See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/291361750

Introduction: Theorizing European foreign policy

Chapter · June 2015

DOI: 10.4135/9781473915190.n5

CITATIONS READS

2 377

1 author:

Knud Erik Jørgensen

Aarhus University
142 PUBLICATIONS   1,423 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

A comprehensive guide to research on European foreign policy View project

Trends in European International Relations Theory - a new book series View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Knud Erik Jørgensen on 19 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Part II

Theoretical Perspectives

BK-SAGE-JORGENSEN_ETAL-150072-Chp05.indd 73 3/14/2015 3:39:08 PM

BK-SAGE-JORGENSEN_ETAL-150072-Chp05.indd 74 3/14/2015 3:39:08 PM

Theorizing European
Foreign Policy
If the endeavour is rigorous theory-informed
analysis rather than descriptive study then we
need theories to guide us through the piles of
data that call for our attention but do not speak
for themselves. Moreover, we need guidance
vis-à-vis the continuous flow of media reports
that highlight spectacular events but not nec-
essarily the grey behind-the-scenes processes.
We should acknowledge the fact that the same
empirical event can be interpreted in different
ways and that theories help us identify rele-
vant perspectives. We also need theories to
identify causal mechanisms, strategies for
interpreting essentially contested concepts
(and other concepts) and ways to understand
the normative superstructure of social reality,
including the social reality of European for-
eign policy. Finally, we need to theorize, i.e.
crystallize research findings, and thus gener-
ate an acquis of knowledge that is slightly
more abstract than first impressions, intuitive
understandings and common wisdom.
However, the field of study at hand –
(European) foreign policy – is not exactly
BK-SAGE-JORGENSEN_ETAL-150072-Chp05.indd 75
5
Knud Erik Jørgensen
known for indulging in theorizing or theory-
informed analysis (Carlsnaes 2002, 2007).
Research on case specifics, the employment
of official conceptualizations and a focus on
current (policy) affairs is much more com-
mon. The outcome is an abundance of empir-
ical studies, by nature volatile and bound
to enjoy a relatively short life on the shelf.
The process of summarizing, synthesizing
and accumulating knowledge tends not to
be prioritized, something that makes the dis-
tinction between knowledge of consequence
and knowledge of the day highly relevant.
The former is cumulative and has enduring
significance, whereas the latter is quickly
forgotten. Some scholars make resistance to
theorizing a virtue, arguing that the EU is sui
generis and thus not theorizable.
To transcend this state of affairs requires
theoretical perspectives. In Part II of the
Handbook the authors introduce and exam-
ine a broad palette of literature representing
the eight main theoretical perspectives, each
comprising a very rich repertoire of specific,
3/14/2015 3:39:10 PM
 76 The SAGE Handbook of European Foreign Policy

applicable theories, built purposefully to
guide empirical inquiry. Thus the purpose
of the following chapters is twofold: briefly
introducing available theories, thereby pre-
senting an account of the state of the art of the-
orizing, and critically reviewing the studies in
which theories have been applied and knowl-
edge about European foreign affairs has been
produced, potentially enriching theoretical
knowledge. In this fashion the chapters dem-
onstrate both the value of theory-informed
analysis and highlight cumulative knowledge
and progress in theory-informed research on
European foreign policy.
Disciplinary homes
In rough terms the eight theoretical perspec-
tives have three main disciplinary homes (see
Figure 5.1), although shared features and
intertwining attributes suggest less than
clear-cut lines of demarcation.
Academic disciplines can be defined in
various ways. In the present context I draw
on Helen Turton’s thought-provoking defini-
tion, ‘What constitutes a discipline… are the
institutions, discourses, professionalization
and the identity of academics who self-
identify as belonging to a given discipline’
(Turton 2013: 236). According to this defini-
tion, Political Science, European Studies and
International Relations can all be considered
disciplines within the broader frameworks of
either the social sciences or the humanities.
In the following brief account the eight theo-
retical perspectives are situated in and around
the three disciplines.
Being substantive theoretical traditions,
both liberalism and realism are most at home in
International Relations (Zacker and Matthew
1995; Donnelly 2000), though liberalism also
has a home or an annex in European Studies.
By contrast, realism is basically a stranger to
European Studies and instead is at home in
great-power politics. Constructivism is fore-
most characterized by specific methodologi-
cal commitments and can thus be mixed with
a range of, if not all, substantive international
theory traditions. The nature of constructiv-
ism makes it essentially transdisciplinary but,
in the present context, it makes sense to claim
that constructivism emerged in International
Relations (Onuf 1989; Wendt 1992) and
was subsequently imported to European
Studies (Christiansen et al. 2001; Checkel
2007). Most theories of European integration,

International Relations European Studies

4
1 2

6 5

Political Science

Figure 5.1 Disciplinary homes of theories: International Relations, European Studies

and Political Science

BK-SAGE-JORGENSEN_ETAL-150072-Chp05.indd 76 3/14/2015 3:39:12 PM

 Theorizing European Foreign Policy
including intergovernmentalism, constitute a
branch of liberal international theory and are
thus at home in International Relations yet at
the same time they function as a theoretical
cornerstone of European Studies (Haas 1958,
1964, 2001). The Europeanization literature is
a typical product of European Studies but the
key line of argument is well known in both
Political Science and International Relations.
Critical Theory is first and foremost social
theory, spanning International Relations,
Political Science and European Studies
(Manners 2007), enjoying perhaps the stron-
gest impact on the former. Normative theo-
ries have prompted a distinct literature within
European Studies, yet the theories are mainly
situated in the borderland between political
theory (Political Science) and International
Political Theory (IR). Finally, new institutional
theories have their primary home in Political
Science, yet have also a strong presence in
International Relations and some existence
in European Studies. Thus the characteristics
and limits of functionalist approaches within
Political Science apply equally to functional-
ist approaches within the two other disciplines
(see March and Olsen 1989).
The value of
theory-informed analysis
Theory-informed inquiry has at least three
main advantages. First, theory is an eminent
tool to counter seemingly pure and innocent
empirical studies that on closer inspection
are always loaded with implicit theoretical
assumptions. The authors of these studies
pretend to be or are professionally shy and
therefore refuse to make their (theoretical)
assumptions explicit. In this fashion authors
avoid explicit engagements in theorizing and
make it more difficult for others to discuss
the appropriateness or value of the assump-
tions they make. In the words of Stanley
Hoffmann and Robert Keohane, ‘attempts to
avoid theory not only miss interesting ques-
tions but rely implicitly on a framework for
BK-SAGE-JORGENSEN_ETAL-150072-Chp05.indd 77
77
analysis that remains unexamined precisely
because it is implicit’ (1990: 284). It seems
to me that research on European foreign
policy in this fashion has missed many inter-
esting and relevant questions. The implica-
tion is that while theory-informed analysis in
principle can be most useful for policymak-
ing it has been close to irrelevant.
Second, theory challenges method-driven
research in which analysis is reduced to sim-
plistic testing of de-contextualized hypotheses
by means of arranging encounters between a
priori preferred methods/research techniques
and already existing data sets. As conceptual
understandings often are somewhat naïve the
outcome is under-conceptualized analysis
and über-powered procedures for testing the
hypotheses. The predictable outcome is that
we will know more and more about less and
less and that the aim of establishing an aca-
demic acquis of knowledge has been more or
less abandoned (Mearsheimer and Walt 2013).
Third, theories are excellent tools to ask
inconveniently critical questions. The problem
is not that skilled policymakers, including pol-
icymakers in the EU, accompany policies with
their reasons for action – presenting a ratio-
nale, expressed in discourses of policy – and,
that they thereby employ strategies of legiti-
mization. The problem is analysts taking these
rationales at face value, uncritically adopting
the discourses of policy or taking on the strate-
gies policymakers have invented to legitimize
policy choices. Theories can help analysts to
ask critical questions that can be answered by
means of structured, focused, rigorous analy-
sis, thus enabling a certain distance between
the observer and the observed and, moreover,
providing knowledge that adds value to policy
analysis. Obviously, the distance can become
too big, making not only the image of the
ivory tower (academics) relevant but also the
notion of evidence-free politics (policymak-
ers). In any case, the appropriate balance
between academic and policy relevance is an
issue that is worth addressing (Wallace 1996;
Smith 1997). However, the field of European
foreign policy is a long way from running the
risk of ivory-towering.
3/14/2015 3:39:12 PM
 78 The SAGE Handbook of European Foreign Policy
To every solution there is a problem and
the employment of theory is not an excep-
tion. Theorizing can easily become a double-
edged sword. While theories can be seen as
coloured lenses through which we observe
the world around us, it is also the case that if
we look at European foreign policy through
some of the lenses it is unlikely we will see
anything. The entire field is denied existence
or significance or claimed to be epiphenom-
enal to other factors of superior explanatory
power. Realists tend to deny the existence
of European foreign policy or explain it by
reference to the interests of the three larger
member states or, alternatively, explain it by
means of the single operational factor that is
available in the (neo-)realist theoretical rep-
ertoire: balance-of-power logics (Eilstrup
Sangiovanni 2003; but see Posen 2004).
Furthermore, the process of making policy
hinges on two-way interactions between
member states (governments) and the EU.
However, many theories do not allow such
complexity and downplay one of the direc-
tions of impact. Theories of multi-level
governance merely provide typologies, and
intergovernmentalism has difficulties seeing
the wood (EU) for the trees (member states’
governments). Finally, it is a general problem
that simplification unavoidably causes bias.
Thus, it is well known that analytical dis-
tinctions are bound to downplay differences
within a category and exaggerate differences
between categories.
Situating theoretical
perspectives
The task of situating theoretical perspectives
implies a process that provides overview,
connects theoretical endeavours, including
their methodological underpinnings, and
enables two-way communication between
research in different fields of study, i.e. both
‘draws on’ and ‘feeds back to’, e.g. rational
institutionalism in Political Science. Rather
than situate all the theoretical perspectives,
BK-SAGE-JORGENSEN_ETAL-150072-Chp05.indd 78
I will use the Europeanization literature as an
illustrative example.
Research on processes of Europeanization
has evolved within three clusters of schol-
arship. The first cluster of Europeanization
studies focuses on the degree to which com-
petences and capacities are elevated from the
national to the European level, eventually
constituting a Euro polity both generally and
within the area of foreign relations. As ever
new issue areas are added to the policy port-
folio and old issues often require reproduc-
tion; it is a cluster that continuously expands.
The second cluster includes contributions
that come in different shades of outside-in
perspectives, thus representing a European
Studies version of the second-image-reversed
perspective within IR (Gourevitch 1978; see
also Costa and Jørgensen 2012). The second
cluster of Europeanization studies examines
the different ways in which the establishment
of a Euro polity has an impact on national pol-
icymaking processes and domestic (national)
institutions. Within this cluster there are
two main schools of thought. The conver-
gence school examines the conditions under
which convergence of diverse national for-
eign policies is expected, whereas the diver-
sity school examines the conditions under
which national actors have considerable
room for manoeuvre, thus expecting diverse
responses to common pressures from above.
Such causal processes seem to characterize
foreign policy as much as other public poli-
cies (Tonra 2001), but the Europeanization
of foreign policy has been much less studied
than the Europeanization of other public poli-
cies, leaving an abundance of space for rich
speculation about the enduring nature of pure
national foreign policies untainted by any
European impulse.
In the third cluster of Europeanization
studies analysts examine accession
Europeanization, i.e. the degree to which
and the conditions under which candidate
countries through their preparations for
membership become Europeanized (Güney
and Tekin 2014). Other studies extend the
research agenda even further by focusing
3/14/2015 3:39:12 PM
 Theorizing European Foreign Policy
on the Europeanization of countries on the
European Neighbourhood Policy horizon.
Given that both enlargement and neigh-
bourhood policies belong to the portfolio of
European foreign policies, studies within the
third cluster contribute directly to our under-
standing of European foreign policy, includ-
ing the interplays between European and
national foreign policy.
Uneven emphases
While the collection of eight theoretical per-
spectives suggests a pluralist research com-
munity, the dice are somewhat loaded. It is
widely acknowledged that most theories of
European integration constitute a branch of
the liberal international theory tradition
(Katzenstein, et al. 1998; Rosamond 2001;
Cini and Bourne 2006). It is the Why
Cooperate? IR literature applied to the
dynamics of European integration and spiced
up with European specifics. However,
European-integration theories predominantly
trade in integration but stop short of signifi-
cantly contributing to knowledge of common
European foreign policies. Instead, the theo-
ries are Eurocentric and inform studies of
national foreign policies on Europe (Keohane
et al. 1993). In a similar vein, liberal scholars
cherish their European dream come true but
are somewhat reluctant to engage in research
on European foreign policy – that is, to ele-
vate the level of analysis from integration
among European states to interaction between
Europe and the world. Moreover, as high-
lighted above, the Europeanization literature
is a regional version of the wider international
second-image-reversed approach (Gourevitch
1978), questioning the key state centric axiom
that a state is a state is a state. Similarly, the
claim that norms matter, as in Normative
Power Europe (Manners 2002), is shared by
liberal theorists, and the overlap of the two
strands seems to be considerable. The prede-
cessor of normative power Europe, Civilian
Power Europe (Duchêne 1972), represents
BK-SAGE-JORGENSEN_ETAL-150072-Chp05.indd 79
79
similarly well known liberal arguments.
Finally, constructivism and several other
post-positivist perspectives might be distinct
in their metatheoretical commitments, but in
terms of substance they are often mixed with
liberal substantive assumptions, meaning the
outcome is liberal studies by another meth-
odological name and equipped with different
methodological underpinnings. Realist cri-
tiques of constructivism tend by default to
criticize the liberal components, without
paying too much attention to the constructiv-
ist methodological commitments.
Hence the seemingly pluralist field of
study seems on closer inspection to be char-
acterized by a certain degree of liberal hege-
mony. It seems to me that this state of affairs
is caused by a grand-scale selection bias.
Analysts situated within other (contending)
theoretical perspectives, especially theories
within the realist and English School tradi-
tions, have never gained any firm analytical
ground. They have therefore been overtaken
by events or opted out, either because they
consider it a waste of time to analyse a
European foreign policy they claim does not
exist or they consider Europe too hard a case
for their preferred theoretical perspective.1
No matter the reasons for these absences,
the relative lack of contending perspectives
might have produced a degree of compla-
cency among analysts who are informed by
liberal perspectives. If studies informed by
contrasting theoretical perspectives can func-
tion as a wake-up call they should be most
welcome even when their findings are con-
testable (Rosato 2011; Simon 2014).
In general, what seems to have happened is
that the European versions of wider perspec-
tives have acquired a life of their own, for
which reason connections to the wider litera-
ture have been broken and significant findings
disregarded. This is an important lost oppor-
tunity for feedback to the wider literature,
implying that knowledge of the European
case has not been used to advance or refine
the wider theoretical perspectives. During
the last 20 years the contending perspec-
tives of rationalism and constructivism have
3/14/2015 3:39:12 PM
 80 The SAGE Handbook of European Foreign Policy
functioned as the main drivers of theoretical
advances within both International Relations
(Katzenstein et al. 1998) and European
Studies (Pollack 2007; Christiansen et al.
2001). The problem within European Studies
is that the relative lack of theoretical engage-
ment implies that the number of theoretical
advances is fairly modest, too. Inadvertently,
there might be some advantages to the not so
disciplined conduct of research on European
foreign policy, especially because the step
after discipline can be called either dogma
or orthodoxy. The field of European foreign
policy has largely escaped the explicitly theo-
retical versions of dogma and orthodoxy.
Bridge-building initiatives and pleas for
dialogue are often attempts to make paper
tigers out of contending perspectives (Jupille
et al. 2003). Uneven emphases occur when
pleas for dialogue imply either hierarchical
or eristic dialogue. In the former case a self-
appointed master discipline or field of study
sets the conditions of dialogue, thereby defin-
ing the settings of the dialogue. In the latter
case one party to a dialogue needs the other
party for purposes of identity formation,
strategies of empowerment or needs of asser-
tiveness. Reflexive and transformative dia-
logues are relatively rare as they require each
party to abandon the underpinnings of their
existence (Jørgensen and Valbjørn 2012).
The theory–practice nexus
State-centric theories make it difficult for
analysts to detect European foreign policy on
their radars and they are therefore bound to
reject the existence or significance of
European foreign policy. This applies to
realists who prefer to analyse balance-of-
power dynamics (Eilstrup Sangiovanni 2003)
but it also applies to many liberalists who
prefer to analyse the integrative dynamics
among European states (Keohane et al.
1993). In this perspective European foreign
policy might be one of the significant deter-
minants in world politics but our analytical
BK-SAGE-JORGENSEN_ETAL-150072-Chp05.indd 80
tools function as obstacles to knowledge;
indeed, this feature characterizes most text-
books aimed at introducing students to world
politics. The nexus between practice and
theory is excellently illustrated in
Mearsheimer’s (1995) criticism of an exag-
gerated reliance on the promises of interna-
tional institutions. He begins with a brief
criticism of the Clinton administration’s
foreign policy, guided by liberal internation-
alism, and continues with criticism of liberal
international theory, pointing to significant
overlaps in terms of assumptions about inter-
national order.
If we examine the three main strands of
the liberal theoretical tradition – republican,
commerce and institutional theory (Zacker
and Matthew 1995) – it becomes clear that
there are close connections between liberal
theoretical perspectives and the direction
of European foreign policy. First, theorists
within the neoliberal institutional perspective
claim that the degree to which the interna-
tional system is institutionalized has a positive
impact on the stability of the system (Keohane
1989). The EU’s stated objective of support-
ing effective multilateralism is to increase
the degree to which the international system
is institutionalized. In other words, the aim
is to domesticate the anarchical international
society, making it more subject to the rule
of law than the rules of anarchy. Moreover,
the key argument of republican liberalism is
that the nature of domestic governance sys-
tems has an impact on the conduct of foreign
policy – specifically, that democracies are
less inclined to wage war than totalitarian
and authoritarian states. It implies that the
international zones of peace can be extended
by means of actively promoting democracy
and human rights. The EU is a regional alli-
ance of democracies, nurtures a self-image of
a model zone of peace and actively promotes
democracy and human rights internationally
(Balducci 2012). Finally, analysts of a com-
merce liberal orientation argue that interna-
tional trade and interdependence promote
peace. The EU is an active promoter of free
trade, at least in sectors in which the EU is
3/14/2015 3:39:12 PM
 Theorizing European Foreign Policy
competitive, and has consequently been char-
acterized as a ‘trading state’ (Smith 2004; see
also Rosecrance 1986). The EU’s objective
in foreign economic relations is to extend
global trade rules to all major traders, hence
the keen interest of the EU in welcoming, for
instance, Taiwan, China and Russia as mem-
bers of the WTO.
This does not necessarily make the EU a
liberal internationalist actor (but see Youngs
2011). Yet it does suggest that the political–
ideological liberal internationalist tradition
in Europe is sufficiently strong to have a sig-
nificant impact on the direction of European
foreign policy. However, liberal internation-
alists are always in fierce competition with
representatives from other foreign-policy
traditions, making the ever changing con-
figuration of foreign-policy traditions one of
the keys to understanding the dynamics of the
politics of European foreign policy (see Part
X of the Handbook).
Kinds of theory
If theories are lenses through which we
observe the world it is important to empha-
size that theories come in different colours.
Some are explanatory, i.e. trade in causal
explanation and analysis. The key feature of
this kind of theory is the distinction between
independent, dependent and intervening vari-
ables, a distinction around which an entire
specialized vocabulary and distinct research
designs have been created. Seemingly general
theoretical accounts are often accounts exclu-
sively of causal theory (Van Evera 1997;
Mearsheimer and Walt 2013; Parsons 2007).
The second kind of theory is interpre-
tive theory. Theories within this category
enable rigorous analysis of meanings and
understandings – for instance, the meaning
of sovereignty (Brown 2002), international
recognition and the Responsibility to Protect
principle (Nardin 2006). What explanatory
theorists and analysts tend to take as given
is exposed to comprehensive analysis in
BK-SAGE-JORGENSEN_ETAL-150072-Chp05.indd 81
81
studies informed by interpretive theory. The
argument is that without interpretation texts
become either meaningless or letters not
opened (Ball 1995; Diez 2011). Analysts can
choose between different strategies of inter-
pretation. Some are keen to understand the
original intent of author(s) or the context in
which a text originally appeared. Others have
an interest in the reception of a given text, thus
resulting in audience-focused studies. Within
this school analysts ask, for instance, what the
original intent of the author(s) of the European
Security Strategy (European Council 2003)
was and what the key characteristics of the
context in which it appeared were (e.g. the
row over the Iraq War and the tradition of pro-
ducing US national security strategies). The
audience of the short text called the European
Security Strategy includes two primary seg-
ments: while the media have largely ignored
the strategy, academics and civil servants in
ministries of foreign affairs have paid some
attention. Academics have thoroughly anal-
ysed the strategy (Biscop 2005) or parts of it
(Jørgensen and Laatikainen 2012; Drieskens
and van Schaik 2014), whereas some of the
latter have been inspired to produce national
security strategies (France, Germany and
the UK), thus producing either yet another
case of Europeanization of foreign policy or,
alternatively, renationaliziation of a security
strategy that had a brief existence at the
European level.
The third kind of theory is normative
theory, conventionally characterized by a
distinction between those who engage in
outlining how states of affairs ought to be
and those who concentrate on the norma-
tive superstructure that underpins both poli-
tics and policies (Nardin 2006; Weir 1992;
Lucarelli and Manners 2006; Schumaker
2008). The latter group has a well developed
interest in understanding the general norms
and principles that guide the EU’s interna-
tional policies, be it policies on development,
environment or non-proliferation.
The three kinds of theory have their spe-
cific standards of scholarship, their dis-
tinct avenues of inquiry point in different
3/14/2015 3:39:12 PM
 82 The SAGE Handbook of European Foreign Policy
directions and comparisons are often more
misleading than informative, sometimes
reduced simply to deploring that cats do not
bark. In research on European foreign policy
the three kinds of theory have been unevenly
employed. Normative theory seems to be the
kind of theory that has attracted the smallest
number of studies (see Chapter 11), whereas
the balance between explanatory and inter-
pretive theory is fairly even, the latter focus-
ing on conceptualization as a first (and often
last) step towards interpretation.
Structuring theoretical
interventions
In the eight chapters of Part II the contribu-
tors first outline the key characteristics of a
theoretical perspective or tradition. These
outlines will typically include both ‘common
threads and divergent strands’, to use Mark
Zacker and Richard Matthew’s (1995) excel-
lent title and their outline of strands of liberal
international theory. The distinction between
tradition, strand and applicable theory is
highly important, not only because we are
dealing with different levels of abstraction
but also because when we come to the issue
of research agenda and concrete theory-
informed studies it is mainly first-order
applicable theory that is relevant. Due to
their broad-brush and blunt characteristics
traditions and strands are largely unsuitable
for empirical guidance yet very useful for
orientation purposes.
Moreover, the contributors point out major
theoretical advances – that is, if there is any
worth reporting (Waltz 1990). The reason
for addressing this issue is very simple: if a
theoretical perspective does not renew itself
from time to time it risks losing traction, a
fate experienced by realism during the last
two decades and within European Studies
at all times (Legro and Moravcsik 1999).
Similarly, innovation often implies that
older strands are bound to be abandoned. In
his rejection of republican and commerce
BK-SAGE-JORGENSEN_ETAL-150072-Chp05.indd 82
liberalism Robert Keohane (1989) provides
an excellent illustrative example of such
abandonment, thereby highlighting why there
is a good reason to label his theoretical per-
spective neoliberal institutionalism. A second
illustrative example is provided by Martin
Wight and Hedley Bull, who felt it necessary
to initiate the international society tradition
(i.e. the English School), thereby (partly)
abandoning both the realist and liberal theo-
retical traditions (Dunne 1998; Buzan 2001).
They simply shared the idea that realist and
liberal perspectives are insufficient to repre-
sent the complexity of world politics. Finally,
for every single theory there is the endur-
ing risk of ending up as orthodoxy or ideol-
ogy, thereby losing their analytical qualities.
Being concentrates of knowledge of global
and European affairs, theories cannot escape
their existence between dogma and tools for
analytical guidance. Ideally, research within
a field of study should contribute to the
refinement and advancement of theoretical
perspectives.
Last but not least, the contributors review
the literature in which specific theories within
theoretical traditions have been applied in
research on European foreign policy. In
other words, they examine how the dynam-
ics of research agendas have evolved over
time: which questions have the theoretical
perspectives prompted analysts to ask and
which answers has research provided? In this
context it is important to highlight specific
emphases, blank spots and enduring analyti-
cal challenges. Such questions enable us to
identify the profile of research that a given
theoretical perspective has been capable of
generating.
Note
1  Research on intergovernmental decision-making
procedures within parts of European foreign pol-
icy or a focus on the role of the foreign policies
of EU member states is rarely informed by real-
ist theory. Some of it is explicitly liberal in nature
(Moravcsik 1998) and studies do in ­general not
3/14/2015 3:39:12 PM
 Theorizing European Foreign Policy
subscribe to a cyclical perspective on history,
do not employ systemic explanatory factors or
balance-of-power theory (neo-realism), and
great-power politics (post-classical realism) and
‘tragedy’ are not among the key features; actu-
ally, they do not figure at all.
References
Balducci, G. (2012) The EU’s Promotion of
Human Rights, in Jørgensen, K. E. and
Laatikainen, K. V., Routledge Handbook on
the European Union and International
Institutions: Performance, Policy, Power.
London: Routledge. pp. 185–202.
Ball, T. (1995) Reappraising Political Theory:
Revisionist Studies in the History of Political
Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Biscop, S. (2005) The European Security
Strategy. A Global Agenda for Positive
Power. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Brown, C. (2002). Sovereignty, Rights and
Justice: International Political Theory Today.
Oxford: Polity Press.
Buzan, B. (2001) The English School: An
Underexploited Resource in IR, Review of
International Studies 27(3): 471–88.
Carlsnaes, W. (2002) Foreign Policy Analysis, in
Carlsnaes, W., Simmons, W. and Risse, T.
(eds.), Handbook of International Relations.
London: Sage. pp. 331–49.
Carlsnaes, W. (2007) European Foreign Policy,
in Jørgensen, K. E., Pollack, M. and
Rosamond, B. (eds.), Handbook of European
Union Politics. London: Sage.
Checkel, J. (2007) Constructivism, in Jørgensen,
K. E., Pollack, M. and Rosamond, B. (eds.),
Handbook of European Union Politics.
London: Sage.
Christiansen, I., Jørgensen K. E. and Wiener, A.
(2001) The Social Construction of Europe.
London: Sage.
Cini, M. and Bourne, A. (2006) European
Union Studies. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Costa, O. and Jørgensen, K. E. (2012) The
Influence of International Institutions on the
EU: When Multilateralism Hits Brussels.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Diez, T. (2011) Key Concepts in International
Relations. London: Sage (with I. Bode and A.
Fernandes Da Costa).
BK-SAGE-JORGENSEN_ETAL-150072-Chp05.indd 83
83
Donnelly, J. (2000) Realism and International
Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Drieskens, E. and Schaik, L. van (2014) The EU
and Effective Multilateralism: Internal and
External Reform in the First Decade. London:
Routledge.
Duchêne, F. (1972) Europe’s Role in World Peace.
in R. Mayne (ed.), Europe Tomorrow: Sixteen
Europeans Look Ahead. London: Fontana.
Dunne, T. (1998) Inventing International
Society. A History of the English School.
Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Eilstrup Sangiovanni, M. (2003) Why a
Common Foreign and Security Policy is Bad
for Europe, Survival 45(4): 193–206.
European Council (2003) European Security
Strategy. Luxembourg.
Gourevitch. P. (1978) The Second Image
Reversed: The International Sources of
Domestic Politics, International Organization
32(4): 881–912.
Güney, A. and Tekin, A. (2014) Europeanization
of Turkey: Polity, Politics and Policies.
Abingdon: Routledge.
Haas, E. B. (1958) The Uniting of Europe:
Political, Social, and Economic Forces 1950–
57. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Haas, E. B. (1964) Beyond the Nation-State.
Functionalism and International Organization.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Haas, E. B. (2001) Does Constructivism
Subsume Neofunctionalism?, in Christiansen,
T., Jørgensen, K. E. and Wiener, A. (eds.), The
Social Construction of Europe. London:
Sage. pp. 22–31.
Hoffmann, S. and Keohane, R. O. (1990)
Conclusions: Community politics and
Institutional Change, in Wallace, W. (ed.),
The Dynamics of European Integration.
London: Pinter. pp. 276–300.
Jupille, J., Caporaso, J. A. and Checkel, J. T.
(2003) Integrating Institutions: Rationalism,
Constructivism, and the Study of the
European Union, Comparative Political
Studies 36 (1–2): 7–40
Jørgensen, K. E. and Laatikainen, K. V. (2012)
Routledge Handbook on the European Union
and International Institutions: Performance,
Policy, Power. London: Routledge.
Jørgensen, K. E. and Valbjørn, M. (2012) Four
Dialogues and the Funeral of a Beautiful
Relationship: European Studies and New
3/14/2015 3:39:12 PM
 84 The SAGE Handbook of European Foreign Policy
Regionalism, Cooperation and Conflict 47:
417–32.
Keohane, R. (1989) International Institutions
and State Power. Essays in International
Relations Theory. Boulder, CA and London:
Westview Press.
Keohane, R. O., Nye, J. S. and Hoffmann, S.
(1993) After the Cold War: International
Institutions and State Strategies in Europe,
1989–1991. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Katzenstein, P. J., R. Keohane and S. Krasner
(1998) International Organization and the
Study of World Politics, International
Organisation 52: 645–85.
Legro, J. and Moravcsik, A. (1999) Is Anybody
Still a Realist?, International Security 24(2):
5–55.
Lucarelli S. and Manners, I. (eds.) (2006) Values
and Principles in European Foreign Policy.
London: Routledge.
Manners, I. (2002) Normative Power Europe: A
Contradiction in Terms?, JCMS: Journal of
Common Market Studies 40(2): 235–58.
Manners, I. (2007) Another Europe Is Possible,
in Jørgensen, K. E., Pollack, M. and
Rosamond, B. (eds.), Handbook of European
Union Politics. London: Sage. pp. 77–95.
March, J. C. and Olsen, J. (1989) Rediscovering
Institutions: The Organizational Basis of
Politics. New York: The Free Press.
Mearsheimer, J. J. (1995) The False Promise of
International Institutions, International
Security 19(3): 5–49.
Mearsheimer, J. and Walt, S. M. (2013) Leaving
Theory Behind: Why Simplistic Hypothesis
Testing is Bad for International Relations,
European Journal of International Relations
19(3): 427–57.
Moravcsik, A. (1998) The Choice for Europe:
Social Purpose and State Power from Messina
to Maastricht. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press.
Nardin, T. (2006) International Political Theory
and the Question of Justice, International
Affairs 82(3): 449–65.
Onuf, N. (1989) World of Our Making: Rules
and Rule in Social Theory and International
Relations. Columbia, SC: University of South
Carolina Press.
Parsons, C. (2007) How to Map Arguments
within Political Science. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
BK-SAGE-JORGENSEN_ETAL-150072-Chp05.indd 84
Pollack, M. A. (2007) Rational Choice and EU
Politics, in K. E. Jørgensen, M. Pollack and
B. Rosamond (eds.), Handbook of European
Union Politics. London: Sage Publications.
pp. 31–55.
Posen, B. R. (2004) ESDP and the Structure of
World Power, The International Spectator
39(1): 5–17.
Rosamond, B. (2001) Theories of European
Integration. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Rosato, S. (2011) Europe United: Power Politics
and the Making of the European Community.
Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Rosecrance, R. (1986) The Rise of the Trading
State: Commerce and Conquest. New York:
Basic Books.
Schumaker, J. (2008) From Ideologies to Public
Philosophies. An Introduction to Political
Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.
Simon, L. (2014) Geopolitical Change, Grand
Strategy and European Security. Basingstoke:
Palgrave.
Smith, M. (2004) Between Two Worlds: The
European Union, the United States and
World Order, International Politics 41(1):
95–117.
Smith, S. (1997) Power and Truth: A Reply to
William Wallace, Review of International
Studies 23(4): 507–16.
Tonra, B (2001) The Europeanisation of National
Foreign Policy. Dutch, Danish and Irish
Foreign Policy in the European Union.
Farnham: Ashgate.
Turton, Helen (2013) The Sociology of a Diverse
Discipline: International Relations, American
Dominance and Pluralism. PhD thesis, Exeter
University.
Van Evera, S. (1997) Guide to Methods for
Students of Political Science. Ithaca: Cornell
University Press.
Wallace, W. (1996) Truth and Power, Monks
and Technocrats: Theory and Practice in
International Relations, Review of
International Studies 22(3): 301–21.
Waltz, K. N. (1990) Realist Thought and
Neorealist Theory, Journal of International
Affairs 44(1): 21–37.
Weir, M. (1992) Ideas and the Politics of
Bounded Innovation, in Steinmo, S., Thelen,
K. and Longstreth, F. (eds.), Structuring
Politics. Historical Institutionalism in
Comparative Perspective. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. pp. 188–216.
3/14/2015 3:39:12 PM
 Theorizing European Foreign Policy 85

Wendt, A. (1992) Anarchy is What States Make (ed.), Controversies in International

of It: The Social Construction of Power Relations Theory: Realism and the Neo-
Politics, International Organization 46(2): Liberal Challenge. New York: St. Martin’s
393–425. Press.
Zacker, M.W. and Matthew, R. A. (1995) Youngs, R. (2011) The EU’s Role in World
Liberal International Theory: Common Politics: A Retreat from Liberal
Threads, Divergent Strands, in Kegley, C. Internationalism. Abingdon: Routledge.

BK-SAGE-JORGENSEN_ETAL-150072-Chp05.indd
View publication stats 85 3/14/2015 3:39:12 PM