) of European integration (from the HA-ECSC (1952-1955) to the creation of the European Commission and its early years underHallstein presidency (1958-1967)). It is the first time the study of the inte-gration process does not ignore the “institutional and actor dimension”

420 Book review

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:50

27

Sept

embe

r 20

12

(Seidel, 2010: 2). The analysis is based not only on the memoirs of the earlyEuropean policymakers and commissioners but also on “interviews withformer European civil servants” and archival research (Seidel, 2010: 3).

Seidel’s book adds to the literature on Europeanization since it discussesthe individuals’ dimension that is often ignored in the literature. Despitethe importance of the early years, it would have been helpful for the readerto see more on the future developments of the commission. Seidel doeshighlight some thoughts on that in the conclusion but it was too simpleand narrow. Although the book deals with debates on competition policyand the common agricultural policy, the focus was more on the actors’ per-ceptions and discussions than on the policies and methods used per se.

While Seidel focuses mainly on the elites and European civil servants,Guisan (2012) builds her analysis on “interpretation of the speech anddeed” not only of the EC/EU elites but also non-elite players “as a sourceof shared identity” (Guisan, 2012: 1). Guisan (2012) brings the missingthorough theoretical discussion to Seidel’s work. Guisan’s analysis is basedon the work of important twentieth-century political theorists such asHannah Arendt (“natality, plurality, forgiveness and promise, action andthinking, and the responses of Arendtian scholars”), Isaiah Berlin (plural-ism), Karl Jasper (collective responsibility), Jurgen Habermas (discourseethics), Charles Taylor and Paul Ricoeur (concepts of recognition) (Gui-san, 2012: 3-6). Drawing on these works, “three core principles, asMontesquieu and Arendt understood them, have motivated actors toaction: reconciliation, power as action in concert, and recognition of theother”; “truth-telling and right-speaking; and thinking as the ‘enlargedmentality,’ have impacted the development of the ECSC/EC/EU” (Guisan,2012: 11). Guisan emphasizes one core principle that is often forgotten inthe study of European integration: reconciliation. Schuman’s declarationof 1950 and the 1951 Treaty of Paris discussed this reconciliation betweenFrance and Germany, in addition to other countries, as it “will be the keyto future economic prosperity and security for Europe” (Guisan, 2012:11-12). In seven chapters, Guisan’s book discusses theoretically and empir-ically five principles that narrate the sixty years of integration: reconcilia-tion (ECSC), power (Treaties of Rome), recognition (treaties of accession),truth-telling (rejection of the Constitutional Treaty) and the enlargedmentality (enlargement and immigration challenges).

Both volumes (Seidel, 2010 and Guisan, 2012) are complementary andcould be read together to get a clearer idea on the elites/non elites’ playersthat contributed to the creation of a European identity and European civilservants. Both authors remind us that the ability of the founding fathersto unite the efforts of countries that have had ones of the bloodiest warsin history should not be overlooked or explained by a narrow economicinterest dimension (Guisan, 2012: 1-2). The gap in these two volumes (notdealing with the policies and methods in depth——which was not the aimof both scholars) is filled by contributions of others. The question on howdid the EC/EU function and what methods used in decision-making arediscussed in other books reviewed here such as The ‘Community Method’:Obstinate or Obsolete, edited by Renaud Dehousse.

Book review 421

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:50

27

Sept

embe

r 20

12

Policy Making Methods——The Community Method, Is it Still RelevantToday?

The Community Method is the oldest decision making methodused——even before the creation of the European Commission. Schuman’sDeclaration on May 9, 1950 discussed the CM’s basic characteristics thatkept developing based on the daily issues and needs. This continuousdevelopment pushed the European Commission to define the CM in itsWhite paper on 2001 in order to reflect not only the ideology of thefounding fathers regarding the supranational European institutions, butalso the significant role of the nation states through the European Coun-cil’s ability to take decisions by qualified majority, “which sets the Euro-pean Union apart from a [typical] federal model” (Dehousse, 2011: 5).The reasons as highlighted by Schuman himself in 1953 “is equidistant to,on the one hand, international individualism […], and on the other hand,the federalism of states that submit to a super state endowed with its ownterritorial sovereignty” (Schuman, 1953: 7 cited and translated inDehousse, 2011: 6). So for Schuman, although supranational institutionsenjoy some “sovereign powers”, they do not “have the characteristics of astate” (Dehousse, 2011: 6).

The contributors to this volume highlight that the CM is still valid andhave been going through different adjustments and developments to meetthe rising demands in the EU. So the CM had to move beyond the merefocus on market integration since it is not “an absolute value” but amethod to improve the EU citizens’ welfare (Majone, 2011: 39). The firstpart introduces us to the CM and tries to answer the question if thismethod is still practical. Even if weakened, the CM has survived the con-secutive enlargement and all the attempts to change it——especially duringand after Maastricht Treaty. The reasons for this CM crisis are: first, theincrease discussion and concern regarding the EU democratic deficit; sec-ond, member states concern regarding the growing power of the EuropeanCommission; third, strengthening the powers and responsibilities of theparliament in the decision making process; and fourth, the 2004 and 2007enlargements that increased the EU members from 15 to 27 (Dehousse,2011: 9-13). All the attacks on the CM were driven by the idea that it isobsolete and expired. Therefore, there have been more emphasis on thedifferent decision making methods and various modes of governance(Dehousse, 2011: 3-4).

To understand the functioning of the CM, there is a need to under-stand the way different EU institutions get involved, the role they play,and the policy in question. Part II of this volume shows the complexity ofthe CM and the role played by each institution: mainly the Commission,the Parliament, the Council and the Court. With all the developments inEU decision-making process and the role played by the various players,part II shows that the CM is still viable. As for part III, the authors dis-cuss the different alternatives to the CM by examining various policy areasand pillars. One of these methods is the Open Method of Coordination(OMC) which according to Zeitlin, should not be viewed as “an alterna-tive to the Community Method, but rather as a way to supplement it in

422 Book review

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:50

27

Sept

embe

r 20

12

areas where member states were not willing to accept more intrusiveforms of action or where a degree of diversity in the pursuit of commonconcerns was deemed necessary” (Zeitlin, 2011: 146). The OMC is just astep further towards the “EU’s new architecture of experimentalistgovernance” that might help not only renew the CM but also correct itsimperfections and overcome “blockages in its own institutional arrange-ments” (Zeitlin, 2011: 146). Part III paves the way to the discussion ofthe various modes of governance that is the theme of part IV. Part IVbuilds heavily on the Social Policy and tries to analyze if the post 1990developments and the focus on the different modes of governance shouldbe viewed as a move away from the CM or rather plays a complimentaryrole in filling the gap in areas where member states are not willing to givemore of their powers. In conclusion, the argument that the new modes ofgovernance “will necessarily lead to the demise of the CommunityMethod” does not make much sense” (Dehousse, 2011: 203).

Despite the importance of the ideas and beliefs of the founding fathersand the early elites (see Seidel, 2010 and Guisan, 2012), this is not enoughto build a strong, stable, coherent and effective European Union (Dehousse,2011:203). Here Majone reminds us by “‘Jean-Marie Guehenno (1993: 79):It is not the institutions that create a sense of belonging, but a sense ofbelonging which makes institutional constraints acceptable’. To havethought otherwise is the original sin of the ‘European saints’ (Milward1992) who invented what came to be called the Community Method”(Majone, 2011: 40). This brings us to very important questions: Have thedream of the founding fathers to establish a united and coherent Europeever been accomplished? Have we had an ‘ever closer union’ in the historyof European integration? Answering these two questions takes us toanalyzing the concept of differentiated integration.

One or Multiple Europes…

The European founding fathers’ vision of Europe was based on a unitarymodel in which countries integrate at the same pace. However, due to thecomplexity of many policies, identities, capabilities, and various interestsamong member states, differentiated integration has flourished. Thinkingabout integration and differentiation should not lead us to forget “thatthey are not mutually exclusive, one way processes. They are dynamicallyinterrelated” (Dyson and Sepos, 2010: 5). The contributing authors toWhich Europe do not go back to the early debates on integration and seewhat they have to offer. Some insights could have been drawn on the ear-lier integration literature. Discussions and debates on the integration pro-cess and how much flexibility should be granted when some members donot have interest in certain policies have been going on since the 1970s.However, with the 1990s——mainly Maastricht Treaty——differentiatedintegration became an embedded exercise among EU members, which“established a ‘multi-speed Europe’ by enacting Economic and MonetaryUnion (EMU) and the Schengen Zone” (Priban, 2010: 26). To respond tothe growing number of EU members and the differences regarding the

Book review 423

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:50

27

Sept

embe

r 20

12

entire integration process, Amsterdam and Nice treaties further institution-alized differentiated integration.

Differentiated integration became a “tool of political management” ofall these differences among member states. European members are not allcapable and have the will “to assume the same responsibilities andobligations in sharing or transferring competences” (Dyson and Sepos,2010: 10). There was more flexibility in dealing with policies in which“the EU emerged as a supranational body integrating its Member Stateswell beyond the framework of international law but granting them a suffi-cient level of national sovereignty to decide whether” to opt-in/out of cer-tain policy areas (Priban, 2010: 26). But the question that yet to beanswered, what is differentiated integration?

Dyson and Sepos offer a broad definition stating that “Differentiatedintegration is the process whereby European states, or sub-state units, optto move at different speeds and/or towards different objectives with regardto common policies” (Dyson and Sepos, 2010: 4). Despite this definition,the authors (from various political sciences fields) do not abide by it andwe could see different understanding on what does differentiated integra-tion mean based on the cases studied. This volume contributes to the pre-vious discussions on integration and policies and adds to the theoreticaland policy debates. It deepens our understanding of the integration processbecause differentiated integration is one attribute “of integration, some-thing that describes integration more fully” (Dyson and Sepos, 2010: 5).Differentiated integration progress emphasizes “the emergence of a patternof graduated membership in the European Union” (Dyson and Sepos,2010: 346). That does not mean there is no more substance to the core ofunitary integration. This core is based on a common belief and adherenceto democracy, human rights and civil liberties, freedoms, rule of law,social justice, principles of the single market and sustainable development.These elements are among the basis of what makes the EU stronger. Theyare also among the elements of the EU’s normative power.

The Normative Power Europe

Building on earlier research by Carr (1962), Duchene (1973) and Galtung(1973) and reflecting on the 1990s developments, Ian Manners (2002)introduced the concept of Normative Power Europe (NPE) that movesaway from the earlier debates over the EU’s military or civilian power.Manners (2002) argued, “it is possible to think of the ideational impact ofthe EU’s international identity/role as representing normative power”(Manners, 2002: 238). Since that time, this seminal piece has motivatedtheoretical debate among International Relations and European Integra-tion scholars regarding the NPE concept and the external power of theEU. The normative foundations of the EU have been evolving for aroundsixty years: the Schuman’s declaration, “treaties, policies, criteria andconditions” (Manners, 2002: 242).

Among the works that offer empirical testing to the NPE and bringsmore insights and clarifications is the edited book by Richard G. Whitman

424 Book review

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:50

27

Sept

embe

r 20

12

(2011). The volume lays down the main pillars of the NPE and addressessome of the main criticisms over the decade. The empirical chapters showsome limitations and discrepancies in the application of NPE. Among themain responses to some of the criticisms to the EU is the increased use ofmilitary power in the peace support operations. Bjorkdahl (2011)challenges the understanding that EU normative and soft power is basedon “the lack of military capability”. Peace support operations are provingthat normative and military powers are attached. The EU “needs to coupleits traditional normative powers with its newly developed military capacityin order to meet the security challenges and expectations from conflict-ridden societies”. The EU should be able to defend its beliefs and norms(Bjorkdahl, 2011: 103).

In the final chapter, Manners argues that the concept of normativepower has three meanings that “come from the crucial analytical issuesof theory, concepts and methods in the social sciences” (Manners, 2011:228). The first meaning of NPE is situated in the normative theory; thesecond meaning “a form of power that is ideational rather than materialor physical”; and the third meaning of NPE “is as a characterization of atype of actor and its ideational identity” (Manners, 2011: 228-233).Another way of looking at the NPE is to view it as a significantcomponent of the EU foreign policy’s search for legitimacy. However,this quest of legitimacy is not going to end as long as there is a lack ofpolitical development in the EU structure itself (Bickerton, 2011). Byapplying the NPE to various policy areas, one concludes that the legiti-macy of EU actions is based on how the recipient countries perceive thisnormative power——as shown in Haukkala’s chapter that places the NPEwithin the European Neighborhood Policy (ENP) (Haukkala, 2011). TheEU’s demands for reforms in the neighbors without the ‘big carrot’(enlargement incentive) limit the EU’s normative influence in its neighbors(Haukkala, 2011; Stewart, 2011).

A decade has passed since Manners introduced the NPE concept, and itseems that it still attracts a lot of scholarly debate that is enriching ourunderstanding not only of European integration but also InternationalRelations’ theories.

Conclusion

All five volumes study European integration from a different angle. Thefive studies complement each other nicely as each of the studies focuseson one or more aspects of the EU evolution. They lay down the integra-tion process (both theoretically and empirically) from the foundingfathers and establishment of the so-called European institutions andbureaucrats to the development of the EU normative power that has col-ored the EU’s foreign policy and led to changes not only in the NMSbut also in neighboring countries and other parts of the world. It isreally impressive that those volumes could enrich the debates and bringnew analysis, insights and understanding not only to the integrationprocess but also to the decision-making and the EU powers. These vol-umes contribute to the European integration literature, governance, and

Book review 425

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:50

27

Sept

embe

r 20

12

to the broader International Relations, Political Theory and EuropeanPublic Policy literatures.

References

Bickerton, C.J. 2011. ‘Legitimacy Through Norms: The Political Limits to Europe’s Normative Power’.

In Normative power Europe. Empirical and theoretical perspectives, ed. R.G. Whiteman, 25–42.London: Palgrave.

Bjorkdahl, A. 2011. ‘Normative and Military Power in EU Peace Support Operations’. In Normativepower Europe. Empirical and theoretical perspectives, ed. R.G. Whiteman, 103–26. London:

Palgrave.Carr, E.H. 1962. The Twenty Years’ Crisis 1919–1939: An Introduction to the Study of International

Relations. 2nd ed. London: Macmillan.

Dehousse, R., ed. 2011. The Community Method. Obstinate or Obsolete? London: Palgrave.Duchene, F. 1973. ‘The European Community and the Uncertainties of Interdependence’. In A Nation

Writ Large? Foreign Policy Problems before the European Community, eds. M. Kohnstamm and

W. Hager. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Dyson, K., and A. Sepos, eds. 2010. Which Europe. Politics of Differentiated Integration. London:Palgrave.

European Commission. 2001. European Governance——A White Paper, Brussels, COM(2001) 428 final.

Galtung, J. 1973. The European Community: A Superpower in the Making. London: Allen and Unwin.

Guisan, C. 2012. A Political Theory of Identity in European Integration. London: Routledge.Haukkala, H. 2011. ‘The European Union as a Regional Normative Hegemon: The Case of European

Neighbourhood Policy’. In Normative power Europe. Empirical and theoretical perspectives, ed.R.G. Whiteman, 45–64. London: Palgrave.

Majone, G. 2011. ‘Is the Community Method Still Viable’. In The Community Method. Obstinate orObsolete?, ed. R. Dehousse, 16–40. London: Palgrave.

Manners, I. 2002. ‘Normative Power Europe: A Contradiction in Terms?’ Journal of Common MarketStudies 40, no. 2: 235–58.

Manners, I. 2011. ‘The European Union’s Normative Power: Critical Perspectives and Perspectives

on the Critical’. In Normative power Europe. Empirical and theoretical perspectives, ed.

R.G. Whiteman, 226–47. London: Palgrave.

Nye, J.S. Jr. 1990. Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power. New York: BasicBooks.

Priban, J. 2010. ‘Legal Flexibility, Governance and Differentiated Integration: On Functional Differen-

tiation of EU Law and Politics’. In Which Europe. Politics of Differentiated Integration, eds. K.Dyson and A. Sepos, 24–38. London: Palgrave.

Schuman, R. 1953. ‘Preface’. In La Communaute europeenne du charbon et de l’acier, ed. P. Reuter.Paris: Librairie generale de droit et de jurisprudence.

Seidel, K. 2010. The Process of Politics in Europe. The Rise of European Elites and SupranationalInstitutions. London: I.B. Tauris Publishers.

Stewart, E.J. 2011. ‘Mind the Normative Gap? The EUin the South Caucasus’ In Normativepower Europe. Empirical and theoretical perspectives, ed. R.G. Whiteman, 65–82. London:

Palgrave.Whiteman, R.G., ed. 2011. Normative Power Europe. Empirical and Theoretical Perspectives.

London: Palgrave.

Zeitlin, J. 2011. ‘Is the Open Method of Coordination an Alternative to the Community

Method?’ In The Community Method. Obstinate or Obsolete?, ed. R. Dehousse, 135–47.London: Palgrave.

Assem DandashlyFreie Universit€at BerlinE-mail: assemd@uvic.ca

� 2012, Assem Dandashly

426 Book review

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:50

27

Sept

embe

r 20

12