What Types of Power Does the EU Have?

Power is an abstract idea that exists in a relational context. In essence, it refers to the ability for state X to influence state Y to behave in a specific way, which would not happen otherwise. Traditionally, scholars have talked of soft power and hard power, referring to civilian power and military power. This concept is essential because, in the post-Westphalian world, the international stage is anarchic. Each state not only holds sovereignty but also monopolises the use of force, both police and military, over its people. There is no higher power above or below the state. And in this context of conflict and competition between states, the states are thought to be able to assert power, i.e., influence other states to behave in specific ways, either by using their military power against one another or using civilian power through coercion and persuasion.

In this context, the European Union (EU) is a tricky entity because it is not a state in the traditional sense. While it is a collection of states, it does not have a regular army of its own, and the territorial/sovereignty rights it has is not its own but voluntarily conferred by the member states. Thus, the traditional explanation of power between nation-states does not fit perfectly with the EU, which is a pooled sovereignty of its member states. Going beyond the conventional distinction between civilian power and military power, EU scholars have suggested different models. They have developed various concepts, such as normative power, ethical power, and market power, in an attempt to precisely describe how the EU garners its power and asserts it on the global stage.

The normative power Europe (NPE) model, developed by Manners, says that the EU has a distinctive set of core norms and minor norms, such as the respect for human rights, freedom, and democracy. Manners argues that these norms have played a crucial role in establishing the values dictating how the EU functions within itself and that the EU asserts these norms in its external action. For instance, Manners has undertaken a case study of the EU’s role in helping abolish the death penalty around the world either through diplomatic engagements with other countries around the world or through close economic cooperation with them, which almost always entail normative conditions for improved human rights, labour conditions, etc.

The ethical power Europe model (EPE), proposed by Aggestam, goes a step further to address the conflict of interest between Member States (MS) within the EU, and how the EU’s ethical standards are determined. Aggestam also questions the originality and uniqueness of the EU’s norms, reasoning that the EU might have been merely free-riding the ethical developments the whole world has been pursuing, as evident in the adoption of the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Rather than taking for granted that the EU is inherently good and strives to achieve what is normal in the world, Aggestam acknowledges that the EU is a self-seeking actor, just like any other global actor. The EU is thought to act in self-interest, only on the condition that it is held accountable to its MS.

According to Damro, the market power Europe (MPE) model seeks to explain the EU not just for its normative or ethical actions but more as a market power. Since the formation of the European Economic Community in 1958, the EU has always been a market power. It is not only the world’s largest market but also the most highly integrated single market. Contestation of interest occurs within the EU, and the industrial norms and standards that the EU adopts have far-reaching effects on non-European countries.

EU scholars spend so much time explaining what type of power the EU has, mainly because the EU does not fit into the traditional international relations (IR) theories. Given its structural hybridity, market size and the role it has played in setting social norms around the world, the EU’s power cannot be fully explained in terms of civilian power or military power alone. EU scholars have developed various models, such as NPE, EPE and MPE, to describe the way the EU streamlines its internal values and externalise them in foreign policy actions. However, it should be noted that even NPE, EPE or MPE—when used alone—does not fully explain how the EU behaves and how other international actors perceive it. Several studies have been undertaken to compare and complement these models to explain the EU but with limited success.

The difficulty to fully explain the EU as a specific type of power has increased in the recent years due to the rise of Euroscepticism, especially in the challenges of migration issues, terrorism, Brexit, the growing role of China, and the Trumpian US Administration. The EU is still undergoing evolution, and its form is constantly changing. It would be interesting to see how its role on the global stage changes in the future, and what new theoretical models are developed to explain its dynamics more precisely.