The Changing Nature of International Institutions in Europe: The Challenge of the European Union

Thomas Diez, Ian Manners, Richard Whitman

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Resumé

The European Union is often compared to other political systems in order to better understand its basic features and how they structure politics. This article argues that this focus on comparative politics instils a domestic bias into the study of the EU, which also ignores the impact of enlargement. To remedy this, a comparison is suggested between the order of the EU as a regional international society and the order of the traditional, global international society as analysed by the English School of International Relations, and in particular by Hedley Bull. It is argued that the primary goal of the international order of the society of states, the preservation of states as its fundamental units, has been replaced by the goal of the preservation of peace in Europe. Consequently, the five core institutions of international order identified by Bull (balance of power, international law, diplomacy, war and great powers) have been modified or replaced. The new institutions of the European order are identified as the pooling of sovereignty, the acquis communautaire, multi‐managerialism, pacific democracy, member state coalitions and multiperspectivity. These sustain and enlarge a regional international society that not only combines international and domestic elements, but transforms politics to such an extent that it should better be called a multiperspectival society, confounding Bull’s expectation that the European integration will either lead to a European state or falter. This has potential ramifications for the organisation of international society at large, although whether the transformative potential of the EU can be realised remains to be seen, and will be decided above all in the EU’s treatment of its own borders.
OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftJournal of European Integration
Vol/bind33
Udgave nummer2
Sider (fra-til)117-138
Antal sider21
ISSN0703-6337
DOI
StatusUdgivet - 2011

Emneord

    Citer dette

    Diez, Thomas ; Manners, Ian ; Whitman, Richard. / The Changing Nature of International Institutions in Europe : The Challenge of the European Union. I: Journal of European Integration. 2011 ; Bind 33, Nr. 2. s. 117-138.
    @article{a95253e92e8944d886bdea536003ffac,
    title = "The Changing Nature of International Institutions in Europe: The Challenge of the European Union",
    abstract = "The European Union is often compared to other political systems in order to better understand its basic features and how they structure politics. This article argues that this focus on comparative politics instils a domestic bias into the study of the EU, which also ignores the impact of enlargement. To remedy this, a comparison is suggested between the order of the EU as a regional international society and the order of the traditional, global international society as analysed by the English School of International Relations, and in particular by Hedley Bull. It is argued that the primary goal of the international order of the society of states, the preservation of states as its fundamental units, has been replaced by the goal of the preservation of peace in Europe. Consequently, the five core institutions of international order identified by Bull (balance of power, international law, diplomacy, war and great powers) have been modified or replaced. The new institutions of the European order are identified as the pooling of sovereignty, the acquis communautaire, multilevel multilateralism, pacific democracy, member state coalitions and multiperspectivity. These sustain and enlarge a regional international society that not only combines international and domestic elements, but transforms politics to such an extent that it should better be called a multiperspectival society, confounding Bull’s expectation that the European integration will either lead to a European state or falter. This has potential ramifications for the organisation of international society at large, although whether the transformative potential of the EU can be realised remains to be seen, and will be decided above all in the EU’s treatment of its own borders.",
    keywords = "European Union, institutions, international society, multiperspectival society",
    author = "Thomas Diez and Ian Manners and Richard Whitman",
    note = "THOMAS DIEZ*, IAN MANNERS** & RICHARD G. WHITMAN*** *Institute for Political Science, University of T{\"u}bingham, Germany; **Institute of Society and Globalisation, Roskilde University, Denmark; ***Department of Modern Languages and European Studies, University of Bath, UK",
    year = "2011",
    doi = "10.1080/07036337.2011.543522",
    language = "English",
    volume = "33",
    pages = "117--138",
    journal = "Journal of European Integration",
    issn = "0703-6337",
    publisher = "Taylor & Francis",
    number = "2",

    }

    The Changing Nature of International Institutions in Europe : The Challenge of the European Union. / Diez, Thomas; Manners, Ian; Whitman, Richard.

    I: Journal of European Integration, Bind 33, Nr. 2, 2011, s. 117-138.

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - The Changing Nature of International Institutions in Europe

    T2 - The Challenge of the European Union

    AU - Diez, Thomas

    AU - Manners, Ian

    AU - Whitman, Richard

    N1 - THOMAS DIEZ*, IAN MANNERS** & RICHARD G. WHITMAN*** *Institute for Political Science, University of Tübingham, Germany; **Institute of Society and Globalisation, Roskilde University, Denmark; ***Department of Modern Languages and European Studies, University of Bath, UK

    PY - 2011

    Y1 - 2011

    N2 - The European Union is often compared to other political systems in order to better understand its basic features and how they structure politics. This article argues that this focus on comparative politics instils a domestic bias into the study of the EU, which also ignores the impact of enlargement. To remedy this, a comparison is suggested between the order of the EU as a regional international society and the order of the traditional, global international society as analysed by the English School of International Relations, and in particular by Hedley Bull. It is argued that the primary goal of the international order of the society of states, the preservation of states as its fundamental units, has been replaced by the goal of the preservation of peace in Europe. Consequently, the five core institutions of international order identified by Bull (balance of power, international law, diplomacy, war and great powers) have been modified or replaced. The new institutions of the European order are identified as the pooling of sovereignty, the acquis communautaire, multilevel multilateralism, pacific democracy, member state coalitions and multiperspectivity. These sustain and enlarge a regional international society that not only combines international and domestic elements, but transforms politics to such an extent that it should better be called a multiperspectival society, confounding Bull’s expectation that the European integration will either lead to a European state or falter. This has potential ramifications for the organisation of international society at large, although whether the transformative potential of the EU can be realised remains to be seen, and will be decided above all in the EU’s treatment of its own borders.

    AB - The European Union is often compared to other political systems in order to better understand its basic features and how they structure politics. This article argues that this focus on comparative politics instils a domestic bias into the study of the EU, which also ignores the impact of enlargement. To remedy this, a comparison is suggested between the order of the EU as a regional international society and the order of the traditional, global international society as analysed by the English School of International Relations, and in particular by Hedley Bull. It is argued that the primary goal of the international order of the society of states, the preservation of states as its fundamental units, has been replaced by the goal of the preservation of peace in Europe. Consequently, the five core institutions of international order identified by Bull (balance of power, international law, diplomacy, war and great powers) have been modified or replaced. The new institutions of the European order are identified as the pooling of sovereignty, the acquis communautaire, multilevel multilateralism, pacific democracy, member state coalitions and multiperspectivity. These sustain and enlarge a regional international society that not only combines international and domestic elements, but transforms politics to such an extent that it should better be called a multiperspectival society, confounding Bull’s expectation that the European integration will either lead to a European state or falter. This has potential ramifications for the organisation of international society at large, although whether the transformative potential of the EU can be realised remains to be seen, and will be decided above all in the EU’s treatment of its own borders.

    KW - European Union

    KW - institutions

    KW - international society

    KW - multiperspectival society

    U2 - 10.1080/07036337.2011.543522

    DO - 10.1080/07036337.2011.543522

    M3 - Journal article

    VL - 33

    SP - 117

    EP - 138

    JO - Journal of European Integration

    JF - Journal of European Integration

    SN - 0703-6337

    IS - 2

    ER -