Decentring European Foreign Policy in Theory and Practice

Abstract

Critical scholarship has long identified systemic defects in European agency in the global arena by pointing primarily to the flaws of Eurocentrism (Said, 1978; Spivak, 1988; Chakrabarty, 2000). Analyses have revealed the continued prevalence of territorial imagery in European policy-making (Diez, 1996), the exclusionary practices exercised along the EU’s bordes (van Houtum and Boedeltje, 2009), and, accordingly, the widespread ‘violent’ practices applied in the formation of bounded identities (Ashley, 1988). Such findings stand in stark contrast with the image subscribed to the European integration project since its foundation, intending to depict it as a ‘postmodern promise’ which breaks with the violent practices of the Westphalian state (Borg and Diez, 2016). At the same time, the field of European studies, and particularly the study of EU foreign policy, also remain largely marked by Eurocentric perspectives to date (Keuleers et al, 2016). Addressing this issue, Fisher Onar and Nicolaïdis (2013) called for a paradigm shift towards decentring the study and practice of Europe’s – and particularly the EU’s – international relations. With the aim to reconstitute European agency to fulfil its ‘postmodern promise’, the pair proposed a theoretical agenda based on provincialisation – that is, the questioning of deep-rooted Eurocentric narratives –, engagement – i.e. engaging the perspectives of ‘others’ –, and reconstruction(s) – referring to the reconstitution of external praxis established on mutuality and local empowerment. While the initial agenda and subsequent elaborations (see Lecocq and Keukeleire, 2018; Keukeleire and Lecocq, 2018) laid the groundwork for a novel theoretical and analytical context, further contemplation on methodology and operationalisation, as well as complementary empirical examples are duly needed. The papers presented in this panel aim exactly at this. Resulting from a workshop that took place in March 2019 gathering close to 30 scholars from across Europe, the papers intend to build on and improve the extant agenda so as to work out an analytically and methodologically well-grounded template with practical significance for a decentred European foreign policy. In particular, it 1) identifies and bridges the agenda’s methodology gap, 2) fine tunes the existing analytical framework, and 3) reveals its empirical implications in a number of fields and regions that are of strategic importance in EU foreign policy. In terms of georgraphical focus, the papers consider the EU’s Southern Neighbourhood, including the Middle East and North Africa (Huber, Wolff, Lecocq), as well as its Eastern Neighbourhood (Gazsi). As for areas of EU foreign policy, they explore various interconnected policy areas including human rights, migration, or trade/industry (Huber), religion (Wolff), hybrid actors in governance (Lecocq), and justice and home affairs (Gazsi).

Title	Details
Explaining Variation in the Types of Diplomatic Activities of the EU in International Environmental Negotiations	View Paper Details
Methodological Reflections on a Decentring Agenda in EU Foreign Policy Research: Experiences from a Horizon2020 Project	View Paper Details
Engaging with the Religious: a Decentred Opportunity for (Secular) European Diplomats?	View Paper Details
Hybrid Actors in the Middle East and North Africa and European Foreign Policy: a Decentred Research Approach	View Paper Details