Exploring the European Union as a normative actor: a constructivist perspective on actor identity, discourse and the European response to the Migration Crisis

(1)

Exploring the European Union as a normative actor:

A constructivist perspective on actor identity, discourse and the European

response to the Migration Crisis

Moniek Akerboom – S1137743

Master’s Thesis – Final version

Crisis and Security Management

Faculty of Governance and Global Affairs – Leiden University

Supervised by S. Wittendorp

Word count: 38.553 [excl. bibliography and annexes]

Date: January 11

th

_{, 2017}

(2)

„Europe’s attainment is normative rather than empirical.... It is perhaps a paradox to note

that the continent which once ruled the world through the physical impositions of imperialism

is now coming to set world standards in normative terms‟

(Rosecrance, 1998:22).

(3)

Abstract

Ever since its inception, the position of the European Union (EU) as an actor in the international domain has been subjected to academic debate. In international relations theory, realists and liberals are rather skeptical about the EU as an actor - ‘sui generis’ - and assess the power of the European Union in a narrow material sense. Social constructivist theory, on the other hand, employs a broader notion of actorness and the normative power the EU exerts in the international domain. From this perspective, the power of the European Union is characterized by the ability to diffuse its values among other actors across the globe.

Following the latter perspective, this thesis aims at discovering which values the European Union aims to carry out in the international domain, and how the European Union actually substantiates these values during a crisis situation. Is the EU consistent in living up to the values proclaimed ‘on paper’ and coherent in aligning all these values in its policy response? The Migration Crisis, which unfolded in 2015 and continued in 2016, forms a suitable case for such an inquiry, as it entails a crisis of international proportions. Therefore, the main research question of this Master’s Thesis is formulated as follows:

‘

‘How does the European Union construct its identity as a ‘normative actor’ and to what extent is this construction reflected in the EU’s response to the Migration Crisis (2015-2016)?’’

Based on an in-depth discourse analysis of relevant EU Treaties, previous EU-policy programs on migration and contemporary EU-publications covering the position of the European Union as a normative actor, a comprehensive overview of the European identity and its values was obtained. Thereafter, the same methodology was employed to gain an understanding of how the European Union has perceived the Migration Crisis as a policy problem, which policy-solutions the EU has implemented, and how the EU has legitimized these solutions.

The first step uncovered four main value-sets the European Union aims to diffuse, constructing its identity as an inclusive, humanitarian actor that unites and protects its member states: 1) Fundamental rights; 2) Good governance; 3) Security; and 4) Solidarity. In addition, a possible pattern was found between the level of stability and the EU’s allocation of attention to certain values vis-à-vis other values.

When comparing these value-sets ‘on paper’ with the European response to the Migration Crisis, the data demonstrate that the European Union has coped with incoherence between the value-sets of fundamental rights and security, and between good governance and solidarity throughout the course of the crisis. These tensions were strengthened by sudden events, such as acts of terrorism. In the aftermath of these events, the data demonstrate that the European Union tends to give priority to the values of security and solidarity. As a consequence, inconsistencies were found regarding the EU’s values ‘on paper’ and the actual realization of these values in practice.

Given these findings, it can be argued that the aspiration of the European Union to materialize its identity as an inclusive, humanitarian actor did not fully correspond with its actual policy response to the Migration Crisis (2015-2016). This insight brings along suggestions for further research, such as why does the European Union consistently commit to certain values, while other values on paper are less strictly observed in practice? And how does the European Union decide – consciously or unconsciously - to put certain values above others?

Key words: European Union, Actorness, Normative Power, Social Constructivism, Identity, European Migration Crisis.

(4)

Foreword

This thesis is written as a completion of the master’s program Crisis and Security Management at Leiden University. The thesis describes how the European Union constructs its identity as a normative actor in the international domain, and to what extent this self-perceived identity relates to its concrete policy response to the Migration Crisis (2015-2016).

The idea for this topic came about during an internship in 2015 at the European Migration Network (EMN), which is part of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (IND) in The Netherlands. My specific interest in the European dimension of migration grew further during a second internship at the Advisory Committee on Migration Affairs (ACVZ) at the Ministry of Security and Justice in 2016.

The Master’s program Crisis and Security Management has equipped me with the proper theoretical knowledge and analytical tools to develop this thesis. The course ‘Internationalization of Crisis and Security Management’ deserves particular attention here, as this course has taught me to think critically about the role of the European Union as an actor in tackling international crises.

Herewith, I would like to express my gratitude to my former colleagues at the EMN/IND and ACVZ for providing me a myriad of opportunities to learn more about the topic of migration in all its aspects. I would like to thank my thesis supervisor at Leiden University, Stef Wittendorp, for his valuable insights and advice to complete my research and write this thesis. Last but not least, I would like to thank my parents for their moral support.

Nieuwkoop, January 2017 Moniek Akerboom

(5)

List of tables

TABLE 1: BASIC IDEAS OF REALISM, LIBERALISM AND SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVISM 13 TABLE 2: THE EU'S NORMATIVE BASIS (MANNERS, 2002:33) 16 TABLE 3: OVERVIEW OF FINDINGS - THE EU RESPONSE TO THE MIGRATION CRISIS 63 TABLE 4: VALUES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION IN THE DOMAIN OF MIGRATION 92

(7)

1. Introduction

Following an extensive process of European integration, an increasing body of literature has emerged that sheds light on the position of the European Union (EU) as an actor and the power it exerts in the international domain (e.g. Sjöstedt, 1977; Jupille and Caporaso, 1998; Wunderlich, 2012). The idea of the European Union as an autonomous actor has traditionally been controversial, especially in (neo-) realist and (neo-) liberal literature. These approaches view the nation state as the central object of study, and argue that the position of actors within the international system is substantiated through military or civilian power (e.g. Waltz, 1979; Morgenthau, 1948). From these perspectives, the EU is not considered a genuine actor.

In reply to these state-centric approaches, several academic efforts have been made to address the distinctiveness of the EU as an actor and its particular normative power (Manners, 2002; Pace, 2007; Whitman, 2011). These authors employ an alternative constructivist perspective, stating that actorness is not reducible to material distributions of political power in the world (Jackson and Sørensen, 2007:162). Instead, constructivist accounts define actorness as a continuous process of shaping and re-shaping of ideas, norms and values entities have about one another through interaction (Wendt, 1992; Hopf, 2000; De Cilia et al. 1999). This constructivist point-of-view opens the door for a more dynamic perspective on the EU as a genuine actor in the international domain, in which the EU draws its strength from the ability to diffuse its values throughout the globe – a normative power (Manners, 2002).

As a consequence, an extensive body of knowledge has emerged on what these proclaimed ‘European values’ entail (Pace, 2007; Falkner, 2007; Whitman, 2011) and through which channels these values are diffused (Manners, 2002; Manners, 2006). Still lacking, however, is an empirical research that examines how the European Union constructs its values on paper and how the European Union substantiates these values during a crisis situation. This thesis aims to shed light on this so-far neglected dimension. To this end, this research employs a discourse analysis - a methodological tool well suited to uncover how actors give shape to their identity and the values underlying this identity (Hopf, 2002; Epstein, 2010).

The Migration Crisis, which struck the European Union in 2015 and continued 2016, forms a suitable case for such an inquiry. The year 2015 marked a tragic record of 3,771 migrant fatalities in the Mediterranean (IOM, 2016). During this year, an unprecedented number of 1 million migrants sought refuge in the European Union (IOM, 2015). This sudden increase of irregular migrant flows and the tragic escalation of migrant fatalities resulting from it became generally known as the European Migration Crisis – a crisis of international proportions. Now, roughly one year later, it is a proper moment to take stock of the EU’s perception of the situation, its policy solutions and the legitimization of its policy solutions resulting from the events that occurred in 2015 and continued in 2016. How has the EU conceptualized its role as an actor in the domain of migration? Which values has the EU aimed to carry out? In other words, how has the European Union substantiated its values during an actual crisis situation?

1.1 Research question

Taking into account the recurring academic debate about the ability of the European Union to diffuse its values as a normative actor, this research aims at discovering how the EU conceptualizes itself as an actor and which values it aims to carry out in the domain of migration, and how the EU gives shape to these values in tackling the Migration Crisis. Therefore, the following research question is formulated:

RQ:

‘

‘How does the European Union construct its identity as a ‘normative actor’ and to what extent is this construction reflected in the EU’s response to the Migration Crisis (2015-2016)?’’

(8)

1.2 Justification

The research question reveals the constructivist point-of-view employed for this research, which differs from previous positivist approaches to analyze actorness and power. The aim of this research is to gain a more profound understanding of what the EU’s ‘normative power’ entails by adopting an alternative – constructivist - perspective and tailored research methodology. Academically, this research contributes to the existing debate between proponents and critics of the European Union as a normative actor within the international domain, by uncovering which values the European Union stands for in the field of migration and how the EU substantiates these values during a crisis situation. This research is not meant as a rejection of positivist approaches to actorness and power; rather, this research aims to build on the existing body of knowledge on EU actorness by examining this phenomenon through an alternative – constructivist - perspective. Only by combining different perspectives and methodologies, it is possible to understand the nature and peculiarities of the European Union in international relations.

This thesis provides an ideational map of the different values the European Union pursues and aims to exert in the international domain, by comparing institutional documents with actual policy measures in times of crisis. The added value of such an approach is that it exposes how the European Union is consistent in sticking to its proclaimed values in times of crisis and to what extent the different values of the European Union are coherent - aligned with one another. The aim of this Thesis is to expose similarities and discrepancies between the European Union’s devotion to values on paper and its actual commitment to these values in practice.

As a result, this research provides knowledge on how the EU acts in times of sudden political pressure. This knowledge is of societal relevance in at least two ways. Firstly, this proposed research demonstrates how the EU views its own capability to ensure the wellbeing of its member states in tackling irregular migration flows. Secondly, this proposed research generates useful insights that can be employed to examine how the EU views its own role in tackling other dynamic policy fields characterized by sudden pressures, such as counter-terrorism.

1.3 Outline of the Thesis

The following chapter sets the scene in describing different perspectives on actorness and power, drawing on legal sources and established theories of international relations (IR). Employing a constructivist perspective, Chapter 3 further elaborates on the construction of actors’ identities and the role of discourse in this process. Thereafter, the employment of discourse analysis in studying actorness and power will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 provides a brief overview of the European policy on migration. In Chapter 6, the identity of the European Union and the values it aims to carry out in the field of migration are analyzed. Thereafter, Chapter 7 discusses the EU’s policy response to the Migration Crisis, tackling the EU’s perception of the problem, its policy solutions, and the legitimization of these solutions. In Chapter 8, the preliminary findings of the two preceding chapters are compared, in order to answer the central research question. In Chapter 9, these conclusions are discussed in more detail, making a connection with the existing academic debate on EU actorness and power.

(9)

2. Actorness and forms of power

In order to reflect on the identity of the EU as an international actor, it is vital to have an understanding of what actorness is and what characterizes the power of actors. Therefore, this thesis draws on existing perspectives on actorness by describing legal definitions and contrasting traditional IR theories with contemporary constructivist approaches. Departing from the latter perspective, an analytical framework is developed to examine how the EU defines its identity as an actor and the values it aims to carry out.

2.1 Legal definitions of actorness

The concept of actorness has been given different meanings, depending on the time and context in which it is used (e.g. Bretherton and Vogler, 1999; Macrory and Hession, 1996; Sjöstedt 1977). When perceived from a legal point-of-view, drawing from public international law, actorness entails the right to participate in international relations, to tie on to legal international obligations and to be held to account by other actors (Bretherton and Vogler, 1999:16). Since the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, the conceptualization of actorness in the field of international relations mainly focused on the recognition of nation states as international actors. In 1948, the allocation of the legal status of the United Nations marked the broadening of the formal meaning of actorness (ibid.).

The formal interpretation of actorness does provide a useful starting point in demarcating the legal boundaries of what an actor can and cannot do. One pitfall of this approach, however, is that this formal conceptualization of actorness does not take into account the differences between the legal status of an entity and its actual significance or power in the practice of international relations (Bretherton and Vogler, 1999:18). Whereas certain states might have the legal status of an actor, they do not necessarily have a significant impact as autonomous entities vis-à-vis other actors. At the same time, the strict legal interpretation of actorness does not recognize the potential of entities that do not possess the legal status of an actor. Taking these limitations into account, it is important to reflect on other perspectives on actorness. To this end, the next section discusses actorness from the viewpoint of International Relations Theory.

2.2 Actorness and power in international relations theory

Within the 20th century, many academic contributions have been made to re-conceptualize actorness and power dynamics in the field of international relations theory. In his work on regional actorness, Sjöstedt (1977:16) provides the following definition to describe a regional actor as having ‘the capacity to behave actively and deliberately in relation to other actors in the international system’ (Sjöstedt, 1977:16). Contrary to the formal definition, this IR-definition of actorness includes a behavioral component that takes into account the idea that entities – even without a formal legal status – can be considered actors, if they have the capability to interact with other actors in the international system. This approach has been proven useful in examining different sorts of international organizations, such as the European Union and the United Nations, that were not taken into consideration by the formal approach (e.g. Jupille and Caporaso, 1998).

Despite the seeming broadness of this definition of actorness, different approaches within International Relations still do not agree on which entities effectively qualify as actors. Whether one considers a certain entity as an actor depends on the theoretical lens through which one examines the domain of international relations. In this light, three separate schools of thought can be identified: realism, liberalism, and social constructivism.

The idea of the European Union as an actor - ‘sui generis’ - has traditionally been controversial, especially in (neo-) realist and (neo-) liberal literature. These rationalist approaches to world politics view international relations as an arena of nation-states. Within this state-centric view, relations

(10)

between states and their material power define the international system (e.g. Waltz, 1979; Morgenthau 1948). Contemporary social constructivist thought, however, provides a more dynamic light on actorness in the domain of international relations, including different entities in its conceptualization of ‘actorness.’ As a consequence, these three theories also incorporate distinctive ideas about what kind of power actors exert in the international domain.

The following paragraphs shed light on all three approaches and demonstrate why social constructivism is most suitable for examining how the European Union substantiates its values as a normative actor during the Migration Crisis. For each approach, attention is paid to its perspective on what constitutes an actor, its view on the role of actors within the international domain, the kind of power actors (can) exert in the international domain, and its perception on the European Union with regard to actorness.

2.2.1 Realism

The realist perspective within international relations is considered an influential approach to studying the behavior of actors in the field of international relations. Within realist literature, a distinction can be made between classical realists and neo-realists or structural realists (Jackson and Sørensen, 2007:61). Both approaches do share common assumptions about what constitutes ‘actorness’ and how actors relate to each other in the domain of international politics. These assumptions are further explained in this section.

Realist view on actors

One common assumption of realists and neo-realists entails the normative pre-occupation with the nation-state as a central unit of analysis in studying actorness within international relations. The nation-state is regarded as the sole protector of its own geographical domain and its citizens. The nation-state represents its territory within the international domain (Waltz, 1979; Morgenthau 1948). Realist view on the role of actors in the international domain

According to classical realist thought, states are – like human beings - preoccupied with their own wellbeing in competitive relation to others. Realists therefore view the domain of international politics as an international hierarchy of power among nation-states, in which the ‘great powers’ are in a constant struggle for security and domination. In this system, there is no real choice for nation states other than to conform to the hierarchy of international power politics in order to survive (Thucydides in Jackson and Sørensen, 2007:62).

This struggle for survival requires strength and cunning on the part of the nation-state (Machiavelli in Jackson and Sørensen, 2007:62). The dominant responsibility of state leaders thus entails the continuous search for competitive advantages, the defense of national interests and state survival. Failing to be a Lion (which embodies strength) or a Fox (which embodies deception), state leaders are at great risk of state destruction. This vision on international politics as a dangerous and chaotic arena can be found in Machiavelli’s rejection of ethics and morals in the political domain; political leaders are expected to be alert to opportunities and willing to exploit them in order to maintain national security (Machiavelli, 1961:59).

Realist view on power

Given this pessimistic view on the nature of international relations, classical realists view the autonomy of the nation state, the international distribution of power and military security of the national territory as the key concepts that define a state’s power. Realists define the concept of ‘power’ in a narrow sense, emphasizing the military dimension of power (Tewes, 2016:10). According to Bull (1982:150) an actor cannot effectively exert influence in the international domain without the ability to use arms.

(11)

Realist view on international cooperation and the European Union

The previous sections demonstrated how realists regard states as self-interested, value-maximizing beings solely occupied with their own preservation. Flowing from this pessimistic worldview, realists tend to be skeptical about the idea that there can be progress within international relations (Jackson and Sørensen, 2007:61). International cooperation between nation-states is therefore considered conditional on the willingness of states to obey to international agreements. As the sole responsibility of nation-states is to preserve their own existence, classical realist thought disqualifies forms of international cooperation through institutions as acts of deception. States are not willing to genuinely offer their sovereignty for the sake of a ‘global security pact’ (Jackson and Sørensen, 2007:63). Instead, realism regards cooperative behavior in international relations – such as the creation of the EU - as acts of deception, solely meant to reinforce the position of individual nation states.

According to more contemporary neo-realist thought, the behavior of actors in the international field is determined by the core system of world politics in which the actors operate (Jackson and Sørensen, 2007:74). Structural realists and neo-realists like Waltz (1979:190) consider power as a zero-sum game; states attempt to remain somewhat more powerful than other states, in order to increase their chances of survival. Following this perspective, international organizations only exist for the competitive benefit of its members.

2.2.2 Liberalism

In reply to the pessimistic view of realists on human nature and the dynamics of international relations, liberalism provides a more optimistic perspective on the existence of intergovernmental institutions as actors within the international domain and the type of power they can exert in the international domain.

Liberal view on actors

Similar to realists, liberals generally attribute the concept of actorness to nation-states. Unlike realists, however, liberals do embrace the idea that other entities can also be considered actors within the international system. Intergovernmental institutions, as well as non-governmental organizations and other non-state actors, can be considered actors within the international domain. Similar to realists, liberals acknowledge self-interest and competitiveness as human traits that drive the behavior of actors (Jackson and Sørensen, 2007:97). In addition, liberals argue that actors also share common interests and are willing to cooperate.

Liberal view on the role of actors in the international domain

Liberals view that this willingness to collaborate is also visible in the domain of world politics (ibid.). The domain of international politics is thus not inevitably characterized by war and conflict – when states employ reason, states can achieve beneficial forms of cooperation across national boundaries. Whereas realists argue that international politics is characterized by power and coercion, liberals stress that relations between states or so-called ‘international regimes’ exist from a drive to cooperate (Katzenstein e.a. 1998:658). Liberals thus employ a progressive and positive view on world politics when compared with realists.

Liberal view on power

With this optimistic view on collaboration comes a view on power that transcends the military notion of power as described by realist accounts. Duchêne (1973) argues that power in a traditional military sense decreases in importance and gives way to a more progressive form of civilian power as an instrument to achieve foreign policy objectives (Keukeleire and Delreux, 2014:15). Civilian power entails the force to diffuse democratic and civilian standards in the world (Duchêne, 1973:19-20). Building on this conceptualization, Twitchett (1976:2) and Maull (1990:92) argue that civilian power involves being the centrality of economic power in order to achieve domestic goals, using diplomatic co-operation to solve problems on the international stage, and the ability and willingness to set up and utilize legally binding international institutions to exert influence in the international domain. Instead

(12)

of using armed forces, economic instruments such as multilateral agreements, import tariffs and developmental aid are employed to exert influence on other actors.

Liberal view on international cooperation and the European Union

Building on the idea of collaboration to achieve common interests, liberalism envisions international or regional organizations such as the EU as effective vehicles to tackle collective action problems (Keohane, 1984). Institutional liberals argue that the establishment of institutions can support cooperation between states and reduce feelings of fear and mistrust among states (Jackson and Sørensen, 2007:108). Following this logic, the European Union has been set up as a platform of negotiation between member states in order to achieve mutually beneficial outcomes. These institutions, however, are not recognized as genuinely autonomous actors, but as instruments or vehicles to gain collective benefits.

2.2.3 Social constructivism

Constructivism can be seen as an approach to social enquiry rather than a theory, and differs from earlier approaches because of its focus on international relations as a social phenomenon (Checkel, 1998:326). This perspective differs from liberalism and realism, as it does not view international affairs as a material condition, but as a social construct created and re-created by the human mind in a process of social interaction.

Social constructivist view on actorness

Contrary to realist and liberal accounts, constructivism does leave space for the potential of the EU as an autonomous actor. The key critique of constructivist thought on realism and liberalism concerns the focus of these approaches on the state and its objectives as the main unit of analysis (Jackson and Sørensen, 2007:162). Whereas realist and liberal approaches tend to view actors as separate units that operate autonomously within an international environment, constructivists treat actors as being an integral part of the systems in which they operate (Barnett, 2005:252). Constructivists argue that ideas and norms shape the international structure that defines the identity, interests of states and non-state actors. These state and non-state actors – or ‘agents’ - in turn, shape and reshape this international structure. The definition of what one perceives as an actor therefore depends on the interaction between structure – the social system – and the agents operating within that social system. Who or what actually qualifies as an actor thus depends on the ideas and norms attributed to what actorness entails within a social context.

Social constructivist view on the role of actors in the international domain

Constructivists reject the idea that ‘the international system’ is a physical, objective being that exists outside human consciousness (Jackson and Sørensen, 2007:162). On the contrary, constructivists claim that international relations are based on ideas human beings have about these relations. The international system is thus perceived as a set of ideas and norms people have at a particular time and place about this social phenomenon. Following this perspective, the system of international relations changes only as a result of changing views and ideas about the system (Jackson and Sørensen, 2007:163). Considering the domain of international relations as a socially constructed system, the relationship between this social system and the actors operating within this system is reciprocal. Social constructivists view the relationship between actors and their environments as ‘a cyclical process of social construction’ (Bretherton and Vogler, 2006:20). In this process, actors develop norms and ideas about themselves, other actors and the social system in which they operate. The social system consequently reproduces these norms and values.

Social constructivist view on power

Power in the international domain, then, does not simply entail the ability to use military or economic means to achieve material ends, but the ‘power over opinion’ (Carr, 1962:108) or ‘normative power’ (Manners, 2002:239) to diffuse norms and values to other actors in the international system. To further explain the concept of normative power, Manners argues that this form of power entails ‘the ability to shape or change what passes for normal in international relations, and which will

(13)

undoubtedly have utilitarian, social, moral and narrative dimensions’ (Manners, 2002:32). Normative actorness, then, entails a specific meaning of normative power as a type of actor and its international identity. Attributing this feature to an actor could be conceptualized as recognizing an actor as a changer of norms in the international system (Lucarelli and Manners, 2006:231).

Social constructivist view on international cooperation and the European Union

Building on the assumption that actors and organizations are constructed through a process of social interaction, constructivists reject the realist and liberal idea that organizations are mere tools that exist for the sake of nation states. Instead, constructivist accounts emphasize that institutions have the ability to shape and reshape the identities of their members, and vice versa (Risse, 2004). Constructivist literature thus emphasizes the ability of regional organizations like the European Union to transform norms and values within EU-member states and outside their external borders.

2.2.4 Selecting a theoretical approach

The previous paragraphs demonstrated different views on ‘actorness.’ The legal approach, which characterized actorness as the right to participate in international relations, to tie on to legal international obligations and the obligation to be held to account by other actors, appeared to be too narrow to recognize the potential impact entities without a formal status can have in the international domain.

In this regard, the definition of actorness within the field of International Relations theory as brought forward by Sjöstedt (1977:16), provided a broader understanding of actorness as the ‘capacity to behave actively and deliberately in relation to other actors in the international system.’ Consequently, three approaches within International Relations theory – realism, liberalism and social constructivism – each demonstrated a different view on the practical categorization of actors according to this definition, their role in the international domain, and whether international organizations such as the EU can be effectively defined as actors. The main insights these approaches provide are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1: Basic ideas of realism, liberalism and social constructivism

Approach to IR

Basic assumptions and ideas

Actors and actorness Character of the international domain International organizations/EU Realism Nation-state Anarchic, struggle for survival,

driven by self-interest Source of power: Military

Form of deception, serves self-interest of nation-states

Liberalism Nation-state, non-state actors

Cooperative in case of mutual interest

Source of power: Civilian

Instrumental, intergovernmental, cooperation for mutual interest Social constructivism Any entity constructed as ‘actor’ within the international system

Shaped by ideas, norms of agents and structure/context Source of power: Normative

Identity of entity based on ideas, also able to diffuse ideas and norms to other actors

In sum, realists employ a state-centric view on actorness in the international domain. They view the domain of international relations as anarchic and conflict-driven and characterize the international system as an arena in which rational, self-interested actors struggle for survival. The capacity of actors to behave ‘actively and deliberately’ within the international system as defined by Sjöstedt (1977) depends in large on the actor’s possession of military power to survive in the international

(14)

system. Realists view the emergence of international organizations such as the European Union as acts of deception or as phenomena solely driven by the self-interest of participating nation-states. Liberalism views actors as self-interested and competitive, but also willing to cooperate. According to liberal thought, the capacity of actors within the international system as formulated by Sjöstedt depends on their civilian power, which entails the employment of economic and diplomatic instruments to affect other actors. Liberals stress the intergovernmental character of international organizations such as the EU. Liberals therefore argue that these institutions mainly exist for the benefit of its participants, and do not exist as genuine, independent actors.

Compared with realism and liberalism, social constructivism employs a different view on actorness. A social constructivist interpretation of Sjöstedt’s early definition of actorness would therefore differ considerably from the realist and liberal approaches. Social constructivists argue that ‘the international system’ is a product of human consciousness – not an objective, material reality. Relations between actors within this system depend on the ideas, norms and values the actors attach to these relationships. Whether a social being qualifies as an actor therefore depends on whether this social being is perceived as such. International organizations such as the European Union are viewed as reflections of the norms, ideas, values and expectations actors have about the European Union. These thoughts are shaped and re-shaped in a continuous process of interaction between actors within the social system. Therefore, constructivists claim that entities themselves can diffuse norms and values. Power in the international domain is therefore defined as the ability to diffuse norms and values – a source of normative power. Actors who hold this type of power are considered normative actors.

When compared with traditional state-centric approaches to international relations, social constructivism is better able to account for the different values that constitute the identity of the European Union as an actor. Several authors who employ a constructivist approach to international relations argue that a state-centered view on world politics underestimates the actual influence regional actors such as the European Union exert in the international domain (e.g. Wunderlich, 2012; Hettne and Soderbaum, 2005). Secondly, a constructivist approach is more suitable for examining the internal mechanisms of balancing the interests and ideas of different actors that constitute the European Union. Therefore, this approach can shed more light on the ideational forces that shape the identity of the EU in practice. Considering the limited scope of traditional state-centered realist and neoliberal approaches, constructivist theory has opened the door for broader perspectives on thinking about the EU as a regional actor.

Taking these considerations into account, this research employs a constructivist approach to examine how the European Union substantiates its values as a normative actor in the international domain. In so doing, the early definition of actorness provided by Sjöstedt (1977:16) as having ‘the capacity to behave actively and deliberately in relation to other actors in the international system’ is interpreted here from a social constructivist point-of view, focusing on the power of normative actors to transform and diffuse values to other actors within the international system.

2.3 Social constructivism and the normative power debate

In explaining the selection of the social constructivist approach and its appropriateness to examine the European Union as a normative actor, the concept of normative power deserves further attention. In this regard, Ian Manners and Thomas Diez could be considered influential in shaping the normative power debate. Whereas the former has introduced this concept in the early 2000’s, the latter can be regarded as one of the main critics of the ‘normative power Europe’ approach. The debate between these two authors touches upon three elements: normative power as a novel concept, the distinctiveness of the EU as a normative actor, and the discursive practice in defining the EU as a normative actor and the political implications thereof. This section elaborates on the debate between the two authors and concludes with the main assumptions drawn from the normative power debate and how these assumptions are employed in this research.

(15)

1) Normative power as a novel concept

As described in paragraph 2.2.3, Manners (2002:239) introduced the concept of ‘normative power’ and attributed the European Union the ability to diffuse its values to other actors in the international domain. Thomas Diez (2005:5) rejects Manners’ view on ‘normative power Europe’ and argues that ‘normative’ power is a buzzword that does not differ significantly from the liberal concept of civilian power.

In reply, Manners (2006:175) argues that normative power is distinct from civilian power, and substantiates this statement with three arguments. Firstly, normative power differs from civilian power in a sense that the former concept is characterized by value diffusion, while the latter is characterized by mere economic influence. Secondly, Manners (2006:175) also argues that ‘normative power’ employs a wider scope, while civilian power focuses on the relationships between two countries. Thirdly, Manners (2006:176) demonstrates that the normative power concept is able to provide insights on the mechanisms the European Union employs to diffuse its norms in the international domain, whereas the civilian power concept only covers economic instruments. This wider scope also has its implications for the manner in which an actor’s normative power should be analyzed and assessed.

To illustrate his third argument. Manners (2002) argues that value diffusion as considered by the normative power concept can take on many different forms. Whereas civilian power can be analyzed by strictly examining economic relationships between states and/or international organizations, value diffusion as covered by the normative power concept exceeds economic relationships. Manners (2002:37) argues that values can be diffused by means of strategic communications, legal international agreements and participation in bilateral and/or multilateral organizations. The examination of normative power therefore requires more than a focus on economic relationships. Given the distinct nature of ‘normative power’ vis-à-vis civilian power, normative actorness requires a more comprehensive assessment. Whereas civilian power can be assessed by examining the actor’s achievement in influencing other actors through economic means, Manners (2002:254) argues that assessing normative power is more complicated. As measuring the concrete impact of value diffusion implies a positivist approach to studying the ‘objective’ power of the European Union, Manners (2002:255) argues that this approach does not fit the constructivist perspective on the dynamics of actorness and power. Therefore, a more suitable approach would be to focus on the actor itself and the values it aims to carry out. In order to successfully employ normative power, the actor has to be coherent and consistent in substantiating and diffusing its values (Portela and Raube, 2009). Or, as Manners (2011:233) formulates it: ‘Coherence comes from the extent to which differing values, and practices to promote them can be seen to be sound and non-contradictory (….) consistency comes from the extent to which differing values, and practices to promote them, are applied uniformly.’ In other words, the values an actor conceptualizes ‘on paper’ should not contradict one another, and should be carried out accordingly (Portela and Raube, 2009:4). An important question to ask when assessing the normative power of the European Union is therefore whether the EU is coherent and consistent in diffusing its values. Does the European Union practice the values described ‘on paper’ and are those values aligned with one another?

In this research, Manners’ point-of-view on the distinctiveness of normative power is employed. This will result in a better understanding of the values the European Union aims to exert in the international domain than the concept of ‘civilian power’ is effectively able to offer. To discover how the European Union substantiates its values in its policy response, this thesis transcends the limited economic view on the process of value diffusion the civilian power concept implies. Instead, this research recognizes that values can be diffused in different ways. The normative power of the European Union will be analyzed by examining the coherence and consistency of the EU’s construction of its values ‘on paper’ and the actual substantiation of these values in practice.

(16)

2) The distinctiveness of the European Union as a normative actor

The second point of critique posed by Diez (2006:6) entails the idea that many other actors can be considered normative actors, such as the United States, as these actors also impose a cultural impact on others. In his view, the distinctiveness of the European Union as a normative actor is therefore questionable.

In reply to Diez’ latter argument, Manners (2006:178) argues that the EU can be distinguished from other actors, based on its commitment to a distinct set of values. Manners (2006:179) distinguished a unique set of values that constitute the European Union’s ‘normative basis.’ According to Manners (2002:33), the Treaty on European Union (TEU) formulates liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and rule of law as the EU’s founding values. In its Treaty Base, the EU also formulates that the tasks the EU commits itself to are to strive for social progress, sustainable development and non-discrimination. The Copenhagen Criteria, established in 1993, demonstrate a dedication to democracy, rule of law, human rights, and the protection of minorities in order to build stable institutions. Finally, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union demonstrates a dedication to fundamental rights, in which dignity, freedoms, equality, solidarity, citizenship and justice are the EU’s core values.

Table 2: The EU's normative basis (Manners, 2002:33)

Founding principles

Tasks Stable institutions Fundamental Rights Ø Liberty

Ø Democracy Ø Human rights and

fundamental freedoms Ø Rule of Law Ø Social progress Ø Sustainable development Ø Nondiscrimination Ø Democracy Ø Rule of Law Ø Human rights and

fundamental freedoms Ø Protection of minorities Ø Dignity Ø Freedoms Ø Equality Ø Solidarity Ø Citizenship Ø Justice Treaty on European Union

Treaty Base Copenhagen Criteria Draft Charter of Fundamental Rights

of the European Union

Manners’ findings reflect the ‘general’ content of the values the European Union aims to exert in the international domain. In reply, other authors have examined the EU’s values in specific policy domains, such as in the field of biotechnology (Falkner, 2007), the EU’s Mediterranean policy (Bicchi, 2006; Pace, 2009) and its relations with the Western Balkans (Noutcheva, 2009).

To further build on this research, this thesis focuses on how the European Union is able to substantiate its values within a specific setting - a crisis situation. To this end, it is vital to assume that the EU can be examined as a distinct, normative actor that conceptualizes a certain set of values. The EU’s normative basis as examined by Manners (2002) will be compared with the findings of this research on the identity of the EU in the policy domain of migration.

3) The political implications of defining the European Union as a normative actor

A third critique on the normative power concept posed by Diez (2005:3) entails that the practice of defining the EU as a normative actor shapes an image of the EU that has far-stretching political consequences. Diez (2005:15) argues that the discursive practice of ascribing normative power to the European Union, if done successfully, constructs a particular ‘self’ of the European Union against other actors in the international domain. As the success of the representation of the European Union as a normative actor is a prerequisite for other actors to accept the norms diffused by the European Union, one should be careful ascribing this ‘normative power’ to the European Union.

(17)

Manners (2006) acknowledges the political implications of ascribing normative power to the European Union. Manners (2006:180) argues, however, that this discursive practice is not necessarily wrong: discourse empowers us to attribute value to the social world. Therefore, Manners (2006:180) argues, political theory should not take the identity of the European Union and its relations with other actors for granted, but should entail a critical reflection of what constitutes the European Union as a ‘normative actor,’ what it does and what it aims to achieve in the international domain. The normative power concept, Manners (2006) argues, forms an analytical tool to reflect on the identity of the European Union as a normative actor.

In 2007, Diez and Manners further debate on this subject, resulting in a synthesis of the arguments of both authors. Both authors acknowledge that, in applying the normative power concept to the European Union, one must take into account that the EU does not have one ‘self’ or one ‘identity.’ The identity of the European Union, as the identity of any other entity in the social world, is fluid, dynamic and has multiple dimensions (Diez and Manners, 2007:186). When examining the identity of the European Union as a normative actor, one should therefore be reflexive in considering the context in which one attributes a certain normative power to the European Union. Each person studying the identity of the European Union should recognize that any representation of the European Union and the values it aims to diffuse are limited to the context in which these representations are made, and that these claims can have a political impact.

This research acknowledges the normative aspects of conducting research on the identity of the European Union as a normative actor. Therefore, the aim of this research is limited to defining how the European Union has described its own values within a particular policy domain, within a given time frame, and how it has practiced these values during a particular crisis situation. It is not the purpose of this research to provide definite claims about what the European Union is, but rather how the European Union has constructed its identity and how the European Union has substantiated this particular identity during the Migration Crisis (2015-2016).

2.4 Conclusion: main assumptions of this Thesis

This chapter has provided an overview of different theoretical perspectives on actorness and power in the domain of international relations. The purpose of this chapter was to select a suitable approach to examine how the European Union constructs its identity as a ‘normative actor’ and how the European Union substantiates this identity in its response to the Migration Crisis (2015-2016),

The constructivist approach, taking into account the peculiarities of ‘normative power’ in relation to the European Union, forms a theoretical perspective well suited to the purpose of this research. Describing the academic debate on normative power as a novel concept, the distinctiveness of the EU as a normative actor, and the political implications of defining the EU as such, the previous section explained why and how the normative power concept is employed in this research. To conclude this chapter, the following statements illustrate the main assumptions of this Master’s thesis.

1) Employing a social constructivist approach, this research conceptualizes ‘actorness’ and ‘the international domain’ as social constructs, defined by ideas and norms which are produced, reproduced and transformed in a cyclical process of social construction between actors and the social system in which they operate.

2) Following the constructivist perspective, normative power is considered here as the ability of actors to diffuse norms to other actors within the international system. A normative actor is able to employ its normative power to diffuse its values.

3) The European Union is examined here as a ‘distinct’ normative actor that commits itself to a distinct, yet dynamic, set of values. To examine the EU as normative actor, the content of the

(18)

values should be analyzed and these values can be assessed by examining the coherence and

consistency of the values diffused.

4) Describing the European Union as a ‘normative actor’ is a discursive practice with political implications. This thesis therefore employs a reflexive approach, taking into account that the identity of the European Union is fluid and context-dependent.

Taking this set of assumptions as a point of departure to answer the central research question, the next chapter elaborates on how the constructivist perspective can be employed to study the European Union as a ‘normative actor’ and the values it aims to exert in the international domain.

(19)

3. Constructivism and the study of identity

The previous chapter described why social constructivism is most suitable for examining how the European Union constructs its identity and the values it aims to exert in dealing with the Migration Crisis. Consequently, it is important to gain a profound understanding of how exactly, from a constructivist point-of-view, conceptualizations of ‘identity’ and ‘values’ come into being and how these conceptualizations manifest themselves in an actor’s behavior in the international domain. These insights will be used for the further development of the methodological framework employed for this research.

3.1 Constructing identity in the international domain

An important assumption of social constructivism entails the idea that ‘’Actors have a Self and this Self colors the interaction with other actors.’’ (Epstein, 2010:23) Within constructivist thought, Wendt (1999) has provided a large amount of insights on the subject of ‘the Self’ in international relations. Identity, as Wendt conceptualizes it, entails role-specific understandings and expectations of the Self (Wendt, 1999:21). These understandings and expectations are acquired by a process of ‘collective meaning’ with other actors. One of the main assumptions underlying Wendt’s work is the idea that actors’ identities ’are not given but are developed and sustained or transformed through interaction’ (Wendt, 1992; Hopf, 2000:370). In other words, identities are acquired understandings of the Self, based on social interaction with others. Taking Wendt’s theory into account, the daily practice of international relations thus consists of a continuous process of shaping one’s identity in relation to other actors (Zehfuss, 2001:319).

At the same time, however, Wendt (1999:21) also argues that ‘identities are hard to change, but they are not carved in stone.’ Through repetitive interaction, actors develop certain expectations and images of each other, thereby creating and sustaining social structures. In this process, actors begin to perceive the social system of identities and expectations in which they operate as an objective fact. This perception of social reality as ‘objective’ makes it difficult to radically transform one’s identity (Zehfuss, 2001:319). This form of reasoning explains why, in the practice of international relations, the identity of actors does not often radically transform.

3.1.1 The role of discourse in identity construction

The constructivist logic about the Self described above explains how interaction forms the social dynamic that shapes identity. As social interaction forms the main driver of identity-building, it is vital to examine patterns of interaction and communication between actors (Epstein, 2010:15). Studying discourse, then, forms an essential part of examining the identity of an actor.

Discourse is understood as an overarching concept that encompasses not only the content of ideas, but also the interactive processes by which ideas are conveyed (Schmidt, 2008). According to Foucault (1977 in: Ball, 1990:17), discourses are ’practices that systematically form the objects of which they speak; they do not identify objects, they constitute them.’ Not only does analyzing discourse provide an understanding of how an actor views itself and the world in a certain moment, it also provides insights into the process in which an actor shapes and re-shapes the meaning of the world. The process of discourse influences how actors view themselves and others within the social system in which they operate.

De Cilia et al. (1999) argue that identities – in this case, national ones – are created, re-created, transformed and destructed by means of language. The acceptance of a certain ‘identity’ of an actor is discursively disseminated through law, bureaucratic systems, education and rituals. These channels thus form a social system in which identities are reproduced (De Cilia et al., 1999:156).

(20)

Identity-formation can thus be seen as a process of interaction, in which ideas of the Self are produced and reproduced through discursive practices within a social system.

In other words, as Phillips and Hardy (2002:2) put it: ‘’without discourse, there is no social reality, and without understanding discourse, we cannot understand our reality, our experiences, or ourselves.’’ In order to understand the identity of the European Union, one must therefore pay careful attention to how the EU conceptualizes its identity by means of discourse.

3.1.2 Identity, discourse and policymaking

According to Wendt (1999), the process of developing an idea of the Self in relation to others simultaneously provides an actor an understanding of its interests vis-à-vis other actors. This idea can best be explained by comparing constructivist thought with realist and liberal decision-making models.

Realists and liberals view actors’ identities as based on the absolute position actors acquire within the domain of international relations: it is a matter of material power. Decisions of actors are, according to these accounts, based on logic of consequences: a rational calculation of expected gains and losses (Saurugger, 2013:891). Changes of interests – and consequently, changes of decisions - are based on material changes of the environment, such as power shifts. Social constructivists, on the other hand, argue that state behavior is not based on a rational calculation of interest maximization, nor on how much material power an actor has. Instead, constructivists propose that appropriate decisions for an actor are governed by logic of appropriateness, which assumes that behavior in a given situation is based on the social rules, norms and expectations that constrain an actor within a given context (ibid.). In other words, the behavior of actors in the international domain can be traced back to how actors view themselves and their perception of the social rules, norms and expectations they should adhere to (Parsons, 2002:48). An actor’s behavior in the international domain should therefore be understood as a result of how an actor perceives its identity and the expectations that belong to this identity (Schmidt and Radaelli, 2004).

The ideas an actor has about its identity shape, in three ways, the actor’s behavior with regard to policy-making. Firstly, ideas shape the way in which an actor views policy issues and determine which issues end up on the political agenda. Secondly, ideas can frame basic assumptions about the policy solution that needs to be taken to tackle the issue at stake. Thirdly, ideas can be used as discursive tools to shape and legitimize policy solutions (Béland, 2009:705). The division between problem perception, policy solutions and policy legitimization made by Béland (2002) forms a useful categorization to analyze the EU’s self-perceived identity in its relation to its response to the Migration Crisis.

3.1.3 A constructivist approach to studying the EU’s identity

This section demonstrated how the social constructivist theory can be employed to study the identity of actors and their values in the domain of international relations. Put briefly, this section described that, from a constructivist point-of-view, the identity of actors is constituted through a process of interaction with other actors. In this process, discourse plays an important role in shaping and reshaping perspectives of the social world. Through repetitive interaction, actors create certain ideas about themselves and other actors, thereby creating a social system of norms, ideas and expectations. Within this dynamic social system, the behavior of actors is based on logic of appropriateness; on what is expected from actors within a certain context. This political behavior is manifested through how an actor perceives a policy issue, which policy solutions it implements, and how the actor legitimizes these solutions.

A methodological assumption of this thesis is therefore, that identity and values underlying an identity can be examined by observing the actor’s discourse. The focus of this research therefore lies on

(21)

comparing how the EU formulates its identity on paper with its policy-making practices: how it perceives the Migration Crisis as a policy problem, which policy solutions the EU implements, and how the EU legitimizes these solutions.

Consequently, it is possible to establish a plan to examine how the European Union conceptualizes its identity as a ‘normative power’ and how the EU substantiates its values in its response to the Migration Crisis. This plan consists of the following three steps:

1) Analyzing the identity of the European Union:

Ø How does the European Union construct its identity as an actor in the international domain? Ø How does the European Union construct its values in the domain of migration?

2) Analyzing the EU response to the Migration Crisis

Ø How did the European Union perceive the migrant influx as a policy issue? Ø Which policy solutions did the European Union implement?

Ø How did the European Union legitimize its policies?

3) Comparing the EU’s self-perceived identity in the international domain with its policy response to the Migration Crisis:

Ø How does the EU’s policy response relate to the values found in Step 1? Ø Is the European Union consistent in living up to its values?

Ø Is the EU’s policy response coherent, aligning its values?

To answer these questions, this research employs the constructivist perspective, focusing on discourse to discover how the European Union constructs its identity and substantiates its values during the Migration Crisis. Because, as Epstein (2010:15) puts it: ’discourse is central both to what states do and who they are – the dynamics of identity.’ The following section therefore proposes a discursive research methodology to be employed in this Thesis.

Exploring the European Union as a normative actor: a constructivist perspective on actor identity, discourse and the European response to the Migration Crisis