In the field of European studies, the notion of ‘differentiated integration’ (Stubb 1996) was developed in the late 1990s as an alternative to the crude membership/non-membership dichotomy. While the theoretical benefits of this approach are broadly discussed in the existing literature, further empirical studies have been deemed necessary (Holzinger and Schimmelfennig 2012). The Nordic states constitute a particularly interesting laboratory in order to study this phenomenon. Indeed, while these states share several socio-economic and political characteristics, they also differ in terms of their relationship with the European Union. Several studies on these relationships emphasise the relevance of certain contextual variables as key explanatory factors for the variation in attitudes between the Nordic states. However, there is also lack of analysis that looks into the domestic political features that these countries share. Furthermore, most studies in the field tend to ignore the respective government’s positions on European integration, and mostly adopt a top-down approach when focusing on the nation-state as a whole. Adopting a most similar systems design, this thesis aims to answer the following question: have Nordic government preferences on European integration been influenced by domestic political factors? In order to answer this question, four domestic variables are introduced and analysed: relative strength of parties in parliament; composition of government; type of government; and government ideology. Within this comparative framework, three Nordic countries have been selected: the first one belonging to the ‘inner core’ of the European Union (Finland);; while the second is located at its ‘outer core’ (Sweden);; and the third one serves as a control case as an ‘EU-outsider’ which is still located in the Union’s ‘inner periphery’ (Norway). For each state, the analysis starts in the early 1990s, when ‘Europe’ developed into a politically salient issue in domestic politics. The focus is furthermore set on their respective government’s positions regarding five distinct policy areas: participation in the European Economic Area; application for European Union membership; participation in the Schengen Area; participation in the Economic and Monetary Union; and participation in European Battle Groups. The main findings of the thesis suggest that when analysing governments’ positions on (differentiated) European integration, the domestic political features should not be downplayed. For instance, the Swedish government’s opposition to participation in the EMU in 1997 is mostly explained by a lack of party consensus over this issue, unlike in Finland where a broad inter-party agreement was secured for this policy area. The analysis further suggests that studies on party and government preferences on Europe should focus on policy areas rather than on the issue of integration as a whole. Such a focus provides for better understanding of the nature of ‘Euroscepticism’ in the Nordic region and, to a broader extent, in Europe.

Notre recherche, qui articule un objet de science politique, un traitement historique et une problématisation philosophique, vise à déterminer si la démocratie communautaire s’est construite sur une intégration par le peuple ou pour le peuple. De l’entre-deux-guerres jusqu’au traité de Lisbonne, nous avons étudié les discours des théoriciens et des praticiens de la construction européenne afin de préciser le rapport de l’Europe politique à son ou ses peuples. Ce rapport obéit-il à une dynamique ascendante – le peuple comme acteur de l’intégration post-nationale – ou à une dynamique descendante – le peuple comme bénéficiaire de l’intégration post-nationale ? La première partie de notre recherche se concentre sur la « pré-histoire » du projet d’unification continentale et sur la naissance de la Communauté européenne. Alors que l’intégration ne repose encore sur aucun « peuple européen » constituant, une théorie de la démocratie communautaire commence à affleurer dans le discours des trois généalogies communaliste, fédéraliste et technocratique. La deuxième partie de notre travail aborde la transition entre la Communauté européenne et l’Union européenne et la manière dont elle s’est accompagnée d’un approfondissement paradoxal de l’idée démocratique malgré le peuple. La troisième partie de notre enquête aborde le changement de paradigme politique qui accompagne l’échec du projet de traité constitutionnel et la ratification du Traité de Lisbonne. Dans quelle mesure cette période de crise ouvre-t-elle la voie d’une forme ambiguë de démocratie contre le peuple ? / The purpose of my research which connects three fields – Political Science, History and Philosophy – is to determine whether European supranational democracy is built on the basis of an integration by the people or for the people. From the interwar period to the Lisbon Treaty I have studied the theoretical and practical views of the European Construction in order to define the relation between political Europe and its people: does this relation follow an ascending process – the people as actors of the post-national integration – or a descending process – the people benefiting by the post-national integration? The first part of my research studies the continental unification project and the birth of the European Community’s “pre-history”. Whereas the integration is not yet based on any constituent “European people”, a communautary democracy theory begins to appear in the three communalist, federalist and technocratic genealogy lines. The second part of my research deals with the transition between the European Community and the European Union and the way it has been backed up with a paradoxical increasing of the idea of democracy in spite of the people. The last part of my research deals with the change in political paradigm, linked to the failure of both the constitutional treaty project and the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, and examines to what extent a period of crisis could lead to an ambiguous form of democracy against the people.