An analysis of whether the EU´s development policy is driven by interests and/or moral principles

Andersen, Hans Skibsted

4. term

European Studies, Master

2016

2016-05-31

60

Afhandlingen undersøger, om EU’s udviklingspolitik primært udspringer af en moralsk forpligtelse i tråd med EU’s selvforståelse som en god kraft i international politik, eller om den hovedsageligt drives af politiske og økonomiske interesser. Metoden er at skelne mellem interessebaserede og principbaserede handlinger ved at se, om EU fastholder sine udviklingsmål, når de kolliderer med andre EU- eller nationale interesser. Konkret vurderes det, om en øget terrortrussel og den økonomiske krise har fået EU til at sætte europæiske/nationale hensyn over målene og værdierne i udviklingspolitikken. Fokus er på EU’s mål om at fremme handel og demokrati i udviklingslande. Teoretisk anvendes realistiske og liberale perspektiver fra international politik (realismen betoner egeninteresse og magt, liberalismen samarbejde, regler og langsigtet sikkerhed gennem handel og demokrati) samt Kants deontologiske pligtetik til at vurdere, om handlinger kan forklares som pligtbaserede. Afhandlingen finder, at EU’s kommunikation samt udformning og struktur af udviklingspolitikken bygger på liberale principper. Samtidig har terrortruslen og den økonomiske krise i praksis fået EU til ofte at nedprioritere målene om at fremme demokrati og handel i udviklingslande, hvilket set gennem en liberal linse svækker langsigtede sikkerhedsfremmende tiltag. Der er stærkere tegn på, at EU har indtaget en mere realistisk kurs ved at underordne normative mål direkte politiske og økonomiske interesser. Der findes dog også tilfælde, hvor EU har handlet imod sine umiddelbare interesser, så hverken EU eller medlemsstaterne optræder konsekvent som rent egeninteressedrevne aktører. Nedprioriteringen af demokrati- og handelsmål synes drevet af kortsigtede europæiske/nationale interesser, men ud fra Kants pligtbegreb kan man ikke udelukke, at nogle valg var pligtmotiverede eller udtryk for moralsk konflikt. Derfor er metoden til at skelne mellem interesse- og principbaserede handlinger utilstrækkelig alene. Afhandlingen konkluderer dog, at dele af EU’s udviklingspolitik strider mod Kants moralske principper.

This thesis examines whether the EU’s development policy is mainly a moral obligation consistent with the EU’s self-image as a force for good, or primarily driven by political and economic interests. The approach is to distinguish between interest-based and principle-based actions by checking whether the EU sticks to its development goals when they clash with other EU or national interests. In practice, it asks whether a heightened terror threat and the economic crisis have led the EU to place European or national priorities above the aims and values of its development policy. The focus is on the EU’s goals of promoting trade and democracy in developing countries. The analysis uses realist and liberal perspectives from international relations (realism emphasizes self-interest and power; liberalism emphasizes cooperation, rules, and long-term security through trade and democracy) and Kant’s deontological ethics to assess whether actions can be understood as duty-based. The thesis finds that EU rhetoric and the design and structure of development policy rest on liberal principles. At the same time, the terror threat and the economic crisis have often led the EU to sideline its goals of promoting democracy and trade in developing countries, which, from a liberal point of view, weakens long-term, security-enhancing policies. There is stronger evidence that the EU has adopted a more realist stance by subordinating normative objectives to immediate political and economic interests. However, there are also cases where the EU acted against its direct interests, so neither the EU nor its member states consistently behave as purely self-interested realist actors. The downgrading of democracy and trade objectives appears driven by short-term European or national interests, but Kant’s account of moral duty does not allow the study to rule out that some choices were made from duty or reflected a moral conflict. As a result, the method used to separate interest- from principle-based actions is insufficient on its own. The thesis nevertheless concludes that parts of the EU’s development policy conflict with Kantian moral principles.

[This abstract was generated with the help of AI]

EU's udviklingspolitik

Download
View record in AAU Student Projects