UACES Workshop

Home > Conferences and Events > Calendar of Events > W032

Europe and North Africa: Theoretical Research Challenges

Organiser: Richard Gillespie, University of Liverpool

Date: 22 May 2006

Venue: Liverpool, UK

With the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) now transforming the original design of the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership, the Mediterranean has become a laboratory affording an ideal North-South context in which to combine diverse research approaches, some traditionally associated with International Relations and others inspired by theories of European integration. Are recent relationships between Europe and North Africa best seen in terms of IR approaches such as regime theory, interdependence and critical theory, or are they now more amenable to theories of ‘Europeanisation?

Contact: Richard Gillespie (richard.gillespie@liverpool.ac.uk)

Website: www.liv.ac.uk/ewc/workshops.htm

Workshop Report

This UACES sponsored workshop held at the University of Liverpool was organised by Alex Balch, Hakim Darbouche and Richard Gillespie on behalf of the Europe in the World Centre (EWC).

The decision to organise the event arose from the recognition that both research students and more established researchers generally find difficulty in developing adequate theoretical frameworks for the study of contemporary relations between Europe and North Africa. Researchers arrive at the study of North-South Mediterranean studies from a number of different academic backgrounds and often find that they need to draw upon combinations of theoretical perspectives in order to do justice to the complexity of their subject. In particular, increasing interest in the external implications of integration and enlargement, as well as in the EU as a global actor, has meant that those from European Studies are now very much on territory traditionally inhabited by International Relations scholars.

Of course, the existence of separate disciplines can mean that theoretical debates become rather introspective; hence the call for greater interdisciplinarity. With that in mind, this workshop held at the University of Liverpool on 22 May 2006 was specifically designed to encourage and develop a dialogue between these different approaches, focusing on the theoretical challenges facing researchers. The over-arching question was: are contemporary relationships between Europe and North Africa best understood in terms of IR approaches such as regime theory, interdependence and critical theory, or are they becoming more amenable to theories of ‘Europeanisation’?

The event was opened with a few words from Richard Gillespie, who thanked those who were funding the event: primarily the University Association for Contemporary European Studies (UACES) with additional funding from the BISA (British International Studies Association) Working Group on International Mediterranean Studies and Liverpool’s Europe in the World Centre. EWC director Lee Miles also welcomed the participants.

The first session incorporated four presentations that all included the Mediterranean in the title, but in accordance with the main aim of the event, introduced contrasting theoretical approaches. In different ways all four papers related to EU policy towards the Mediterranean. The first two papers from Federica Bicchi and Annette Jünemann both focused on the EU as a democracy promoter, the former employing a sociological institutionalist approach and the latter a constructivist approach.

Federica Bicchi explored the ways in which the EU reproduces itself through institutional isomorphism – particularly with respect to the structure of the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership (EMP). However, she suggested that the EU’s democracy promotion in the Mediterranean and the bias against Islamist NGOs challenges this and instead implies a more symbolic function that says more about the democratic model enshrined in the EU. Annette Jünemann adopted a specifically constructivist approach drawing on role theory to explain the EU’s incoherence on democracy promotion in the Mediterranean. By tracing the development of roles since the 1970s she highlighted the conflict between democracy promotion and the enhanced security role of the EU since 9/11, and found little evidence of change in the more recent European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP).

Michelle Pace looked more at the idea of ‘region-building’ within the context of the EU’s approach to relations with North Africa, employing a language-based analysis. She suggested that a multi-disciplinary discourse approach is best suited to capture the ‘reality’ of the process of region-building and highlight some of the difficulties and implications of the construction of the Mediterranean as a ‘region’. Patrick Holden meanwhile examined the value and meaning of both Europeanisation and globalisation as theoretical frameworks in a ‘new realist’ approach to look at the role of EU-inspired reforms which seem to be opening up the EU’s Mediterranean partners to the global economy.

Following these presentations, there was a lively discussion on the role of the EU as democracy promoter and the lack of success obtained via the EMP. Michelle Pace answered questions about her approach and argued for greater use of discourse analysis in IR. A discussion of ‘constructivisms’ led to the distinction being made between ‘thick’ and ‘thin’ varieties, illustrated by the theoretical frameworks utilised in Pace and Jünemann’s papers, respectively. Finally there was discussion about the compatibility of the two concepts of globalisation and Europeanisation.

From the initial planning of this event within the EWC, the idea of running a ‘postgraduate forum’ in the middle of the workshop’s proceedings received favourable attention and on the day the participants expressed their eagerness to hear what the postgraduate presenters had to say. The rationale behind this initiative was to give early-career researchers the opportunity to obtain wider feedback on the theoretical challenges they have faced in their doctoral work and to share their thoughts with more established academics in the field. It was also hoped that the feedback provided at the workshop might help the research students improve their chances of publication in academic journals.

The PhD students were at various stages in their research and thus their presentations addressed the overarching theoretical theme of the event in varying degrees. Indeed, some of the papers focused more on substantive issues in the research project in question whereas others were exclusively devoted to laying out the theoretical foundations of, and the challenges faced by, the work of their respective authors. The contribution of Brieg Powel (University of Exeter), entitled ‘European Democracy Promotion in Tunisia: External Actors and Internal Dynamics’, attributed the post-independence ‘democratic’ behaviour of the Tunisian elite to the decolonisation process of the country and argued that this was reinforced by external and internal events, such as those in neighbouring Algeria and Jerba. He recommended that if the EU is to be successful in promoting democracy in Tunisia, it would have to engage in the ‘discursive battleground’ of the ruling regime and challenge its practices by working closer with civil society and opposition groups, especially the Islamist movements.

The presentation by Maalfrid Braut-Hegghammer (LSE) revolved around the role of identity politics in defining Libya’s nuclear ambitions. She argued that the country’s nuclear proliferation was influenced by ‘recurring debates and external factors’: in the 1970s, the motivation derived from aspirations to a regional role for Libya and confrontation with Israel; in the 1980s, national security was key following the 1986 US strikes; and in the 1990s, the country’s nuclear ambitions gave way to a domestic economic rationale imposed by a dire economic situation.

A paper by Alex Balch (University of Liverpool) on ‘The Europeanisation of Border Controls in the Mediterranean’ examined the value of Europeanisation as a way of conceptualising changing relations between Europe and North Africa on issues of immigration. Taking into consideration the vehicles of cooperation between the EU and the North African countries, notably the EMP and ENP, he argued that, in the absence of a coherent EU policy on legal labour migration, Europeanisation can be useful in highlighting the obstacles to greater cooperation between Europe and North Africa.

Lastly, Hakim Darbouche (University of Liverpool), in a contribution entitled ‘EU-Algerian Relations in the Context of the Barcelona Process: In Search of Theory’, set out the theoretical tools used in his PhD research. In doing so, he highlighted the various levels at which the theoretical framework of his thesis operated (systemic/micro level analysis, rationalist/constructivist ontology) and shared the challenges he has faced in formulating such a framework given the original nature of the research.

Subsequent discussion featured questions from Michelle Pace and Iván Martín, addressed to all these presenters. Michelle Pace asked about any difficulties faced by the researchers in their respective fieldwork trips to North Africa. The answers from the panel reported mixed experiences, with Powel and Braut-Hegghammer confirming that there had been difficulties in researching in Tunisia and Libya, respectively, over access to policy-makers and visa delivery. In contrast, Darbouche reported no difficulties whatsoever in his fieldwork in Algeria but deplored the obstacles he had faced when trying to obtain a visa to go to Brussels for the second (European) leg of his fieldwork.

Iván Martín remarked on the notable absence of due consideration of intra-Maghreb relations in the researches of the members of the panel and highlighted their importance and added value for any sound research on the area. Answers from the presenters were diverse, but essentially acknowledged the relevance of this point whilst stressing that the added value of such consideration might be higher in economics and trade-related research than in others. Finally, there was some debate about whether PhD students should take on ‘risky’ subjects for their researches. Jünemann and Martín expressed opposing views on the matter, with the latter arguing that research is by definition challenging and risky and that PhD students should be encouraged to embark upon bold undertakings, whereas Jünemann maintained that this should not be done at the expense of risking the failure of a PhD thesis, for the corollary of this would be to terminate an academic career.

The third and final session of the workshop featured presentations which dealt with overarching issues pertaining to ‘Europe and North Africa’, whilst others were characterised by a country-specific or bilateral relations emphasis. Contributions by Iván Martín and Frédéric Volpi lay within the first category. Martín’s paper scrutinised the economic models underlying the EMP and the ENP, with particular attention to their added value for southern Mediterranean economies. In the case of the EMP, this led him to identify eight ‘missing links’ from the ‘economic equation of the EMP’ which, he concluded, account for the failure over the last ten years to achieve convergence between the north and south of the Mediterranean in terms of economic standards. After contrasting the economic model of the ENP with that of the EMP, Martín called into question the contribution of the former to economic development in the South based on the bilateral nature of its Action Plans, its reform logic and the incentives offered in return for reform.

Volpi’s contribution, meanwhile, dealt with issues of security and cooperation between Europe and North Africa in light of the ‘new terrorism’ challenge. He argued that European states have developed a policy on ‘institutionalisation’ and ‘politicisation’ of domestic Islamic issues, while developing a cultural and security-based foreign policy towards the Islamic challenge in the Mediterranean region. Richard Gillespie’s paper considered the usefulness of ‘complex interdependence’ as a theoretical framework for conceptualising Hispano-Moroccan bilateral relations. After highlighting the insights to be gained from comparing the model of interdependence to the realities of the recent Spain-Morocco relationship, he went on to point to some major limitations, chiefly the difficulty of applying ‘complex interdependence’ in toto to the Mediterranean and its neglect of cultural and historical factors. These shortcomings, he argued, could be mitigated by complementing ideas of interdependence with constructivist approaches and Foreign Policy Analysis when researching bilateral relationships.

Lastly, Michael Willis’ presentation offered a rounded view of Morocco’s foreign policy in relation not only to Europe, but also to America and the Arab World. Beyond outlining Morocco’s foreign policy characteristics, he contrasted the Allaouite strategy with that of neighbouring Algeria, emphasising historical factors and power relations in the region to account for similarities and differences between the two cases.

Owing to time constraints, there was relatively little discussion in this session. Indeed, no conclusion to the overarching question posed for the workshop was reached: rather, the achievement of the event, through an insistence upon relatively short papers, was to draw together a wide range of perspectives. The workshop thus left plenty of scope for follow-up activity and in this regard two main suggestions were presented by Richard Gillespie on behalf of the organising team. One was to seek publication of the papers as a symposium in a research journal and the other was to try to establish a UACES Study Group with a broader Mediterranean remit but with a continuing focus on the theoretical challenges facing researchers. It was generally agreed that the organizers should pursue both possibilities, for it was broadly concluded that a valuable debate had been initiated and should be continued.

Alex Balch and Hakim Darbouche, University of Liverpool