A Critical Evaluation of Normative Power in the EU - Essay Example

A critical evaluation of normative power EU. Introduction Over the latter years, there were widespread assertions that the European Union (EU) is a fundamentally new type of actor in world politics (Duchene, 1972). Despite an important role of the EU in international order, there are various assumptions and studies regarding what kind of actor the EU refer to (Gerrits, 2009: 1-2). For example, many researchers examined the EU as a “transformative” power (Leonard, 2005), a “post-modern power” (Cooper, 2003)¸ a “civilian power” (Telo, 2007), an “ethical power” (Aggestam 2008), a “soft power” (Nye, 2004), a “structuring power” (Keukeleire and MacNaughtan, 2008), or a “normative power” (Manners, 2002; Gerrits, 2009:1). It is true that Francois Duchene (1972) developed theory, which terms the Europe as a civilian power. Indeed, Duchene deliberated that Europe’s most significant specialty was its promise to favour political and economic means in the place of military initiatives. (Duchene, 1972). Footing upon the Duchene’s theory, Manners presented the notion of Normative Power of Europe (NPE) as a structure of evaluation of the role of Europe in international order (Kugel, 2012). Along with the recognition of the EU as a civilian power, relying primarily on economic rather than military means, it is widely discussed as normative power which recognizes such norms and values as human rights, democracy, sustainable development (Gerrits, 2009). There is one important concept in EU’s normative power policy which is “milieu goals”. Realization of “milieu goals” of the EU which is the policy of expansion, neighborhood and numerous programs of partnership. At the same time, “milieu goals” are embodied at the global level within the international organizations, through the global ecological policy and various ethical initiatives (Tocci, 2008). It is demonstrated in the past and present studies about existence of special European foreign policy identity and special role of EU in the international relations. Nevertheless, one should admit that the EU’s normative power faces large number critics from many experts and researchers for inability to impact on global politics worldwide. On the other hand, one cannot deny that the EU seeks to apply normative policy towards not only Eastern European countries, but also towards North Africa and the Middle East states (Zielonka, 2013). This research essay will attempt to detail the evolution of the normative power of the EU, how it is being administered, the darker side of it and further reforms to be carried over to refine the disadvantages it possess. “Normative Power and the EU” In order to determine a concept of the normative power, one should first understand what the meaning of ‘norm’ and ‘power’ is. According to Laidi (2008: 4), norms are criterions directing at codifying the demeanour of sharing collective principles and this is needed to establish shared disciplines and to stop some demeanour in the varied fields of public policy. The meaning of “power” is explained by Nye (2004:2) as the capability to influence the demeanour of others to get the desired results one aims for. In terms of these concepts, Francois Duchene (1973: 19) claimed that Europe as a union could well turn to be foremost illustration in history as a major hub of balance of authority thereby becoming in the epoch and it deterioration not as a colonised casualty, but a paradigm of a new phase in political civilisation. Thus, the European Union in specific would have an opportunity to validate the authority which can be exerted by a huge political cooperative established to wield necessarily civilian guises of authority (Duchene 1973:19). Consequently, by embracing the normative power, Europe Union is standing out as a third actor, an actor of a typical nature, which could be visualised as a “catalyst” for a new type of authority in international arena (Kugel, 2012). Therefore, Duchene discussed that the European Community could be envisaged as a model of normative power (Kugel 2012). As per Manners (2002: 242), the ‘civilising’, ‘ideational’ or ‘normative’ power of EU is associated to the fundamental traits of the organisation which impacts it to function in a normative manner. Thus, the traits of the EU on their own to illustrate that the EU is not simply advocating its own norms in an analogues style to historical empires and present day power (Sjursen 2006:242). The core element of normative power of Europe is that the EU subsists as being dissimilar to pre-existing political guises and that this specific variance influences it to function in a normative style (Manners, 2002: 242; Sjursen 2006: 236). Want of military tools is frequently referred as significant to the EUs normative power. Even with its military competences at its disposal, the EU appears to favour civilian instruments (Sjursen, 2006: 238). Manners (2002: 239) is not interested in EUs competences, but in its normative power of an ideational nature and that the EU’s capability to shape notions of normal in global affairs, which require to be given higher significance (Sjursen 2006:238). In this way, a civilian power or a normative power can be explained as one that includes three chief features: firstly, it places great significance on the use of supranational establishments; secondly, it preaches diplomatic collaboration to control international disputes, and finally, it understands the significance of economic cooperation and power to accomplish national priorities (Twitchett, 1976; Maull, 1990: 102). It is necessary to note that Manners (2002) developed the concept of Normative Power Europe (NPE). Basing on the earlier theory of civilian authority and on the EUs penchant for social and economic harmony and justifiable peace, Manners (2002) debated that the EU could be called as a normative power. It was explained by him that the EUs normative variances emanated from its historical background, political-legal constitution and hybrid precedence (Manners, 2002: 240). The theory developed by Manners banks upon the notion that the EU is established on a unique background in which nationalism was visualised as a failure, and in which the European Union acted as a unique establishment, packed with promises of a new kind of administration or governance (Manners, 2002: 240). Manners (2008: 46) contend that the EU encourages nine practical normative principles namely freedom, democracy, sustainable peace, rule of law, human rights, sustainable development, social solidarity and good governance. Besides, these nine principles, other significant concepts like proportional representation, conflict prevention, participation are also being encouraged by the EU (Manners, 2008: 46-51). The EU implements these strategies through its policies and actions in international politics mainly through attraction and persuasion instead of enforcement or armed measures (Manners, 2008). Manners (2002: 244-245) refer that the EU disseminates its norms in six manners namely information dissemination, contagion, devolution, procedural diffusion, cultural filters and overt dissemination. The two most important disseminations are devolution and contagion. Contagion which can be clarified as “virtuous example” (Coombes, 1998, 237-238) that is a practice through which the dissemination of norms originates from unplanned dissemination of thoughts and ideas from the EU to other political performers (Manners 2002:244). Manners (2002) cite the example of MERCOSUR and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), regional free trade arrangements from which the EU espoused EU integration as a replica for their own organisation. It is necessary to clarify that Mercosur is the ‘Common Market’ of some South American states. In other words, it is an economic and political treaty between Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay and Venezuela (Kolinsky, Hanson, and Lee, 2012). Hence, devolution is more deliberate, and is the process in which diffusion occurs where the EU interchanges products, aid, trade or technical services with the third parties, mainly through financial or substantive means. Thus, as per Nye (2002: x), the capability to attain what you want to aspire through attraction instead of payments or coercion. It emanates from the attractiveness of a nations’ political ideas, culture and policies (Nye 2002: x). Manners’ deliberation is supported by many chief sources of the EU as the EU’s main objectives obviously corroborate its promise to norms’ diffusion in the international politics. As per the Manners, the “constitutionalisation” of these normative cannons in the highly disputed Lisbon Reform Treaty denotes the manifestation and mopping up of practices and norms, which have been practicing for the last one and half decades (Manners, 2008: 48). EU as the International and a Regional Normative Power It is undeniable that the EU advocates a large set of norms for any nations to become the member of the EU well within its frontiers and its demeanour towards the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP). The most solid illustration is the EUs enlargement policy and the Copenhagen yardstick, which is the set of regulations needed for a nation to register as the member of the EU. In the past and present, EU endeavours to safeguard the norms of both its citizens and member states.1 The norms of fundamental freedoms, human rights, non-discrimination and liberty have been matured through case laws developed in the last four decades, including the freedom of association (Gewerkschaftbund, Massa et al [1974] ECR 917,925), rights of human dignity (Casgrande [1974] ECR 773), and non-discrimination (Klockn er-Werke AG [1962] ECR 650) (Manners, 2000: 34). The nations within the European communities share common normative values linked chiefly with market economies, liberal democracy and human rights (Hyde-Price, 1997: 23). The variance between egalitarian, hierarchical and anarchical views in international relations are both normative (how the world should be?) and positivists (how the world is) but are disseminated by different chief values (Manners, 2000: 18). Hedley Bull (1982) who viewed European Community as civilian war in 1982 when there was a Cold War between USA and erstwhile USSR. Manners (2000) argue that Bull’s assumption may have been realistic during the Cold War, but the recent changes in the international relations, one should to search for notions beyond the military and civilian authority so as to conceptualise the EUs normative power in Europe. The European Community must be a power for the international dissemination of democratic and civilian standards, or it will itself be more or less the causality of authority politics run by states mightier and more organised than EU (Duchene 1973:20). The notion of normative power can also be seen in the critical viewpoint of Johan Galtung (1973: 33), who claimed that the ‘ideological power is the power of ideas’. On the other hand, Karen Smith observed that ‘the normative dimension’ is significant since the argument on ‘civilian power’ includes fundamental preferences about the EU’s international recognition (Smith, 2000:27). One should note here, the concept of normative power of Europe is situated in the debate of the ideal force, ‘authority over opinion’, or ‘conceptual power’ and the inclination to travel beyond the debate over the state alike actors through comprehending of the EU’s recognition.(Manners 2002:239). The EU symbolises a normative authority in international relations permits us to avoid the ‘dichotomy trap’ by taking into account to which its “co-integration” which authorises the development of features of international recognition, and governance which exceed the restrictions imposed on states and international society (Manners, 2000: 30). Thus, this added element assists us to find out how a normative power Europe is varied to a military power or a civilian power. EU as a normative power is the magnitude to which international economies are domesticated into the anxieties about distributive justice. The normative power denotes the manner in which international violence is appeased into anxieties about mutual issues. (Manners 2000: 30). The notion of normative power is not only an endeavour to indicate that not only the EU is established on a normative basis but, significantly influences it to function in a normative manner in international relations. EU’s normative attribute is a value theory which setting out of the relationships which bind between them and trying to assess varied all-inclusive styles of core competitive notions (Frost, 1994:110). “Nomenclature of Normative” Norms can be classified into three groups’ namely utilitarian norms, moral norms and social norms. Regulative norms or utilitarian norms are ones which assist governments to collaborate and coordinate in order to maximise utilities and helps to attain perfect and order demeanour (Shannon 2000: 294). Regulative norms help to regulate demeanour, minimise uncertainty, by signalling anticipations, by institutionalising conventions and expose information (Spruyt, 2000: 69). Prescriptive norms or moral norms are ones, which are “complicated to rationality” or any other guise of enhancing mechanisms, it symbolises the prescriptive attribute of ‘oughtness”, which connotes to regulations that differentiate immoral actions from moral ones and demeanours (Spruyt, 2000: 67). Constructive norms or social norms are those which are constructive of actor’s interest and identity, which assist to establish new interests, actors, or categories of action, which can be construed as a matrix of constructive cannons that control the demeanours of members of a given social group (Spruyt 2000: 67). The Progression of Normative Power in the EU The broad normative power of the EU has been progressed over last five decades through a sequence of treaties, declarations, criteria, policies and conditions. It is necessary to recognize five chief principles within this ocean of laws of EU and policies, which include the acquis politique and acquis communautaire (Manners, 2000: 32). The first and foremost principle is ‘peace’ which can be traceable in the preambles to the European Coal and Steel Treaty of 1951 (Manners, 2000: 32). The treaty of European Union (TEU) of 1991 contained the second notion of liberty. The other core norms like human rights, democracy and rule of law can be found in the preamble and founding cannons of the TEU (Manners, 2000: 33). The other minor norms like social progress can be found in the preambles of TEU and Treaty establishing the European Communities (TEC). The discrimination can be found in the Title XI of the TEC (“Treaty Establishing the European Community”) , and the principle of good governance can be found in SEC (“ Securities and Exchange Commission of USA”) (2000) 154/7 (Manners 2000: 33). The new normative role of the EU in the fundamental freedom and human rights has been quizzed in those member nations with more internationalists’ orientations. The strong debate in Sweden over the Draft Charter on Fundamental Rights of the European Union and critics in Sweden have quizzed why this role is needed for EU, given the part played by the United Nations and the Council of Europe in these areas (Manners 2002: 34). One cannot deny that according to Manners (2000: 35), EUs normative power emanates from a variety of varied elements shaping norm diffusion in international relations, which symbolise a mixture of powers by relations like substantive normative authority, power by illustration like symbolic normative authority. There are six important factors for normative power (Kinvall, 1995; Whitehead, 1996; Whitman, 1998; Manners and Whitman, 1998; Manners, 2000: 35): Unplanned dissemination by EU is known as “contagion”; Declaratory and statutory communication by EU which is known as “informational”; Establishing of relationship by EU which is known as “procedural”; Physical presence of EU in third organisations and states which is known as “overt”; Cultural dissemination and political learning in organisations and in third state which is known as “cultural filter”. Furthermore, Manners emphasizes the following six illustrations assist to understand the magnitude to which the EU is a distinct kind of normative power as an international actor: ‘Normative power’ – EU does not act as a powerful state or as a state. ‘Solidarist Society’ – EU interferes due to support of individuals. ‘Non-material’ advantages – EU actions considered to be not-beneficial but always happens to be costly. ‘State Sovereignty’ – EU interrupts with immunity The Uncommon Distrusts – from the strangest partners, EU frequently witnesses international opposition as in the case of death sentence, EU’s normative power in the area of abolition of death sentence has been often protested by China, the US, Iran, Congo and Saudi Arabia (Manners, 2002:36). Europe’s espousal to normative instead of empirical It is clear, an in-depth study of the EUs pursuit of the international norm of death penalty’s freeze assists to expose the manner in which the EU signifies a normative power in global politics (Manners, 2000: 42). The normative power of EU cannot be regarded as unimportant as in the last decade, it has assisted to stimulate an abolitionist (death penalty opposition) movement, which fascinated more than 40 new nations to oppose the death penalty thereby increasing the number to 108 and by minimising the figures of retentionist states to just 87 (Amnesty International, 2000; Manners, 2000: 42-43). Likewise, the rise to power in January 2000 by Swedish Presidency seems likely to apply the role of European Union in the enforcement of normative power as its policy makes obvious – thus, Swedish government prefers especially to highlight the privilege of child, human rights for women, freedom of media, freedom of information and the fight to eliminate the death penalty (Swedish Foreign Ministry, 2000). It is possibly a paradox to observe that the continent which once swayed the globe through the physical introduction of imperialism is now started to frame global standards in normative terms (Rosecrance, 1998: 22). Whether EU’s Normative Power is really a Fruitful Mechanism? It is true that the censure of the EUs role in the crises in erstwhile Yugoslavia indicated a putative normative power and the powerlessness to act was criticised by critics as problematic as the capability to act (Gow, 1997: 48-50; Hyde-Pryce, 2006: 227; Sjursen, 2006: 239). According to Richard Young (2004), EU human rights policies are actually bank upon strategic considerations and can be described as the result of rational utility calculations. However, as per Eriksen (2006), self-interest will not knock down the normative power dispute, given that the norms disseminated may be very well regarded as legitimate and valid despite the motives of the EU for dissemination such norms are self-regarding (Sjursen 2006:239). Jorgensen and Laatikainen (2004:15) also unconvinced about the normative power debate and were of the view that EUs self-image is branded by a snooping blindness to own interest. According to Tatiana Romanova (2005), the notion of normative power travels beyond inconsistent explanations of international relations and foreign policy norms between the EU and Russian Federations. The notion of normative power negates Russia’s part of its national identity. Europeanness is a critical element of Russian identity. In the dichotomy, the West Europe versus the Russia, it can acknowledge that it is not part of the West, but it will never acknowledge with not being part of Europe. A crucial lacuna in the deliberation of perception, identity and power of Europe beyond its frontiers is the relative non-participation of its member nations. Toje (2010: 151-155) claimed that the EU is really ‘less than the sum of its parts” and the discussion on the normative power remains rather virtual where the European member states have no place in the concept. Moreover, Aggestam (2008) supposes, if one acknowledge that member states play a critical role in the empowerment of EU agency at the international level, there is also acknowledge that the European integration process is just as much pushed by instrumental reason as a normative philosophy. As per Romanova (2005), European Union wishes to network with Russia on the footing of its normative authority, but the EU member nations prolong to carry on their mutual relations on the footing of interests. Hyde-Price (2008) cited to this involuntary and normative power destabilising the division of labour between the EU member states and EU in more general way (Gerrits 2009: 7). One another more problematic feature of normative power is its association with military power, and with intimidating policies in general, particularly in the background of the EU’s enhancing endeavours to create a common defence competence. As per Leonard (2005), the tension between normative and military power may be expediently ignored. Drawing on Hyde-Price (2008), one may pay the compliment to the US security “umbrella”, acknowledging that Europe’s normative power just survives by the blessing of USA’s mighty military power. Nevertheless, according to Smith (2004), one may turndown Europe’s initiatives to come to a common EU defence initiative, since it might damagingly influence on, if not destabilise, the EUs the most significant international strength: its identity and normative power (Gerrits, 2009: 7). Currently, the EU’s normative power faces more and more difficulties because of global climate-change cooperation which is one of the main issues in the normative power. Furthermore, the Eurozone crisis also added more fuel to the fire thereby minimising Europe’s economic power in the international sphere thereby leading to the weakening of EUs normative power (Ruser, 2013). Critics argue that the EU requires adequate political “authority” which connotes that the negotiating associates should comprehend and acknowledge that they have to face union instead of individual member nations. Due to the supernatural structure of the EU, the actor characteristic of the union often changes in accordance with the issues; thus, impediments in major provinces of European accountability damage to the overall thespian ability of the EU (Ruser, 2013). The European Union claim for environmental leadership met with a challenge as the Copenhagen summit of 2009 is regarded to be a major impediment for such a claim by the EU. Even though, the acknowledgment of climate change is as one of the major challenges of the epoch, neither climate protection regime nor binding targets have been agreed in place. During the Copenhagen summit negotiation, EU was meritoriously ignored, and thus it had been compelled to accept the “Copenhagen Accord”. This type of treatment to EU can be regarded as an utter disapproval of the EU’s assertion for environmental leadership. The Copenhagen summit thus appears to indicate a development towards openly interest-mooted, hard-headed politics with security and economic interest restricting climate governance initiatives. Therfore, this kind of progress intimidates to minimise the political power of the EU on the international stage (Ruser, 2013). Protesting against the emergence of the European model, some authors insist that the history of Europe cannot be an example for all. EU is criticized for creation of isomorphism and advance of own norms under the guise of neutral (Bicchi, 2006: 287). The European standard purposes are considered as the “camouflage” that hides eurocentric cultural imperialism, and it is perceived as continuation civilizing mission of colonial times, aiming at imposing of alien values. Moreover, Europe is criticized for demonstration of the moral superiority and double standards (Igumnova, 2012: 84-85). EU normative Power in the Middle East states and North Africa Europe , in 1995, unveiled Euro-Mediterranean partnership (EMP) for the advocacy of friendly neighbourhood in the Middle Ease and in North Africa. EMP promised these nations for major stake in EUs internal market if they peruse policies like liberty , human self-respect , the rule of law , impartiality and reverence for human rights. Sadly , these initiatives have never generated the proposed normative goals. However, EU was stringent against those nations which infringed these norms like Tunisia’s Ben Ali regime. EU has a honoured custom of cherishing nations in transitions to democracy from dictatorship or military rule. Even though , the Arab world is having authoritative and celebrated heritage coupled with conspicuous cultural variance and its comparative economic backwardness, these have not disheartened the EU from establishing an aspiring normative schedule. Thus , the EU’s chief goal in the Arab nations has focussed on “ deep democracy.” Leaders from EU continuously buttressed that their normative advancement strategy always meets the Arab nations’ demands. Individual Arab nations are ready to fall in line with some demands in the areas of immigration in barter for the EUs technical and financial help. These rebates granted by EU to Arab, and African nations should be construed as EUs normative power over its southern neighbourhood. Further , the Arab spring can be regarded as the influence of EUs normative power, and it is to be observed that the recent political transition in North Africa and Middle East has its origin due to internal pressure and not due to external pressures like from EU. Thus, both Africa and Arab word are of the view that EUs normative treatise is two-faced and intended at masquerading EUs selfish objectives. EUs stand in Israel and Palestine conflict, EUs stand in Syria and Libya and EU joining with USA in carnages in Iraq made the Arab world and African nations to doubt about the true meaning of EU normative power. Conclusion In summary, the broad normative power of the EU has been progressed over last five decades through a sequence of treaties, statements, standards, strategies and conditions. Moreover, normative power of the EU is mainly executed through attraction and persuasion instead of coercive or military means. NPE emanates from the attractiveness of a nations’ political ideas, culture and policies. NPE places great significance on the use of supranational establishments, it preaches diplomatic collaboration to control international disputes, and it understands the significance of economic cooperation and power to accomplish national priorities (Manners 2002 :242). In the international arena, the EU has been often known as a “normative power” which means that it uses influence by employing ‘softer’ mechanisms like prominent by example. Thus, EUs normative power can be said to be an expression of Euro-centric cultural imperialism (Sjursen, 2006: 248). Normative power of Europe is a concept whose legitimating and evaluating functions are problematic to differentiate; hence, a concept that is espoused by many within, despite acknowledged by few, outside the Europe. The recent incidents like the Germany’s subsidised solar industry accusing Chinese’ competitors with price-dumping may indicate the start of ever increasingly acute rivalry. Furthermore, the recent success in Germany’s negotiation with China to make sure the prevalence of fair price business competition, particularly in solar panel markets challenges the EUs “normative power” concept and may indicate a total change in global relations from spotlighting on the normative to the economic features of environmental policies (Ruser, 2013). On the other hand, there are disagreement among member nations of the EU like Sweden over the Draft Charter on Fundamental Rights of the European Union and critics in Sweden have quizzed why this role is needed for the EU, given the part played by the United Nations and the Council of Europe in these areas. The European Union claim for environmental leadership met with a challenge as the Copenhagen summit of 2009 is regarded to be a major impediment for such a claim by the EU. Critics argue that EU requires adequate political “authority” which connotes that the negotiating associates should comprehend and acknowledge that they have to face union instead of individual member nations (Manners 2000:34) Eventually, one can conclude that it is possible visualise the existence of vagueness of analysing the EU from one specific theoretical lens, its multi-aspects normative grounds and value –oriented, occasionally with some opposing views and policy, which only describe the specialty and distinctiveness of the EU as a normative power in international relations. As critics cite out number of contradictions to the EUs claim as a normative power, further more research is needed on the subject as it is leaving us with the bunch of questions to be answered (Smith 2000:13). Bibliography Aggestam, L. (2008). ‘Introduction: Ethical Power Europe?.’ International Affairs, 84 (1): 1-11. [Online] Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2346.2008.00685.x/full [Accessed 15 July 2014]; Amnesty International. (2000). ‘The Death Penalty: Questions and Answers’. [Online] Available at: http://www.web.amnesty.org/rmp/dplibrary.nsf/ [Accessed 10 July 2014]; Bicchi F. (2006). ‘Our Size Fits All”: Normative Power Europe and the Mediterranean’. Journal of European Public Policy, 13 (2), 286–303; Bull, H. (1982). ‘Civilian power Europe: a contradiction in terms?’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 21 (2), 149-170; Coombes, David. (1998). ‘Leading by virtuous example: European policy for overseas development’, in Bill MacSweeney. (ed.) Moral Issues in International Affairs: Problems of European Integration. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan, 221-45; Cooper, R. (2003), The Breaking of Nations: Order and Chaos in the Twenty-First Century. London: Atlantic Books; Duchêne, Francois. (1972). ‘Europe’s Role in World Peace’, in Richard Mayne. (ed.), Europe Tomorrow: Sixteen Europeans Look Ahead, London: Fontana, 32-47; Eriksen, E.O. (2006). ‘The EU – a cosmopolitan polity?’. Journal of European Public Policy, 13 (2), 252-269; Frost, M. (1994). The Role of Normative Theory in IR. Millennium, 23 (1), 109-118; Galtung, J. (1973). The European Community: A Superpower in the Making. London: Allen & Unwin; Gerrits, A. (2009). Normative Power Europe in a Changing World: A Discussion. Clingendael: Netherland Institute of International Relations; Gow, J. (1997). The Triumph of the Lack of Will. International Diplomacy and the Yugoslav War. London: Hurst & Company; Hyde-Price, A. (2006). ‘Normative” Power Europe: A Realist Critique’. Journal of European Public Policy, 13 (2), 217–234; Hyde-Price, Adrian (1996). ‘The New Pattern of International Relations in Europe’, in Alice Landau and Richard Whitman. (eds.), Rethinking the European Union: Institutions, Interests and Identities. New York: St. Martins Press; Hyde-Price, A. ‘A ‘tragic actor’? A realist perspective on ‘ethical power Europe’’. International Affairs, 84 (1) (2008): 29-44; Igumnova, L.O. (2012). ‘Goals and motives of the European Union as a norm entrepreneur’. Tomsk State University Journal of History, 1 (17). [Online] Available at: http://journals.tsu.ru/history/en/&journal_page=archive&id=423&article_id=6365 [Accessed 21 July 2014]; Jørgensen, K.E. and Laatikainen, K.V. (2004) ‘The EU and the UN: multilateralism in a new key?’. Paper presented at the Second Pan-European Conference on EU Politics, ‘Implications of a Wider Europe: Politics, Institutions and Diversity’, Bologna, 24–26 June; Keukeleire, S. and MacNaughtan, J. (2008), The foreign policy of the European Union. New York: Palgrave Macmillan; Kinnvall, C. (1995). Cultural Diffusion and Political Learning: The Democratization of China. Lund: Studentlitteratur; Klonsky, J., Hanson, S., and Lee, B. (31 July 2012) ‘Mercosur: South Americas Fractious Trade Bloc’. Council on Foreign Relations. [Online] Available at: http://www.cfr.org/trade/mercosur-south-americas-fractious-trade-bloc/p12762 [Accessed 21 July 2014]; Kugel, L. (2012). ‘Is the European Union a Normative Power?’ [Online] Available at: http://www.e-ir.info/2012/04/15/is-the-european-union-a-normative-power/. [Accessed 8 July 2014]; Laidi, Zaki. (2008). ‘European Preferences and their Reception’, in Laidi, Zaki. (ed.) EU Foreign Policy in a Globalized World: Normative Power and Prefernces. London; Palgrave Macmillan; Leonard, M. (2005). Why Europe will run the 21st century. New York: Public Affairs; Manners, I.J. and Whitman, R.G. (1998). ‘Towards identifying the international identity of the European union: A framework for analysis of the EUs network of relationships ‘, Journal of European Integration, 21 (3) (1998), 231-249; Manners, I. (2000). Normative Power Europe: A Contradiction in Terms?. Copenhagen Peace Research Institute. [Online] Available at: http://www.rucsdigitaleprojektbibliotek.dk/handle/1800/8930 [Accessed 11 July 2014]; Manners, I. (2002). ‘Normative Power Europe: A Contradiction in Terms?’. Journal of Common Market Studies, 40 (2), 235–258; Manners, I. (2006). ‘Normative power Europe reconsidered: beyond the crossroads Journal of European Public Policy’. 13 (2), 182–199; Manners, I. (2008). ‘The Normative Ethics of the European Union’. International affairs, 84 (1), 65-80; Maull, H. (1990). Germany and Japan: the New Civilian Powers. Foreign Affairs, 65 (5), 91-106; Nye, J. (2002). The Paradox of American Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press; Nye, J. (2004). Soft Power: The Means to Succes in World Politics. New York: PublicAffairs; Rosecrance, R. (1998). The European Union: A New Type of International Actor in Jan Zielonka Paradoxes of European Foreign Policy. The Hague: Kluwer Law International; Romanova, T. (2005). European Union-Russian legal Approximation As the Basis for the Common European Economic Space: 10 Years after Signing of Partnership and cooperation Agreement, 19, (St. Petersburg: European Studies Library); Ruser, A. (2013). ‘Setbacks in Climate Change Negotiations may Signal Dire Straits for “normative power Europe”. [online] Available at: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2013/10/03/setbacks-in-climate-change-negotiations-may-signal-dire-straits-for-normative-power-europe/ [Accessed 10 July 2014]; Shannon , V. (2000). ‘Norms are What States Make of Them.The Political Psychology of Norm Violation’. International Studies Quarterly 44 (2), 293-316; Sjursen, H. (2006). ‘The EU as a Normative Power: How can this be?’. Journal of European Public Policy, 13 (2), 235–251; Sjursen, H. (2006). ‘What kind of power?’. Journal of European Public Policy 13 (2) 169–181; Smith, K. (2000). ‘The End of Civilian Power EU: A Welcome Demise or Cause for Concern?’. The International Spectator, 23 (2), 11-28; Spruyt, H. (2000). The End of Empire and the Extension of the Westphalian System: The Normative Basis of the Modern State Order. International Studies Review, 2 (2), 65-92; Swedish Foreign Ministry. (2000). ‘Program for Sweden’s Presidency of the EUs Council of Ministers’. [Online] available at: http://www.utrikes.regeringen.se/eu/pdf/ordfor/masterop_eng.pdf [Accessed at 10 July 2014]; Tocci N. (2008). ‘Profiling Normative Foreign Policy: The European Union and its Global Partners’, in Tochi N. Who Is a Normative Foreign Policy Actor? The European Union and its Global Partners. (Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies), 1–23; Toje, A. (2010) The European Union as a Small Power: After the Post-Cold War. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; Twitchett, K. (1979). Europe and the World: the external relations of the Common Market. New York: St Martin’s Press; Whitehead, L. (1996). The International Dimension of Democratization: Europe and the Americas. Oxford: Oxford University Press; Whitman, R. (1998). From Civilian Power to Superpower? The International Identity of the European Union. Basingstoke: Macmillan; Youngs, R. (2004). ‘Normative dynamics and strategic interests in the EU’s external identity’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 42 (2), 415-435; Zielonka, J. (2013). ‘Europe’s new civilizing missions: the EUs normative power discourse’. Journal of Political Ideologies, 18 (1), 35-55. Read More