Differentiated integration in times of crises and conflict

Differentiated integration (DI) has become a crucial feature of the European Union (EU) triggered by the combination of the deepening of the integration process and its enlargement. DI involves particular member states being temporarily exempt or excluded from certain EU laws and policies, or seeking an opt-out in the context of a treaty revision. It also refers to non-members opting into specific policies, not least the Single Market. This section is interested in the potential of DI to deal with conflict and crisis. Some may argue that in times of conflict and crisis, more flexibility is needed in order to adapt to quickly emerging situations. Others may hold that in such times, unity and certainty are required to overcome related challenges or else the EU risks disintegration. The recent past is full of crises and challenges (Brexit, rule of law crisis, COVID-19, Ukraine and Balkan states’ membership of the EU), and in each of them, DI has played a role or continues to play a role. This section invites submissions of papers and panels on a wide range of questions related to DI. Contributions could show a normative, empirical-analytical, or descriptive account, take a historical perspective or be more forward-looking. We are particularly interested in papers/panels that address one of the below topics: 1. External DI: normative questions. What are the norms and rules that should guide the opt-in by non-members into select policies of the EU? Which rights and obligations should states opting in, and their citizens, have under arrangements of external differentiated integration? What do current and historical examples of external DI tell us about how it can strengthen or weaken the democratic legitimacy of the EU? This theme will be particularly interested in how external DI affects third countries’ autonomy. It seeks to understand what autonomy means under conditions of complex interdependence and compares and contrasts closely affiliated non-members with EU members on that count. Contributions will compare and contrast state with individual autonomy and examines members and non-members on that count, as well. These examinations will shed new light on the distinct nature of EU differentiation for states and citizens alike. 2. External DI: Empirical-analytical questions. What do recent and current examples of external DI (e.g. Brexit) tell us about its ability to strengthen/weaken the EU in terms of its problem-solving capacity and/or non-member states negotiating positions? To what extent, and why, have recent changes, crises, and new geopolitical realities led to new applications and evaluations of DI in the EU’s relations with non-member states? This theme is interested in the question of autonomy under complex interdependence with focus on specific issue-areas. Under this broad theme, we are interested in two broad issues. First, how does autonomy play out in concrete policies, not least ‘core state power’? This theme seeks contributions that compare and contrast the autonomy and wriggle-room available for members and non-members within a range of different issue-areas, such as trade, defence and climate policy. The theme will provide new insights into the nature and significance of EU membership and the distinction between core state powers and other powers. Second, we are interested in the challenges DI poses for the public administrative bodies of EU member states, its associated non-members as well as for the EU institutions themselves. Civil servants at all level have to operate within a system of multilevel governance, and thus need to manage a complex web of both conflicting and complementary interests. This panel raises three questions: How do civil servants of a non-member state negotiate a system of multilevel governance in which they are, in some respects, left outside of highly salient decision-making? What normative challenges face civil servants operating within a system of differentiated integration? And how does the EU level operate within a highly politicized migration policy field to show the need for further integration also in this area? 3. Internal DI: normative questions. Where are the normative limits of internal DI? Is DI in relation to compliance with the rule of law acceptable? What can current and past examples of internal DI tell us about whether DI can help strengthen or weaken the democratic legitimacy of the EU? 4. Internal DI: Empirical-analytical questions. What do current and past examples of internal DI tell us about its ability to strengthen/weaken the EU in terms of its problem-solving capacity and/or its member states in terms of negotiating power? What role can and does DI play in addressing major internal political and policy challenges that the EU faces? What explains DI, DI proposals, and evaluations of DI in recent policy choices, negotiations, as well as elite and public opinion? 5. Sustainability of DI: How sustainable is DI in the long-run and what should be its boundaries, if any? What are the long-term effects of DI on public opinion, the evolution of internal and external policies? DI so far does not seem to visibly contribute to decreasing levels of Euroscepticism. Is this an empirical problem which can be addressed or is this a normative problem which would suggest that there is a more profound problem in using DI as the EU’s coping mechanism with heterogeneity, crises and conflicts? If the latter, what would be alternatives?