Concept Of Normative Power

2. CONCEPTUAL AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

2.1. THE EUROPEAN UNION: ONE OF WHAT KIND?

As stated in the introduction (pages 6-7), a cacophony of adjuncts has been used to conceptualize the EU. Normative Power has undoubtedly become the most popular concept; one could even speak of a “neo-normative turn in theorizing the EU’s international presence” (Whitman 2013, 171). But what does normative power mean? How does normative power differ from other concepts, such as “civilian”, “civilizing”, “soft”, “postmodern” or “ethical” power? And how can we spot a normative power when we see one? Unfortunately, it is impossible to provide a simple and definite answer to these questions. Like Helene Sjursen, I failed to find “a single consistent definition

Historically, the original debate can be situated “within the period of détente and [the 1973] oil crisis” (Manners and Diez 2007, 177). Initially, Civilian Power (CP) was a vague concept, which possibly explains why the concept became so popular (Orbie 2006, 123-124). An academic debate erupted where scholars attempted to define CPE. According to Duchêne, the goal of CPE is to “bring to international problems the sense of common responsibility and structures of contractual politics” (1973, 19-20). In other words, by introducing pluralist rules, the Hobbesian international system would be transformed into a Grotian international society (Wichmann 2010,

Some of the opponents of militarization concluded that the EU could no longer be classified as a CP (e.g. K. Smith 2005a). Others, however, argued that a CP could employ (limited) military means to reach civilian goals (Maull 2000; Stavridis 2001; Whitman 2002). This debate gave birth to the (in)famous Normative Power concept.

2.1.2. NORMATIVE POWER EUROPE?

“What I am suggesting here is that the European Union represents neither a civilian power of a (sic) intergovernmental nature utilizing economic tools and international diplomacy, nor a military power of a supranational nature using armed force and international intervention, but a normative power of a (sic) ideational nature characterized by common principles and a willingness to disregard notions of ‘state’ or ‘international’”

Ian Manners (2001, 7).

According to Ian Manners, the civilian-military debate was too state-centric: both “notions” are characterized by an “unhealthy concentration on how much like a state the EU looks” (2002, 239). Instead, scholars ought to focus on “the power of ideas and norms rather than the power of empirical force – in other words the role of normative power” (ibid.,