| Summary/Abstract |
This paper revisits some methodological issues regarding the application of ‘normative power Europe’ (NPE) as an analytical tool. It looks at the descriptive, interpretive and prescriptive aspects of NPE and identifies ontological and epistemological problems, further normative theorising and the empirical (ir)relevance within the case of China. Central to this paper is the emphasis on how to critically apply the NPE approach to a cross-cultural context in which universalist versus relativist paradigm, interpretivist versus positivist approaches and different ethical judgments can be combined and bridged. This paper argues that NPE helps us understand the EU’s identity creation which can be translated in matching policy terms, either by design or default. Despite its descriptive credibility, the explanatory power of NPE has been limited not just by differences concerning fundamental values, but the need to engage China on normative issues through cooperation and dialogue, a form of normative action itself. The prescriptive value of NPE, nevertheless, should be promoted in both academic and policy debates by strengthening the clarity and consistency of how the EU conveys this self-perception to the others. Finally, the paper concludes that applying the NPE approach empirical research requires theory refinement and operationalisation of the concept uniquely tailored to the chosen empirical cases. As far as China is concerned, detailed case-by-case analyses within a longitudinal time frame—which allows sufficient space for investigators to develop depth in inter-paradigm and inter-disciplinary research—would be useful in highlighting the strength of the NPE approach.
|