Founded on law, which gives it coherence and legitimacy, the EU acts through legal means rather than force. Described as a “civil power” by Duchêne in the early 1970s, what would become the European Union has always been described as a power founded on normative influence. How does this influence manifest itself today? According to classical definitions, influence corresponds to “the social and political power of an individual or group, enabling them to affect the course of events and produce changes indirectly and non-coercively”. Thus, the foundation of the EU lies in norms, and its power is exercised through indirect and non-coercive influence. While power traditionally refers to diplomatic and military capabilities, normative influence holds particular significance today, especially as international conflicts tend to move away from military uniforms towards the more civilian realms of economy, law, and technology. But what power does the EU hold, and more importantly, what are the limits of normativity as an instrument of power nowadays?
I. The European Union: A normative empire?
- The ability to develop its own laws and enforce compliance within its territory, and even beyond (extraterritoriality).
- The ability to influence the content of norms (legal, technical) resulting from a process of international negotiation within various multilateral forums.
- The ability to serve as a voluntary normative model within the international community.
Ian Manners’ 2002 article on the concept of normative power is nearly universally cited on this topic. It suggests that the EU “transcends the anarchic and self-interested behaviors of states and is fundamentally based on a set of common values”. These norms differentiate the EU from traditional states that operate within a realist and neorealist paradigm, where security concerns outweigh ethical considerations. According to Manners, the EU has the capacity to shape conceptions of “normality” in international relations. The EU directly and indirectly spreads its values, which characterizes the notion of the EU as a normative power.
The normative influence exerted by the EU outside its borders primarily stems from the nature of its organizational framework, as outlined in the Treaties of Rome, Maastricht, and Lisbon. According to the treaties, the European integration project represents a unique achievement, fostering the peaceful establishment of a regional economic and political union comprising culturally diverse and historically conflicting nation-states.
Furthermore, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) articulates the principles guiding the EU’s actions on the international stage, including democracy, the rule of law, human rights, and respect for international law. Additionally, Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) underscores the foundational values of the EU, which encompass human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law, and respect for human rights, including those of minorities.
In pursuit of its objectives, as outlined in Article 3 of the TEU, the EU aims to contribute to global efforts to eradicate poverty and safeguard human rights. Moreover, the EU commits to enhancing international law, including adherence to the principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter.
- TEU (Article 2) : The EU’s values. The EU’s foundational values are “human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law, and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities”.
- TEU (Article 3) : The EU’s objectives. In its “relations with the world”, the EU contributes to the “eradication of poverty and the protection of human rights, in particular the rights of the child, as well as to the strict observance and the development of international law, including respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter”.
- TFEU (Article 21 paragraph 1) : “The Union’s action on the international scene is based on the principles that have guided its creation, development, and enlargement and that it seeks to promote in the wider world: democracy, the rule of law, the universality and indivisibility of human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for human dignity, the principles of equality and solidarity, and respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter and international law”.
- TFEU (Article 21 paragraph 2) : the Union “shall seek to develop relations and build partnerships with third countries and with international, regional, or global organizations that share the principles referred to in the first paragraph”.
Thus, the European Union has influenced its member states by affirming a set of values in its founding treaties, such as the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, or the rule of law. Compliance with these values by candidates is even a prerequisite for entry into the Union, and their violation exposes a member state to sanctions, including suspension of its voting rights within the Council. This constitutes a first step in the EU’s normative power and the very constitution of its power abroad.
II. Challenges and constraints: Normativity in EU foreign policy
While some examples may be effective, the European Union’s normative approach in global politics is particularly evident in its support for international law and the financing of specific projects through its funding mechanisms. A notable illustration of this approach is the EU’s policy aimed at encouraging African states to join the International Criminal Court (ICC), established to prosecute individuals responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
However, the EU’s capacity to influence the values and behavior of non-member states (especially those not seeking accession) is limited. Despite rhetoric and certain behaviors that may suggest normative leadership, many of the EU’s policies fall short in effecting meaningful change, and its application of norms often lacks consistency. Despite occasional pursuits of normative external policies, the EU’s influence remains severely constrained. The fundamental cause of the EU’s struggle to establish itself as a normative actor lies in the unresolved tension between the interests of its member states and the norms it aims to uphold.
The EU’s external policies have fallen short in persuading third-party states to adopt its norms. The most significant limitation of the EU’s normative power lies in the tension between its ethical standards and the material interests of its member states. In their external relations, member states have consistently favored their economic interests over the EU’s ethical norms. Furthermore, even positive approaches to human rights, such as capacity-building programs, have been leveraged to advance the economic interests of member states. The EU’s failure to reconcile the conflict between the interests of its member states and the ethical values it promotes in its rhetoric may tarnish its international reputation. The EU’s claims as a normative actor on the international stage are undermined by the inconsistent application of its norms in external relations. The EU has displayed considerable inconsistency in sponsoring resolutions by the United Nations Human Rights Council that criticize human rights violators.
Manners’ (2002) notions do not accurately reflect the policies and practices of the EU and its member states. Member states consistently prioritize their own interests over the norms outlined in EU rhetoric and policies. For example, despite Egypt’s extensive human rights violations, particularly under President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, several EU member states, such as France, have continued to maintain economic and military ties. France, for example, has sold billions of euros worth of arms to Egypt, including a €4 billion deal for Rafale fighter jets in 2021. These sales have been justified on the grounds of security cooperation and combating terrorism, despite Egypt’s documented repression of political dissent and human rights abuses, including the use of French-supplied equipment in violent crackdowns on protesters.
This undermines the EU’s credibility in international politics and diminishes the effectiveness of its human rights policies, “thus, the inevitable conclusion is that the European Union is neither a normative actor nor normatively powerful”.
III. The Uyghurs, China, and the EU: Balancing Human Rights and economic interests
Since 2014, numerous organizations have accused the Chinese government of subjecting the Uyghurs in Xinjiang to severe human rights violations. These violations include arbitrary detention, surveillance, forced sterilization, forced abortion, and severe restrictions on religious and cultural practices imposed by the Chinese government with the aim of assimilating Uyghur traditions into the dominant culture. The issue of forced labor endured by the Uyghurs lies at the heart of the debate: despite international treaties prohibiting forced labor, the exploitation of Uyghurs persists within the Chinese textile industry. The “Xinjiang crisis” has drawn attention to the involvement of multinational corporations in this exploitation, and global brands often cited for their involvement in forced labor practices originating from the Xinjiang region.
Faced with the situation, the European Union grapples with a profound conflict between its norms and values and its economic pursuits. This struggle, encompassing normative power and the Uygurs crisis, has been extensively examined in recent analyses. The widespread exposure of Uyghur exploitation in China has triggered international reactions, but do these responses significantly impact diplomatic and economic decisions made by the international community? The practices carried out by China, violating international labor norms, demand “immediate action” and global cooperation through economic pressures and legal actions. Several statements echo this sentiment, including the State of the Union address by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in 2021 (September 15, 2021). In her speech, she explicitly referenced forced labor without directly naming the concerned country (China) or the oppressed minority group (the Uyghurs). Von der Leyen emphasized, “Human rights are not for sale – at any price”, proposing a ban on products manufactured by forced labor from entering the European market (2021).
Despite public commitments to human rights demonstrated in the European Parliament resolution of December 2019 on the situation of the Uyghurs in China, the EU seems hesitant to implement more robust measures that could impact its economic interests. This contrast is evident in negotiations over the Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI) between the EU and China, currently suspended due to concerns about human rights in China (December 15, 2023). This suspension reflects the EU’s attempt to maintain economic ties without fully compromising its principles. However, this stance seems somewhat contradictory in light of the EU-China summit, where Ursula von der Leyen reminded that “China is the EU’s largest trading partner”, emphasizing the economic significance of the relationship. Charles Michel also expressed the EU’s desire for “a stable and mutually beneficial relationship with China”. Nevertheless, he added that “naturally, we will today promote our European values, including human rights and democracy”. However, these words have been followed by limited action, even after the calls of several organizations such as Human Rights Watch: “Von der Leyen and Michel should address China’s rights violations head-on and make it clear to President Xi Jinping that there can be no business as usual if pervasive repression continues across the country”, they addressed the EU officials before the summit, but it has not been followed by any effect.
Interesting in itself, this trend, or strategy of power through norms, was relevant in the liberal and internationalist moment of the late twentieth century when European integration could have served as a model for global governance. But the turn of the twenty-first century has unfortunately dampened these hopes and marked the return of geopolitics and power politics, a regression that the European Union has been slow to perceive and has only recently begun to draw consequences from. Yet, Europe has a crucial role to play in defending its humanistic values against Chinese authoritarianism, but it can only do so under the triple condition of further integration, strengthening its industrial and technological potential, and acquiring strategic and military thinking and capacity.