There are many ways in which to define the relationship between the European Union (EU) and the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries. Using Holsti‟s definitions of role theory, this study distinguishes between the ego (the EU) and the alter (the ACP countries), referring to the differing perceptions that each has regarding the same issue: the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs). It is argued that the EU carries out its external policies vis-à-vis the ACP countries, and in particular with the EPAs, in a manner that is perceived very differently by the two parties. The EU perceives its behaviour as that of Normative Power Europe (NPE) whereby actions are identified as altruistic and determined by a number of norms that form the core of the EU. Alternatively, it is suggested that in contrast to NPE, the ACP countries, with specific reference to southern Africa, experience and perceive quite a different version of the EU which is determined by Market Power Europe (MPE). MPE highlights a tangible and self-interested Europe not concerned entirely with altruistic intentions but rather the interests of its Single Market. The co-existence of these perceptions accounts for the difficulties faced in concluding the EPA negotiations. / Dissertation (MA)--University of Pretoria, 2013. / gm2014 / Political Sciences / unrestricted

This study analyzes the European Union's governance methods in Kosovo during the negotiation process for EU membership, since the country's declaration of independence. To carry out an analysis, this study uses a theory-consuming case study as its method. The study uses Steven Levitsky and Lucan Way's theory of Western Linkage and Leverage as an analytical tool to analyze what governance methods the European Union has used in Kosovo. But also to find out if they have had an impact on Kosovo's EU integration since the country's independence. The results show that the levels of Western Linkage have been high but also have developed positively since 2008. In addition, the results show that the levels of Western Leverage have been high since 2008. Thus it appears that the EU has used different governance methods in order to lead Kosovo to an increased democratization. This study also concludes that the EU can be seen as an important, normative actor for Kosovo during the negotiation process according to the theory Normative Power Europe.

This graduate thesis analyses the EU security policy towards the Maghreb between 2005 and 2010. It does so in order to ascertain to what extent the level of practical policy corresponds with the level of declarations. Also, by using the promotion of democratic governance in the Maghreb countries under the ENP as s case study, the thesis means to challenge the proposition that European Union can be described as a 'Normative Power'. First chapter briefly presents the concept of 'Normative Power Europe'. Following section looks at the European Security Strategy and localizes the primary position of the goal of democracy promotion in the document. Third part gives an overview of the European policy towards the Mediterranean under which EU relations with the Maghreb have been framed. Most attention is paid to the European Neighbourhood Policy. Next chapter examines the level of practical EU policy. It consists of three separate case studies of European policy towards Tunisia, Morocco and Libya between 2005 and 2010. The fifth and final part qualitatively analyses the way four factors (trade, energy, migration and terrorism) contributed to the structuring of relations of Tunisia, Morocco and Libya with Spain, France and Italy. The thesis arrives at the conclusion that while at the declaratory level the EU strives...

The European Union together with other international organizations have a significant role in creating world order, promoting international cooperation, and strengthening international security. For this reason, the EU has been interested in finding a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict which is one of the EU's top foreign policy issues. EU's failure to implement a two- state solution for Israel-Palestine puts the EU in a challenging position and questions its role as an international peacemaker. The starting point of the research problem is covered by the following question: How can the EU's failure to implement a two-state solution for the Israel-Palestine conflict be explained by realism and liberalism? The research problem is studied with the help of realism and liberalism, which are central schools in the political discipline; international relations. The chosen method for this research is a qualitative case study. The results shows that partly internal gaps within the EU, the US role in the conflict, monopolies of violence, disagreements among the Palestinian movements and the absence of binding international law are behind the EU's failure to implement a two-state solution. Despite this, the EU maintains stability in the region by being the main donor to the Palestinians and Israel's primary trading partners.

Cette étude se donne pour ambition de saisir et de comprendre ce qu’est la motivation des décisions juridictionnelles du Conseil d’État, au demeurant souvent critiquée. Notion fondamentale en droit processuel, la motivation est un discours argumentatif, expression d’une technique juridique, à savoir un discours visant à justifier au plan juridique et factuel la décision à travers un raisonnement afin de persuader l’auditoire. Ainsi faudra-t-il analyser à la fois son architecture et ses fonctions dans une perspective dynamique. En tout état de cause, on constate,depuis au moins le début du XXIe siècle, une certaine évolution de la motivation. Ce phénomène résulte, notamment, de l’européanisation et de la complexité normatives, de la protection renforcée des droits fondamentaux, des exigences de sécurité juridique ou encore de la volonté du Conseil d’État de promouvoir une politique communicationnelle afin de légitimer son action. L’étude implique de revisiter certaines thématiques traditionnelles, en particulier le syllogismejudiciaire, l’argumentation, l’interprétation, le style de la motivation ou encore le pouvoir normatif jurisprudentiel pour constater et mesurer cette évolution. / The aim of this research is to tackle and understand the Conseil d’Etat’s court’s decisions motivation which are often criticised. Fundamental notion in procedural law, motivation is an argumentative discourse expressing a jurisdictional technique but moreover it is specifically a discourse trying trough a legal reasoning to justify a decision in order to convince the audience. Thus we shall have to analyse its architecture and its functions in a dynamic perspective. Either way we can note that since the beginning of the 21st century the court’s motivation has evolved.This phenomenon is the result of the Europeanization and the complexity of the normative production and is also due to enhanced protection of the fundamental rights, legal certainty and the Conseil d’Etat’s wish to promote a communicational policy in order to legitimise its action. This research entails to revisit certain traditional topics such as jurisdictional syllogism, argumentation, interpretation, the motivation’s style or the normative jurisprudential power to both note and measure this evolution.

La distinction du fait et du droit est une problématique centrale dansl’organisation des voies de droit. Elle exerce en effet, au-delà d’une variété de formes et designifications, une influence décisive sur l’office du juge ainsi que sur la fonction desautorités soumises à son contrôle. Pour appréhender pleinement la portée qu’elle revêt dansl’équilibre des pouvoirs établi par la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne, il est nécessairede se défaire de toute préconception de la distinction du fait et du droit (notamment auregard des pratiques observées en droit interne), afin de comprendre comment le juge del’Union européenne exerce un pouvoir de détermination à son égard, que ce soit dans lecontrôle de validité des actes juridiques ou dans les voies de recours dirigées contre desactes juridictionnels. Dans cette opération, elle reste toutefois soucieuse d’assurerl’acceptabilité de ses décisions, et prend donc en considération certaines contraintesjuridiques qui se présentent à elle dans son office. Autorité normatrice et ordonnatrice, laCour de justice en tant qu’interprète authentique utilise en réalité la distinction du fait et dudroit comme un instrument de répartition des compétences entre les différents acteursconcernés par la réalisation du droit de l’Union européenne. Elle définit ainsi, à travers ladétermination de la distinction du fait et du droit dans chacune de ses manifestations,l’habilitation que leur confère le système juridique. En ce sens, elle apparaît comme lajuridiction suprême de cet espace normatif. / The distinction between fact and law is central to the organization of remedies.It exerts, through its variety of forms and meanings, a decisive influence on the Court and onthe function of the authorities that the former reviews. In order to fully grasp its significance inthe balance of power that the European Court of Justice has established, one has to discardany preconception related to the distinction between fact and law (especially those present inmunicipal law). This in turn leads to the understanding of the manner in which the EuropeanCourt specifies the distinction, should it concern the review against legal acts or the ways ofchallenging case law. Whilst doing this, the European Court remains wary of the acceptabilityof its decisions, thus taking into account several legal constraints. As a normative authorityand as the authentic interpreter, the European Court of Justice uses the distinction betweenfact and law as a way to divide the competences of the actors concerned with theimplementation of EU law. By performing this specification, it defines the way the legalsystem entitles these actors. In this way, the European Court of Justice emerges as theSupreme Court of this normative space.

L’Union européenne (UE) se sert principalement d’outils normatifs pour exercer du pouvoir sur la scène internationale, notamment par la promotion de ses propres lois et standards. Le meilleur exemple est l’élargissement de l’UE, processus ayant contribué à stabiliser l'Europe et à transformer les candidats en des démocraties de marché, notamment en promouvant un rapprochement avec les normes européennes en échange d’une perspective d’adhésion à l’UE. La Politique européenne de Voisinage (PEV) utilise les mêmes mécanismes développés lors des élargissements, notamment la promotion de réformes en échange d’incitatifs financiers. Par contre, la PEV n’offre aucune perspective d’adhésion à l’UE aux États qui y participent. Ainsi, plusieurs études ont conclu que cette politique ne pourrait engendrer les réformes escomptées. Bien que la coopération au sein de la PEV ne soit pas aussi fructueuse que lors des élargissements, on remarque que certains pays plus que d’autres ont, malgré l’absence de perspective d’adhésion, fait des changements à leur législation en conformité avec les normes européennes. En comparant la coopération dans le secteur de la Justice et des affaires intérieures en Moldavie et en Ukraine, nous montrons que la différence s’explique par l’importance des facteurs internes des pays concernés, notamment l’existence d’identités nationales contestées et les batailles politiques intérieures portant sur la politique étrangère. / The European Union (EU) relies heavily on normative tools to exert power in world politics, such as the promotion of its own laws and standards. The most successful case is the EU enlargement process, which has contributed to stabilize the vicinity and transform candidates into market-based democracies by promoting alignment with European legislation and offering the prospect of EU accession. The European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) uses the same mechanisms that have made enlargement a successful policy, notably incentives-fueled reform. It does not however offer participating states a membership perspective and therefore most scholarly studies have drawn bleak prospects on its ability to promote reform. While cooperation in the ENP framework is not as intense as during the enlargement rounds, we find that some countries have indeed been making changes to their legislation and aligning themselves with the acquis communautaire, while other countries have not been so successful. By comparing norm implementation in the field of Justice and Home Affairs in the cases of Moldova and Ukraine, we show that differences are explained by the significant impact of domestic factors, such as contested state identities and domestic political battles over foreign policy.

[pt] O presente trabalho se desdobra através do dentro/ fora da União Europeia (UE) perguntando que poder existe na narrativa de poder normativo? E o que essa narrativa faz com a UE? Essas questões são investigadas movendo o foco de análise para perceber em que extensão e de que maneiras as relações com Outros afetam a identidade da UE. Considerando que o Poder Normativo Europeu (PNE) é o elo entre a segurança ontológica da UE e sua política externa, ele não pode ser pensado independentemente do Outro. A tese oferece uma teorização dos mecanismos de difusão e posterior operacionalização de uma perspectiva dialógica que endogeneiza o Outro desde o início. Recepção de normas é, portanto, parte integrante da análise de difusão. Posteriormente, a tese recria diferentes processos de difusão a partir do PNE como política externa para observar o argumento condutor de que, quando os Outros são integralizados à análise, dois dilemas do PNE despontam, um político e outro, mais profundo, ontológico. Um primeiro dilema é político: se o PNE enfrenta resistência, ou ele a anula, minando assim seu status de um tipo distinto de política externa; ou não, e então não alcança seu objetivo de difusão de normas. Mas um dilema mais profundo está ligado ao fato de que o PNE não é apenas uma política externa: é também um componente central do projeto de identidade da UE. Mesmo se as normas forem difundidas e as políticas convergirem, o PNE pode não ser reconhecido como a identidade superior na qual a ordem internacional deve se espelhar. Dito isto, se a UE tomar conhecimento do seu não reconhecimento, ela é posta diante de ver isto como uma aberração que será remediada ao longo do tempo, ou como uma potencial ameaça à sua segurança ontológica. Ela, portanto, paralisa e não consegue alterar sua abordagem. Como resultado, o PNE como política externa pode, mesmo que seja bem-sucedido, prejudicar seu projeto de identidade; e o PNE como projeto de identidade pode minar sua política externa exatamente quando sua tendência a ver-se confirmado ao encontrar o Outro prejudica seu reconhecimento externo. Empiricamente, o dilema ontológico é observado em um caso de cooperação para o desenvolvimento, o Programa entre a UE e a Comunidade de Estados Latino-Americanos e Caribenhos (CELAC) sobre Políticas de Drogas (COPOLAD), iniciado em 2011 e renovado em 2016. O dilema político, por sua vez, é observado em um caso de resistência, a busca pelo acesso global a medicamentos que provocou intensa polarização e divergências entre a UE e o Brasil no âmbito multilateral em 2008-2009, com desenvolvimentos até 2016. A tese constrói uma teoria e desenvolve hipóteses conectadas aos dilemas do PNE, integrando seriamente o Outro em uma abordagem dialógica aos dois casos paradigmáticos. A abordagem explora a presença de diferenças, contestação e assimetrias de poder em trajetos processuais que resultam em um dos dois dilemas. A maioria dos estudos que abordam o exercício do poder normativo da UE como política externa lidam com casos de Europeização entre os Estados membros da UE, candidatos e países vizinhos. Esse cenário pode conduzir a um problema tanto para a estabilização da identidade política da UE quanto para o sucesso de sua política externa, uma vez que países distantes das suas fronteiras provavelmente desafiam o discurso de excepcionalidade e caráter distinto da UE. Estudos Europeus e a própria UE, por sua vez, não lançaram luz sobre esse problema até meados dos anos 2000. Em contrapartida, esta tese contribui para a agenda de pesquisa sobre difusão de normas e governança externa da UE em duas frentes principais: 1) oferecendo um quadro teórico para analisar o PNE como política externa, proponho que nosso entendimento é atualmente insuficiente para compreender dilemas que têm a ver com a forma como o PNE deve funcionar; 2) operacionaliza uma abordagem dialógica dos estudos de caso que revelam a política de recepção de normas, considerando os Outros como parte / [en] The present work looks across European Union s inside/outside by asking what power is there in a normative power narrative? And what does this narrative do to the EU? These questions are investigated by moving the focus of analysis to see to what extent and in which ways relationships set up with Others beyond Europe affect the EU political identity. Considering that NPE is the link between the EU s ontological security and its foreign policy, it cannot be thought independently of the Other. At first, the thesis offers a theorization of mechanisms of diffusion and subsequently operationalization in a dialogic perspective that endogeneize the Other from the onset. Norm reception is thus integral part of the diffusion analysis. At second, it recreates different processes of diffusion starting from NPE as foreign policy to observe the driving argument that, when the Others are endogeneized, two dilemmas of NPE arise, one political and another, more profound one, ontological. A first dilemma is political: If NPE faces resistance, it either overrules it thereby undermining its status of a different type of foreign policy; or it does not, and then does not succeed in its aim of norm diffusion. But a more profound dilemma is connected to the fact that NPE is not just a foreign policy: it is also a central component of the EU s identity project. Even if norms are diffused and policies converge, NPE may not be recognized as the superior identity to which the international order should strive. This said, if the EU becomes aware of its non-recognition, it is put before either seeing this as an aberration that will be remedied over time, or as a potential threat to its ontological security. It is hence stuck and cannot change its approach. As a result, NPE as a foreign policy can, even if successful, undermine its identity project; and NPE as identity politics can undermine its foreign policy exactly when its tendency to see itself confirmed when meeting the Other undermines its external recognition. Empirically, the ontological dilemma is observed in a case of development cooperation, the Programme between the EU and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean Countries (CELAC) on Drugs Policies (COPOLAD), which began in 2011 and was renewed in 2016. And the political dilemma is observed in a case of resistance, the quest of global access to medicines that provoked intense polarization and divergences between the EU and Brazil at the multilateral level in 2008-2009, with further developments until 2016. The thesis builds a theory and develops hypotheses connected to the NPE dilemma, seriously integrating the Other in a dialogic approach to the two paradigmatic cases. The approach explores the role of difference, contestation and power asymmetries in processual paths that end up in either of the two dilemma. Most studies that address the exercising of NPE as foreign policy tackle cases of Europeanization among EU Member States, candidates and neighboring countries. This scenario may lead to a consequent problem for both the stabilization of the EU political identity and success of foreign policy, since countries far from its borders are likely to challenge EU s discourse of exceptionalism and distinctiveness. European Studies and the EU itself did not shed light on this problem until mid-2000s. By contrast, this thesis contributes to the research agenda of norms diffusion and EU external governance on two main fronts: 1) offering a theoretical framework to analyze NPE as foreign policy, I propose that our understanding is currently insufficient to grasp dilemmas that have to do with how NPE should work; 2) it operationalizes a dialogic approach to the case studies that reveal the politics of norm reception, considering the Others as part of a fruitful communication with the EU, and not as passive receivers of NPE. Politically, it is relevant for the EU to make the NPE as a strategy coincide with its discourse on norms and principles, reducing the creation of stereotypes like double standards. In addition, to embody the Others in

L’Union européenne (UE) se sert principalement d’outils normatifs pour exercer du pouvoir sur la scène internationale, notamment par la promotion de ses propres lois et standards. Le meilleur exemple est l’élargissement de l’UE, processus ayant contribué à stabiliser l'Europe et à transformer les candidats en des démocraties de marché, notamment en promouvant un rapprochement avec les normes européennes en échange d’une perspective d’adhésion à l’UE. La Politique européenne de Voisinage (PEV) utilise les mêmes mécanismes développés lors des élargissements, notamment la promotion de réformes en échange d’incitatifs financiers. Par contre, la PEV n’offre aucune perspective d’adhésion à l’UE aux États qui y participent. Ainsi, plusieurs études ont conclu que cette politique ne pourrait engendrer les réformes escomptées. Bien que la coopération au sein de la PEV ne soit pas aussi fructueuse que lors des élargissements, on remarque que certains pays plus que d’autres ont, malgré l’absence de perspective d’adhésion, fait des changements à leur législation en conformité avec les normes européennes. En comparant la coopération dans le secteur de la Justice et des affaires intérieures en Moldavie et en Ukraine, nous montrons que la différence s’explique par l’importance des facteurs internes des pays concernés, notamment l’existence d’identités nationales contestées et les batailles politiques intérieures portant sur la politique étrangère. / The European Union (EU) relies heavily on normative tools to exert power in world politics, such as the promotion of its own laws and standards. The most successful case is the EU enlargement process, which has contributed to stabilize the vicinity and transform candidates into market-based democracies by promoting alignment with European legislation and offering the prospect of EU accession. The European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) uses the same mechanisms that have made enlargement a successful policy, notably incentives-fueled reform. It does not however offer participating states a membership perspective and therefore most scholarly studies have drawn bleak prospects on its ability to promote reform. While cooperation in the ENP framework is not as intense as during the enlargement rounds, we find that some countries have indeed been making changes to their legislation and aligning themselves with the acquis communautaire, while other countries have not been so successful. By comparing norm implementation in the field of Justice and Home Affairs in the cases of Moldova and Ukraine, we show that differences are explained by the significant impact of domestic factors, such as contested state identities and domestic political battles over foreign policy.

Central Asia has been the focal point of intense geopolitical power struggle throughout history. At the dawn of the 21st century, Central Asia has undergone major changes as the European Union and the China-led Shanghai Co-operation Organization have emerged as two normative powers, both seeking to influence the patterns of security governance in the region. This study aims to delve deep into ‘the black boxes’ of the EU’s and China’s foreign policies toward five CA republics. It starts from the premise that the bulk of research on Eurasian politics tend to concentrate mostly on realist and traditional geopolitical doctrine, which seem to have failed to properly explain the normative and ideational transformations that have taken place in the region as a result of the presence of these two emerging normative agents. By interweaving both realist and constructivist theories of International Relations (IR) into a new all-encompassing analytical framework, termed “meta-geopolitics”, the thesis seeks to trace and examine how geopolitical as well as normative components of the EU and Chinese regional strategies have affected the contemporary power dynamics in the post-Soviet space. I argue that, in contrast to the geopolitical struggle during the 19th and 20th centuries, a clash of normative powers is brewing in the region between China, under the aegis of the SCO, and the EU. The research also concludes that China has relatively been in a better position in comparison to the EU to render its policies as feasible, effective and legitimate to the Central Asian states.