SİVİL BİR GÜÇ OLARAK AVRUPA BİRLİĞİ: AB TİCARET POLİTİKASI ÖRNEĞİ

Öz

Bu çalışma ‘sivil güç Avrupa’ rol kavramını referans noktası alarak, AB’nin bir aktör olarak uluslararası alandaki rolünü neyin karakterize ettiğini incelemektedir. Sivil güç Avrupa kavramını geniş bir yaklaşımla, yani sadece ‘sivile karşı askeri’ tartışmasına odaklanmak yerine sivil güç olmanın diğer özelliklerini de içeren bir yaklaşımla analiz etmektedir. Bu analizi yaparken de AB’nin en eski ve en güçlü dış politika alanlarından olan ticaret politikasını vaka analizi olarak ele almaktadır. Çalışma AB dış ticaret politikasının onun ‘sivil güç’ karakterini ağırlıkla yansıttığını iddia etmektedir. Bu durum, ticaret politikasının sadece askeri olmayan güç aracı örneklerinden biri olduğu ve zorlayıcı önlemlerden (sopa) ziyade ikna edici önlemleri (havuç) aldığı için değil, aynı zamanda uluslararası camiayı şekillendirmek üzere normatif hedefler güttüğü için de söz konusudur. Uluslararası alanda jeopolitik çıkarlar izlemek yerine AB kendisini iki taraflı ve çok taraflı anlaşmalar vasıtasıyla uluslararası normlar ile bağlayıp, inandığı değerleri desteklemektedir, Dolayısıyla bu çalışma, uluslararası meselelerde sadece askeri olmayan araçlara ve ikna edici önlemlere başvurduğu için değil, belli bazı normların yayılmasını hedeflemesinden dolayı sivilleştirici etkileri sebebiyle de AB’nin sivil bir güç olduğu sonucuna varmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sivil Güç
• Sivil Güç Avrupa
• Avrupa Birliği
• Ticaret Politikası

THE EUROPEAN UNION AS A CIVILIAN POWER: THE CASE OF THE EU’S TRADE POLICY

Öz

This study addresses what characterises the EU’s role as an international actor by drawing on ‘civilian power Europe’ role concept as a fruitful point of reference. It analyses the scope of the concept from a broad point of view including the other characteristics of a civilian power instead of a narrow focus on the civilian versus military debate with a special empirical reference to the EU’s trade policy as Europe’s most long-standing and most powerful external policy realm. The study argues that EU’s trade policy mostly reflects ‘civilian power’ character of the EU. This is not only because it concerns one of the most obvious examples of non-military means of power and is mainly oriented towards persuasive measures (carrots) rather than coercive ones but also it aims at achieving normative objectives so as to shape the international environment. Instead of following first and foremost geopolitical interests, the EU binds itself to international norms and promotes values it believes in through its engagement in bilateral and multilateral settings. Therefore, the study concludes that the EU is a ‘civilian power’ not only because of its emphasis on non-military instruments and persuasive measures in international affairs, but also due to its civilising impacts (by pursuing the spread of particular norms) on the environment beyond its borders.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Civilian Power
• Civilian Power Europe
• EU
• Trade Policy
• EU’s trade policy

Kaynakça

1. ACP Press (2012). Mixed Progress for ACP-EU Trade Agreements. 31 October. Retrieved: November 20, 2012, from http://www.acp.int/pt-pt/node/1686
2. Bull, Hedley (1982). Civilian Power Europe: A Contradiction in Terms. Journal of Common Market Studies, 12(2), 149-164.
3. Cebeci, Münevver (2012). European Foreign Policy Research Reconsidered: Constructing an ‘Ideal Power Europe’ through Theory? Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 40(3), 563-583.
4. Diez, Thomas (2005). Constructing the Self and Changing Others: Reconsidering Normative Power Europe. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 33(3), 613-636.
5. Duchene, Francois (1972). ‘Europe’s Role in World Peace’. Richard Mayne. Europe Tomorrow: Sixteen Europeans Look Ahead. London: Fontana.
6. Duchene, Francois (1973). ‘The European Community and the Uncertainties of Interdependence’. Max Kohnstamm and Wolfgang Hager. A Nation Writ Large? Foreign Policy Problems before the European Community. London: Macmillan.
7. European Commission (2004). A World Player: The European Union’s External Relations. Belgium.
8. European Commission (2003). Making Globalisation Work for Everyone: The European Union and World Trade. Belgium.

9. European Parliament and the Council (2012). Regulation (EU) No 978/2012. 25 October. Retrieved: November 20, 2012, from http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2012/october/tradoc_150025.pdf
10. Everts, Steven (2002). A Word of Advice from Europe: Soft Power Works. The National Interest, 1(6).
11. Galtung, Johan (1973). The European Community: A Superpower in the Making. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
12. Goldstein, Judith and Keohane Robert O. (1995). Ideas and Foreign Policy: An Analytical Framework. USA: Cornell University Press.
13. Harnisch, Sebastian and Maull Hanns W. (2001). Germany as a Civilian Power? The Foreign Policy of the Berlin Republic. Manchester: Manchester University Press. MARMARA JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN STUDIES 91
14. Hill, Cristopher (1990). ‘European Foreign Policy: Power Bloc, Civilian Model – or Flop’. Reinhardt Rummel. The Evolution of an International Actor: Western Europe’s New Assertiveness. Boulder: Westview Press.
15. Jorgensen, Knud E. (2006). ‘A Multilateralist Role for the EU?’ Ole Elgström and Michael Smith. The European Union’s Role in International Politics: Concepts and Analysis. Abingdon: Routledge.
16. Jorgensen, Knud E. (1997). ‘Western Europe and the Petersberg Tasks’. Knud E. Jorgensen. European Approaches to Crisis Management. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.
17. Klasing, Anneke and Christopher, Maria (2003). ‘Draft Report on European Trade Development’. Berlin: Cat.e, Ecologic.
18. Laird, Sam (1999). Regional Trade Arrangements: Dangerous Liaisons. World Economy, 22(9), 1179-1201.
19. Lamy, Pascal (2003). ‘Main Developments of EU Trade Policy’. Speech in the Sixth Enlargement Trade Ministerial Meeting, Bucharest, May 9-19. Retrieved: April 14, 2010, from http://www.romaniaunog.org/archives/20030510_lamy.htm
20. Larsen, Henrik (2002). The EU: A Global Military Actor. Cooperation and Conflict: Journal of the Nordic International Studies Association, 37(3), 283-302.
21. Manners, Ian (2002). Normative Power Europe: A Contradiction in Terms. Journal of Common Market Studies, 40(2), 235-258.
22. Maull, Hanns W. (1999). Germany and the Use of Force: Still a Civilian Power? Washington DC: The Brookings Institution.
23. Maull, Hanns W. (1990/91). Germany and Japan: The New Civilian Powers. Foreign Affairs, 69(5), 91-116.
24. MercoPress. (2011). ‘EU/Mercosur trade negotiations resume in Paraguay’. 3 May. Retrieved: January 19, 2012, from http://en.mercopress.com/2011/05/03/eu-mercosurtrade-negotiations-resume-in-paraguay
25. Messerlin, Patrick A. (1999). ‘MFN-Based Freer Trade and Regional Free Trade: What Role for the EU’. Olga Memedovic, A. Kuyvenhoven and W. T. M. Molle. Multilateralism and Regionalism in the Post-Uruguay Round Era: What Role for the EU. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
26. Meunier, Sophie (2003). Trade Policy and Political Legitimacy in the European Union. Comparative European Politics, 1, 67-90. 92 THE EU AS A CIVILIAN POWER: THE CASE OF THE EU’s TRADE POLICY
27. Mortensen, Jens L. (1998). ‘The institutional challenges and paradoxes of EU governance in external trade: coping with the post-hegemonic trading system and the global economy’. Alan Cafruny and Patrick Peters. The Union and the World: The Political Economy of a Common European Foreign Policy. Great Britain: Kluwer Law International.
28. Nicolaidis, Kalypso and Howse, Robert (2003). ‘‘This is my EUtopia…’: Narrative as Power’. Joseph H. H. Weiler, Iain Begg and John Peterson. Integration in an Expanding European Union. Oxford: Blackwell.
29. Nye, Joseph S. (2002). The Paradox of American Power: Why the World’s Only Superpower Can’t Go It Alone. New York: Oxford University Press.
30. Nye, Joseph S. (2004). Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. New York: Public Affairs.
31. Orbie, Jan (2008). ‘A Civilian Power in the World? Instruments and Objectives in European Union External Policies’. Jan Orbie. Europe’s Global Role: External Policies of the European Union. Aldershot: Ashgate.
32. Orbie, Jan (2004). ‘Everything but Arms: A Civilian Power Europe at Work’. Paper presented at the ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops, Upsala, April 13-18. Retrieved: January 5, 2010, from www.essex.ac.uk/ecpr/events/jointsessions/paperarchive/uppsala/ws7/Orbie.pdf
33. Prodi, Romano (2000). ‘2000-2005 Shaping the New Europe’. Speech to the European Parliament. Speech/00/41. Strasbourg, 15 Feb.
34. Rosecrance, Richard N. (1998). ‘The European Union: A New Type of International Actor’. Jan Zielonka. Paradoxes of European Foreign Policy. Great Britain: Kluwer Law International.
35. Rosecrance, Richard N. (1986). The Rise of the Trading State. New York: Basic Books. Sapir, Andre (1998). The Political Economy of EC Regionalism. European Economic Review, 42(3-5), 717-732.
36. Smith, Karen E. (2005). ‘Still Civilian Power EU’. European Foreign Policy Unit Working Paper (2005/1), 1-19. Retrieved: March 22, 2008, from http://www.lse.ac.uk/Depts/ intrel/pdfs/EFPU%20Working%20Paper%202005-1.pdf
37. Smith, Karen E. (2003). European Union Foreign Policy in a Changing World. Cambridge: Polity.
38. Smith, Karen E. (2000). The End of Civilian Power EU: A Welcome Demise or Cause for Concern. International Spectator, 23(2), 11-28. MARMARA JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN STUDIES 93
39. Smith, Karen E. (1997). ‘The Use of Political Conditionality in the EU’s Relations with Third Countries: How Effective’. EUI Working Papers, 97(7).
40. Smith, Michael (1999). ‘Negotiating Globalisation: The Foreign Economic Policy of the European Union’. Richard Stubbs and Geoffrey R. Underhill. Political Economy and the Changing Global Order. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
41. Smith, Michael and Woolcock, Stephen (1999). European Commercial Policy: A Leadership Role in the New Millennium. European Foreign Affairs Review, 4, 439-462.
42. Smith, Michael (1998). ‘Does the Flag Follow Trade? ‘Politicisation’ and the Emergence of European Foreign Policy’. John Peterson and Helen Sjursen. A Common Foreign Policy for Europe. London: Routledge.
43. Stavridis, Stelios (2001). Militarising the EU: the Concept of Civilian Power Europe Revisited. The International Spectator, 41(4), 43-50.
44. Therborn, Göran (2001). ‘Europe – Superpower or Scandinavia of the World’. Mario Telo. European Union and New Regionalism, Regional Actors and Global Governance in a Post-Hegemonic Era. England: Ashgate.
45. Therborn, Göran (1997). ‘Europe in the Twenty- first Century: The World’s Scandinavia’. Peter Gowan and Perry Anderson. The Question of Europe. London: Verso.
46. Tsakaloyannis, Panos (1989). ‘The EC: from civilian power to military integration’. Juliet Lodge. The EC and the Challenge of the Future. London: Pinter Publishers.
47. Vogel, T. (2010). EU to launch Singapore trade talks. European Voice. 11 February. Retrieved: May 30, 2011, from http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/imported/eu-tolaunch-singapore-trade-talks/67107.aspx
48. Waever, Ole (1998). ‘Insecurity, security and asecurity in the West European non-war community’. Emanuel Adler and Michael N. Barnett. Security Communities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
49. White, Brian (2001). Understanding European Foreign Policy. Hampshire and New York: Palgrave.
50. Whitman, Richard G. (2002). ‘The Fall and Rise of Civilian Power Europe’. National Europe Centre Paper, 16, 1-28). Retrieved: July 7, 2009, from http://www.anu.edu.au/NEC
51. Whitman Richard G. (1998). From Civilian Power to Superpower: The International Identity of the European Union. Hampshire and New York: Palgrave.
52. Wolfers, Arnold (1962). Discord and Collaboration: Essays on International Politics. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. 94 THE EU AS A CIVILIAN POWER: THE CASE OF THE EU’s TRADE POLICY
53. WTO (2009). Trade Policy Review. Geneva: European Communities. Retrieved: March 11, 2011, from http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tpr_e/s177-02_e.doc
54. WTO (2011). Trade Policy Review. Geneva: European Union. Retrieved: June 9, 2012, from http://wto.org/english/tratop_e/tpr_e/tp348_e.htm