Suchergebnisse

What characterizes the EU today is that it is not only a multi-level governance system, but also a multi-context system. The making of Europe does not just take place on different levels within the European political framework, executed by different groups of actors or institutions. Rather, it also happens in different and distinguishable social contexts - distinct functional, historical, and local frameworks of reasoning and action - that political science alone cannot sufficiently analyze with conventional and generalizing models of explanation. The European law is such a context, and it should be perceived as a self-contained sphere of argument and action that generates impetus for integration. Therefore, the role of the European Court of Justice in the process of integration may only be adequately captured by examining European law as an independent space of reasoning and action.

Abstract
Promoting peace and security in Europe, its neighbourhood, and in the world, is at the heart of how the European Union (EU) understands itself and its global political role. In recent years, however, both the tangible role of the EU in fostering peace beyond its borders and the Union's famous image as a 'normative power' have met substantial challenges. The challenges, which fundamentally alter the context in which the EU supports peace and security, include EU-internal factors, such as democratic backsliding in some member states, electoral success of populist far right parties, or disagreements over migration. They also include external factors, notably the unravelling transatlantic relationship under President Trump or the rise of China in the peace and security domain. This article introduces the special issue 'Weathering the Storm? The EU as a Global Peace and Security Actor in Turbulent Times'. It first discusses the numerous tests the EU faces in fostering peace beyond its borders, and how past research has evaluated and interpreted the effect of these challenges on EU foreign policy. It then outlines two interrelated shortcomings of past research: an 'EU navel-gazing' and focus on how EU policies come into being in Brussels, rather than studying how these policies are implemented 'on the ground' – coupled with a lack of interdisciplinary conceptual and empirical debate between peace and conflict research and European Studies. Finally, it discusses how the articles that make up this special issue help to address these shortcomings and how they contribute to the current trend in blurring the lines between domestic and international politics.

Abstract
One of the EU's key foreign policy objectives is to promote the values enshrined in its treaties, such as democracy, the rule of law and human rights. The EU's self-conception of being a "rule maker" rather than a "rule taker" in international relations, however, is increasingly contested both by internal (e.g., democratic backsliding or a general tendency towards nationalist politics) as well as external challenges (e.g., the return of bilateralism or the rise of new actors). China's Belt and Road Initiative (bri) is often understood as the most serious opposition on the external side to the EU's model of international cooperation and global governance, in that it promotes a pragmatic instead of a norm-based approach, at least at first glance. The Chinese foreign policy model that the bri reflects, explicitly favours open membership, flexibility and economic gains over multilateral institutions and norm-based action. By drawing on original interviews and analysing central policy documents, this article shows how the juxtaposition of normativity and pragmatism has shaped the political and academic discourse on the EU's foreign policy and idea of global governance. It argues that this duality of normativity versus pragmatism is misleading because it overlooks the fact that the EU and China both (a) constitute the framework for a certain practice and (b) are rooted in practice. Drawing on Kagan's cultural thesis of foreign policy, it questions the real meaning of this juxtaposition and applies a practice-based reading to the EU's and China's modes of foreign policy making. The article further shows that scrutinising foreign policy through the prism of practice can provide a more context-sensitive and encompassing understanding of how the EU and China construct their foreign policies as well as of possible conflicts that arise from them.

This article examines how states may be inclined to adapt to the policy goals of powerful economic partner states in acts of 'anticipatory conformity' or by adjusting their 'common' policy goals. It builds on two classical theoretical bases—the concept of economic statecraft and Hirschmanesque effects—to explore how economic power may be translated into far-reaching effects on other states' behaviour without a clear goal or objective being proclaimed or even set by the economically powerful state. Our empirical findings suggest that the European Union still has an unparalleled influence on member states, and China's growing economic presence in Europe alone—especially in the framework of the Belt and Road Initiative—is insufficient to influence member states' politics.