//img.uscri.be/pth/b2117912d9deb806d5a6a732c901a92a354c813b
Cette publication ne fait pas partie de la bibliothèque YouScribe
Elle est disponible uniquement à l'achat (la librairie de YouScribe)
Achetez pour : 16,99 € Lire un extrait

Lecture en ligne (cet ouvrage ne se télécharge pas)

Les valeurs dans la gouvernance européenne

De
218 pages
Au sommaire de ce numéro : Legitimisation and regulation of and through values / Les valeurs des Européens et leur degré de polarisation politique / From "European cultural heritage" to "Cultural diversity" ? / How values come to matter at the European Commission / The role of values in the EU bioethics politics / How to walk about bioethics ? / L'élargissement comme fondement de l'ordre communautaire
Voir plus Voir moins

4
1
0
2

|

5
4

°
N
N°45 | 2014
doSSier
8 François Foret et Annabelle Littoz-Monnet
Introduction
Legitimisation and regulation of and through values
26 Pierre Bréchon
Les valeurs des Européens et leur degré de polarisation
politique
60 Oriane Calligaro
From ‘European cultural heritage’ to ‘Cultural diversity’?
The Changing core values of European cultural policy
86 Jim Dratwa
How values come to matter at the European Commission
Ethical experimentation of Europe
122 Emilie Mondo
The role of values in the EU bioethics politics
An American culture wars scenario? The case of abortion
152 Aurélia Bardon Les valeurs dans
How to talk about bioethics?
God, Human dignity and embryonic stem cell in France la gouvernance européenne
and in the United States
Occurrences, efets Varia
176 Marie-Ève Bélanger
L’élargissement comme fondement de l’ordre et modes de régulation
communautaire
Une étude comparée du discours de l’européanité
lectureS critiqueS
200 Laura Szczuczak
Holden Patrick, In search of structural power:
EU aid policy as a global political instrument
208 Stefan Waizer
Caterina Carta, The European Union diplomatic
service - Ideas, preferences and identities
SouS la directioN FraN S Foret et aNNabelle littoz-MoNNet
ISSN 1623-6297
ISBN 978-2-343-05220-5
22 E
i
Politique Politique Politique
N°45 | 20 N°45 | 2014 14 N°45 | 2014
l es v l es valeurs dans la gouvaleurs dans la gouv ernanc ernance eur e européenneopéenne l es valeurs dans la gouvernance européenne
euroPéeNNeeuroPéeNNe euroPéeNNe
çoN° 45 | 2014
Les valeurs dans
la gouvernance européenne
Occurrences, efets et modes
de régulation
SOUS LA DIRECTION DE
FRANÇOIS FORET ET ANNABELLE LITTOZ-MONNETRevue publiée avec le soutien de l’Institut des sciences humaines et sociales du
CNRS, du laboratoire Pacte Grenoble et de la Fondation nationale des sciences
politiques.
Politique européenne
Centre d’études européennes de Sciences Po
28, rue des Saints-Pères
F - 75 007 Paris
Tél. (+ 33 1) 45 49 83 52
Fax (+ 33 1) 45 49 83 60
politique.europeenne@sciences-po.fr
<www.portedeurope.org/>
©L’Harmattan, 2013
5-7, rue de l’école polytechnique 75005 Paris
<www.librairieharmattan.com>
difusion.harmattan@wanadoo.fr
Harmattan@w.fr
ISBN 978-2-343-05220-5
EAN 9782343052205
ISSN 1623-6297Directeur de la revue
Antoine Mégie, Université de Rouen
Directeurs adjoints
Céline Belot, Pacte, Sciences Po Grenoble
Sophie Jacquot, Centre d’études européennes Sciences Po
Frédéric Mérand, Université de Montréal
Olivier Rozenberg, Centre d’études européennes, Sciences Po
Comité de rédaction
Céline Belot, Pacte, Sciences Po Grenoble
Didier Chabanet, Institut Universitaire Européen, Triangle, ENS de Lyon
François Foret, Université Libre de Bruxelles
Sophie Jacquot, Centre d’études européennes Sciences Po
Annabelle Littoz-Monnet, Institut des Hautes études internationales et
du Développement, Genève
Antoine Mégie, Université de Rouen
Emmanuel Mourlon-Druol, Université de Glasgow
Frédéric Mérand, Université de Montréal
Stephanie Novak, Université Catholique de Lille
Romain Pasquier, CRAPE/IEP de Rennes
Olivier Rozenberg, FNSP, Centre d’études européennes de Sciences Po
Sabine Saurugger, Sciences Po Grenoble, Pacte
Virginie Van Ingelgom, Université catholique de Louvain, FNRS
Antoine Vauchez, CNRS, CRPS/CESSP
Julien Weisbein, Institut d’études politiques de Toulouse, LaSSP
Conseil scientifique
Pierre Allan, Université de Genève
Richard Balme, Sciences Po
Stefano Bartolini, Centre Robert Schuman, Florence
Simon Bulmer, University of Shefeld
Renaud Dehousse, Centre d’études européennes, Sciences Po
Guillaume Devin, Sciences Po
Patrick Hassenteufel, Université de Versailles-Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines
Reinhard Heinisch, University of Pittsburgh
IBastien Irondelle , CERI, Sciences Po
Markus Jachtenfuchs, Hertie School of Governance, Berlin
Jean Leca, Sciences Po
Patrick Le Galès, Centre d’études européennes, CNRS
Christian Lequesne, CERI, Sciences Po
Paul Magnette, Université Libre de Bruxelles
Anand Menon, University of Birmingham
Yves Mény, Institut universitaire européen, Florence
Pierre Muller, Centre d’études européennes, Sciences Po
Claudio N. Radaelli, University of Exeter
Andy Smith, Centre Émile Durkheim, IEP de Bordeaux
Ezra Suleiman, Princeton University
Yves Surel, Université Paris II
Assistante édition : Claudette Gorodetzky, Pacte, Sciences-Po GrenobleDOSSIER
François Foret et Annabelle Littoz-Monnet
Introduction
Legitimisation and regulation of and through values 8
1 — Pierre Bréchon
Les valeurs des Européens et leur degré de polarisation
politique 26
2 — Oriane Calligaro
From ‘European cultural heritage’ to ‘cultural diversity’?
The Changing Core Values of European Cultural Policy 60
3 — Jim Dratwa
How values come to matter at the European Commission
Ethical Experimentations of Europe 86
4 — Emilie Mondo
The role of values in EU Bioethics Politics
An American Culture Wars Scenario? The Case of Abortion 122
5 — Aurélia Bardon
How to talk about bioethics?
God, human dignity and embryonic stem cells in France
and in the United States 152VARIA
Marie-Ève Bélanger
L’élargissement comme fondement de l’ordre communautaire
Une étude comparée du discours de l’européanité 176
LECTURES CRITIQUES
Laura Szczuczak
Holden Patrick, In search of structural power: EU aid policy
200as a global political instrument , Londres, Asgate, 2009, 241 pages.
Stefan Waizer
Caterina Carta, The European Union Diplomatic Service - Ideas,
preferences and identities . Londres et New York, Routledge, 2012,
211 pages. 20 8Dossier
Les valeurs dans
la gouvernance européenne
Occurrences, efets et modes
de régulation
POLITIQUE EUROPÉENNE N°45 | 2014POLITIQUE EUROPÉENNE
N° 45 | 2014
François Foret et Annabelle Littoz-Monnet
[p. 8-25]
Introduction
The politics of values in EU governance. Occurrences, efects and
modes of regulation of values
This issue analyses the extent, modalities and efects of the emergence of values
in EU politics, policies and polity. A brief introduction presents the rise of values
on the European political agenda; the diferent forms that these values can take;
their strategic uses by actors; their efects as factors of conflict, cooperation
or legitimisation; the political frameworks and processes designed to regulate
them. Thematic articles discuss interactions between values and European public
afairs under various angles, values as ‘objects’ of polarization in public opinion;
framing of cultural or ethical policies, examined in the cases of abortion or stem
cell research; internal management of values within the European Commission.
Les valeurs dans la gouvernance européenne: occurrences, efets
et modes de régulation
Le numéro analyse l’ampleur, les modalités et les efets de l’émergence des
valeurs dans le jeu politique, les politiques publiques et le système politique de
l’UE. L’introduction présente la montée en puissance des valeurs sur l’agenda
européens ; les diférentes formes qu’elles peuvent prendre ; leurs efets comme
facteurs de conflit, coopération ou légitimation ; les dispositifs et processus
mis en place pour les réguler. Des articles thématiques discutent les
interactions entre valeurs et afaires publiques européennes sous diférents angles :
potentiel de polarisation dans les opinions publiques ; formatage des politiques
culturelles et éthiques, avec les exemples de l’avortement et de la recherche
sur les cellules souches ; gestion interne des valeurs dans le fonctionnement de
la Commission européenne. Introduction 9
Legitimisation and regulation
of and through values
François Foret
Université Libre de Bruxelles
Annabelle Littoz-Monnet
IHEID Genève
he special issue analyses the significance, the modalities and the efects T  of the emergence of values in EU politics, policies and polity. Values
are intentionally defined in a broad sense to acknowledge the polysemy of
the term in intellectual and political debates, from identity and memory to
ethical principles in deliberation on normative issues. Values must also be
understood as the normative structures of public opinions and collective
preferences highlighted by mass surveys. A brief introduction presents the
rise of values on the European political agenda; the diferent forms that
these values can take; their strategic uses by actors; their efects as factors of
conflict, cooperation or legitimisation; the political frameworksand processes
designed to regulate them.
Thematic articles discuss interactions between values and European public
afairs from various angles, as objects of polarisation in public opinion, tools
in the hands of EU elites, or frames that define cultural or ethical policies,
with case studies on abortion and stem cell research and the internal
management of values within the European Commission.
Selective state of the art
The occurrence of values in European politics has been documented by
multiple disciplines and subfields of political science.
Political sociologists have discussed the structuring of European public opinion
or at least the emergence of common trends towards more or less cultural
liberalism and support for European integration (Aldrin, 2010). The “cliché”
POLITIQUE EUROPÉENNE N°45 | 201410 François Foret et Annabelle Littoz Monnet
view, which takes post-materialism and supranationalism as correlated, is
not systematically verified. Conservative or progressive values have unequal
and variable efects on the perception of European integration and European
policies depending on which sector of public action is considered. Several
scholars have suggested the resilience and perhaps even the revival of a divide
between sacred and secular forces in citizens’ attitudes towards Europe,
as well as voting behaviour and party positioning in European elections
(Minkenberg, 2010; Van der Brug et al. , 2009).
Meanwhile, the discrepancy between the institutional and social realities of
European integration has been widely discussed (Gaxie et al., 2010; Fligstein,
2008). Values remain secondary in defining the relationship of citizens to the
EU (Cram et al. , 2011). A booming literature conceptualises the elusiveness
and normativeness of European identity. It has focused, in particular, on the
way supranational politics can – or cannot – reframe citizens’ allegiances
(Cerutti and Lucarelli, 2008; Checkel and Katzenstein, 2009; Diez Medrano,
2003; Risse, 2010). One core obstacle to the transformation of citizens’
allegiances is the structure of communication spaces; media and public spaces
are, indeed, still framed by national values (Koopmans and Statham, 2010;
Schlesinger and Fossum, 2007). The ‘constitutional patriotism’ of Habermas,
the ‘supranationalism’ of Weiler, or the ‘European commonwealth’ of
MacCormick, have been proposed as solutions to ensuring citizen participation
in the EU in the absence of a European demos. What these approaches have
in common is their shared belief that there is no necessary, conceptual link
between an ethnos and democracy. Weiler, for instance, has argued that
membership of a polity can be conceived in civic-non-organic terms, in so
far as such a project is based on ‘legal rights’ that are in agreement with ‘the
foundational purposes of European integration’ (Weiler, 1995, 167). But
these models are ideal-types, which disregard more subjective and efective
elements of European identity formation.
Finally lawyers acknowledge the increasing challenge for European law
to come to terms with values, especially religious ones, as objects to be
regulated or sources of inspiration to be objectified (Hirsch, 2010; McCrea,
2010; Weiler, 2007). Existing research has, moreover, argued that values
can generate conflicts in the legal realm. Each level of legal competence
may have a diferent approach to normative matters, leading to divergent
interpretations of European law (Lenaerts, 2011).Introduction 11
Public policy scholars have, discussed the specificities of “morality policies”,
issue areas in which ‘at least one advocacy coalition involved portrays the
issue as one of morality or sin and uses moral arguments in its policy
advocacy’ (Haider-Markel and Meier, 1996, 333). They have shown in particular
that ‘morality policies’ are not necessarily linked to specific policy fields and
that certain issues can oscillate between instrumental and morality modes of
policy-making (see Knill, 2013 for instance). Often, debating such
controversial subjects can have a huge political cost, so the preference is to maintain
the existing state of play. This gives a significant advantage to established
references and actors (Banchof, 2005; Engeli and Rothmayr, 2013; Engeli,
Green-Pedersen and Larsen, 2012). Littoz-Monnet (2014) argues, in this
respect, that by mobilising the ethical experts of the European Group of
Ethics into the policy-process, EU bureaucrats bolster the technocratic domain
in areas where it is contested, thus reinforcing the authority of experts and
bureaucrats in the policy process, rather than democratic control. Thus,
morality policies are not a given realm, its boundaries evolve constantly.
Finally scholars from various disciplines have discussed Europe as a space of
values and the ability of the EU more specifically to export its norms abroad.
Cultural policies are also prominent candidates for the occurrence of values
(Calligaro, 2013; Schrag Sternberg, 2013; Sassatelli, 2009). This has led even
prominent theoreticians of legitimation by the outputs to acknowledge the
necessity of tackling the normative dimension of EU policies (Scharpf, 2009).
In international relations, the notion of “normative Europe” has been widely
discussed in the context of EU policies (Manners, 2002). The EU has built
its ‘soft power’ upon its ability to invoke and disseminate its fundamental
norms (Whitman, 2011). But the external “reception” of Europe as a
conveyer of values is still under-studied (Holland and Chaban, 2011). Europe is
frequently considered more as a civilizational entity than as a political system
(Huntington, 2000; Jenkins, 2007), a sign that it is more salient as a space of
values than as a political agent. Back at the polity level, there is however no
strict congruence between boundaries drawn by values and borders of the
EU (Bickerton, 2013; Norris and Inglehart, 2009; Beck and Grande, 2008).
Of course the significance of values as factors of political conflicts, shapers
of public opinion and norms representing a specific polity is not EU-specific.
Values have come to play significant roles in other global arenas of
governance – not to mention domestic arenas, where their role is more obvious
and long acknowledged. At the global level, value conflicts can prevent
cooperation amongst states, and act as shapers of transnational lines of
POLITIQUE EUROPÉENNE N°45 | 201412 François Foret et Annabelle Littoz Monnet
contention. Values can also act as an object of contestation – and
regulation – in member states and international organisations’ eforts to define
international norms and principles of good governance. What is EU specific,
however, is the pervasiveness of values in the EU’s political landscape, as
well as their efects at the institutional, political and social levels. Values are
more salient in EU than in international politics because European matters
have, partly at least, also become domestic issues. The supranational acts
upon the national but is also increasingly incorporated into the national.
Debates on European values are constitutive of each national “Self”. This
explains why values are a far more sensitive subject in neighborhood policy
(and even more with countries likely to become candidates to adhesion like
Turkey) than in external relations at large, as such decisions relate directly
to the nature of the European community. To a certain extent, values can
also be more salient in EU politics than in national politics. This is
probably an “ efet de perspective ”. Normative considerations are omnipresent in
day-to-day national politics, but are frequently routinised and hidden by
tradition and/or consensus. Nobody reflects any longer on the presence of
values as “it has always been like that” (even if the multiculturalisation of
society leads to take that less and less for granted). Values have not become
such a routine element of the EU’s political landscape, and as such provoke
more discussion and controvers y. Besides, the pervasiveness of values is a
relatively recent parameter in European policy-making, which could be seen,
until recently, as based on rationalisation and smallest common denominator
solutions. Since the end of the 1990s, values have indeed emerged dramatically
on the European agenda. From stakes that provoked discussion in strictly
delineated domains, values have become a transversal dimension of many
diferent European debates.
The rise of value politics on the European agenda
Two interacting dynamics are at the heart of this resurgence: the EU’s search
for legitimacy and the increasing expansion of its remit to the regulation
of risk. On the one hand, the quest for legitimacy from European
institutions fueled initiatives to portray European identity as a common ground,
transcending and preexisting national cultures. In this endeavor, EU
policymakers attempted to create a ‘European memory’ to formalise EU citizens’
relationships to the past and go beyond conflictual national experiences.
The purpose has been to justify a certain margin of autonomy for the EU Introduction 13
towards the member states. On the other hand, the rise of values is due to
the (non voluntary) transformation of the EU into a “risk-polity”, namely a
political system obliged to deal with issues which, potentially, have a strong
normative content (named freely after Beck, 1986). While science and
technology controversies were defined strictly in technical terms, the focus was
on the special risks inherent in these new technologies, rather than their
ethical implications. But in the context of the rise of counter-movements
against nuclear energy and biotechnology in the 1980s, citizens started to
require greater participation into decision-making and EU policy-makers
had to acknowledge that such issues could not only be solved by rationality
and expertise.
The postulate is that nowadays values are ubiquitous in the functioning of
the EU and that their roles, functions and modes of regulation have to be
analysed at all levels of European politics, policies and polity. This is not
radically new as European politics has never been “values free”, and the
extent of innovation/continuity must be documented further. The
unprecedented phenomenon is the salience and – sometimes – the explicitness of
the occurrences of values today.
Four forms of occurrences can be emphasised:
1/ First, values have been the object of EU policy-makers’ European identity
promotion programmes. The European Commission has, since the 1980s
onwards, launched a conscious strategy to develop a sense of common
identity amongst European citizens. At the core of this strategy sits the
definition of European values, as a supposed pre-condition to any sense
of commonness amongst European citizens. As a result, references to
such an identity are often made by political entrepreneurs, who
mobilise European values in order to justify political action/or inaction. This
has notoriously been the case, for instance, during debates on the EU’s
enlargement and the frontiers of ‘Europe’.
2/ Second, values have appeared in the EU’s political landscape along with
the emergence of ethical controversies . The emergence of such conflicts in
the EU arena is linked, first, to the EU’s competence creep into new policy
fields. A range of legislative developments, concerning the fight against
racism, xenophobia and anti-discrimination, as well as the mainstreaming
of human rights in EU policies, signal that the EU now intervenes in
sectors that bear a clear ethical dimension. In recent years the EU has
POLITIQUE EUROPÉENNE N°45 | 201414 François Foret et Annabelle Littoz Monnet
also began to intervene in morality issues, such as research on stem cells,
abortion and gay marriage, owing to an extensive application of strictly
delineated competences. Second, the emergence of value-based
controversies is also related to the reframing of certain issues, formerly defined
in scientific-technical terms, as societal and ethical debates. Thus, the
EU is increasingly being involved with ‘value-based’ issues and decides
on ethical or value-based matters via its regulatory choices, despite its
formally limited competences to intervene in such fields.
3/ Third, values can act as potential lines of transnational alliance amongst
civil society actors. There is indeed a progressive emergence of value-based
transnational cleavages among associative and policy actors of civil society .
Religious and secular groups, NGOs promoting public interests such as
Green or fundamental rights advocates, or women’s rights associations,
are increasingly well organised as lobbies in Brussels.
4/ Fourth, values can potentially structure pan-European societal cleavages in
public opinion as exemplified by existing surveys (Eurobarometer, EVS).
In light of the above, this special issue asks the question: Is it possible to
identify and delineate the extent to which the presence of values has influenced
EU politics and policies ?
Three subsequent hypotheses can be formulated. The strong hypothesis states
that values are restructuring the EU polity by changing its very nature. The
medium hypothesis is that values may have an efect (unequal in time, space
and object) on European politics and policies. The weak hypothesis is that
values have no efect at all.
Making sense of the role of values in EU politics
Values may play diferent roles in EU politics. Subsequently, they may have
diferent efects, either as instrumental elements in or as the very purposes
of processes of politicisation and conflictualisation.
Values as resources
Values are mobilised in various capacities. They may justify public and
political action. European humanism may enable the European Union to Introduction 15
act as a peace-maker and a charitable power in world afairs. Values may
be more instrumental to attract political and media attention; to demarcate
from competition and make a statement . A MEP may oppose research on
stem cells in the name of the sacrality of human life, either to stand without
afterthought for his/her Christian beliefs and/or to send signals to his/her
political constituency and networks. Classically, references to values may
have a simplifying efect by highlighting the “good” and the “wrong” and by
bipolarising forces.
Values as factors of politicisation and conflictualisation
This leads to the role of values as factors of politicisation: when values define
actors’ preferences, draw boundaries in party politics and act as a basis for
coalition-building in policy-processes. Politicisation can be defined as the
shift from a mode of regulation characterised by rationalisation, expertise
and the search for a consensus by negotiation to a mode of regulation where
oppositions of interests and normative views become more explicit and may
request more radical solutions (such as majority decision, power relationships,
or the judicialisation of politics). Of course, the tension between these two
modes of regulation has to be considered as a continuum, with scenarios
often oscillating between the two modes. Conflictualisation is the last step
in the process of politicisation, where dissensus has reached a major level
and when actors expose their diverg ences publicly and display value-based
positions presented as non-negotiable.
Values as ends of political conflicts
Values can be factors contributing to frame political conflicts but they can
also become the end of the conflict, when the purpose is to enforce the
legitimate narrative on public good, collective identity or global norms of
regulation. In such cases, the stake is to define values as keys of further political
choices. This was the case, for instance, during EU-level controversies on
the meaning of notions such as “solidarity” or “cultural diversity”. Debates
concerning the Christian heritage of Europe were also about the delineating
of what constitutes European values and European identity. These structural
conflicts are bound to be the most virulent. They relate directly to the nature
of the European polity defined in normative terms (“European nation-state”,
“ethical federalism”).
POLITIQUE EUROPÉENNE N°45 | 201416 François Foret et Annabelle Littoz Monnet
The governance of values
The resurgence of values, as factors of politicisation, as resources and as
ends in themselves challenges our conception of EU institutions as sites of
regulatory governance, which can, as such, aford remaining aloof from the
majoritarian politics of democratic systems. The resurgence of values in EU
politics invites us to revisit our conceptions of the EU as a polity characterised
by checks and balances (rather than majoritarian politics) the technicality of
its policy debates, and a strong resort to output forms of legitimacy.
Value-based conflicts as resilient to compromise
The emergence of value-based controversies in EU politics raises specific
problems in terms of conflict settlement mechanisms at the supranational
level. Value-based controversies consist of debates over first principles, in
which at least one advocacy coalition involved portrays the issue as one
of morality and uses moral arguments in its policy advocacy. As a result,
they do not lend themselves well to traditional negotiation mechanisms in
supranational arenas, characterised by bargaining techniques such as
issuelinkages and trade-ofs. Those might indeed be inefective in issues where
values are perceived to be at stake. In situations where a clash of values is
present, reaching a policy compromise is highly unlikely. Thus, the presence
of values in EU politics poses new problems related to the management of
diversity, when diferences are too insurmountable .
Value-based conflicts as challenges to output modes of legitimation
The specific nature of value-based controversies calls into question
traditional legitimation mechanisms of EU-level governance. In political science,
legitimacy refers to the capacity of a political system to engender the belief
that the existing political institutions are the most appropriate ones for the
society. This belief is a key source of legitimacy for policy decisions. Because
EU policy-making was long perceived as essentially regulatory in nature,
expertise was accepted as a central justification and legitimation mechanism
for policy choices. The rise of value-based controversies has thrown into
question the EU’s output centered legitimation strategies. Both the public
and academic commentators have become critical of exclusive reliance on
expertise as a means of escaping ordinary means of public accountability. Introduction 17
The legitimacy of knowledge as a basis for policy decisions has diminished
significantly and new demands have been placed on policy-makers to enhance
citizens’ participation in policy-making. Given the weakness of the EU’s
resources related to culture and universal sufrage, this suspicion towards
expert-based legitimacy is particularly problematic for EU policy-makers.
Mechanisms and arenas of governance: participatory, judiciary
and expert spheres
Diferent mechanisms/arenas of governance have been devised to deal with
these challenges. First, from the early 2000s on, EU policy-makers have
developed a new policy discourse focused on citizens’ participation in
policymaking. In its 2001 White Paper on Governance, the European Commission
set itself the objective of opening up policy-making ‘to make it more inclusive
1and accountable’ . Biotechnology policy and the ethical questions that were
associated with it assume a prominent place in this paradigmatic turn. The
European Commission specifically refers to this, explaining that ‘biotechnology
2has illustrated that advice beyond ‘pure’ science is necessary’ . Consultory
mechanisms, forums of discussions and discussion platforms have been set
up as new arenas of deliberative and participatory governance at the EU level.
Second, a new category of ethics experts has been drawn into the EU
policyprocess. The European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies
(the ‘EGE’) was established in 1991 and has since then asserted itself as the
authoritative expert body when ethical issues are at stake. The EGE is a
new type of expert body, composed not only of scientists in the traditional
sense, but also of philosophers, theologians and lawyers, deemed to be more
qualified to issue informed opinions on ethical aspects of EU policies. The
EGE thus represents a novel arena for the discussion of values in the EU
institutional setting. It can be mobilised by EU policy-makers for diferent
purposes, such as legitimising controversial EU policies, producing consensus
between normative views which are reluctant to compromise, or justifying
certain claims or policy positions.
1 White Paper on European Governance, Brussels, 25.7.2001, COM(2001) 428
final, p. 8.
2 Ibid., p. 19.
POLITIQUE EUROPÉENNE N°45 | 201418 François Foret et Annabelle Littoz Monnet
Third, certain value-based issues have been dealt with in the judicial arena.
In this respect, judges can play a role as de facto rulers on highly normative
matters. Shifting the locus of policy-making to the judicial sphere results in
the depoliticisation of the issues. Existing research has pointed to the role of
courts in morality issues, especially in religious countries where supporters
and opponents of policy change might want to resort to the judicial arena
if the legislature is not forthcoming. At the EU level, the European Court
of Justice (ECJ) can represent an entry point for any lobbyist or advocacy
group which whishes to push for change on a given issue. The judicialisation
of politics can also be a means of dealing with the impossibility to reach any
decision in the political arena, as id often the case in value-based conflicts.
In recent years, the ECJ has indeed made unprecedented steps into ruling
sensitive ethical issues, such as embryo research or genetically modified food.
Summary
The article by Pierre Bréchon shows both the difculty to define and measure
values in time and space.
The first challenge is to agree about what a value is. Depending on the
definition taken, the picture may be quite diferent. For example, when invoked,
the value “democracy” gathers large support. But in many circumstances,
democracy is a complex architecture made of multiple values, or an arena
where divergent values collide.
International value surveys ofer necessarily simplifying but illuminating
resources to understand the broader social changes. Bréchon describes how
values create less major open conflicts but keep maintaining and sometimes
reactivating long-lasting cleavages in terms of moral and political attitudes
and behaviours. This may lead to a repolarisation in some countries, for
example about religion in Poland, Finland or Slovenia. This polarisation is
a marginal phenomenon but also the sign that there is no univocal evolution
towards pacification. The old patterns of conflicts between state and church
and center and peripheries may be mollified, others emerge: post-materialists
against materialists (but without verifying the prediction of Inglehart),
productivists against ecologists, nationalists against supranationalists and so on.Introduction 19
Values are also highly contextual. They do not have the same level of
conflictuality in political decisions and in policy implementation, and at the collective
and at the individual level. In general, fully consensual values are rare and
relatively weak because of their broadness and level of generality. Again, the
example of democracy is a telling one. Almost everyone agrees that democracy
is a good thing, but many also approve the idea of a government of experts
in possible tension with democratic accountability, and even authoritarian
forms of power in certain circumstances.
The way values are organised and put into categories is also quite variable.
The right/left cleavage is eroding and has an unequal salience and efect
depending on the national contexts. Certain old patterns are resisting better
than others, for example religious cleavages. What is striking is the
significant individualisation of citizens’ values and of their relationship to values.
Sociological factors are less important in themselves than for the normative
signification they are given. Individuals’ position in the social order does
not have a significant impact on values; the subjective interpretation of this
position, however, is crucial. Individualisation is not synonymous with
radicalisation, and does not signal the emergence of a general war of everyone
against everyone, as in the scenario of balkanisation sometimes spread by
the media. As each individual has to make its own existential choices, values
become more contingent and flexible and collective choices are approached
with more tolerance of the specificities and diferences of others.
Shifting from the analysis of values as the sociological basis of political
systems to their uses by institutions, Oriane Calligaro highlights the same
fluidity and polysemy of the term.
Fluidity: the notion of European values is inscribed first in an identity
narrative designed to legitimate a feeling of ontological belonging, and second
in a citizenship narrative, a framework to organise coexistence of diferences
through intercultural dialogue. This is all the more interesting given that
the evolution of Europe (both the EU and the Council of Europe) from
a culture-based identity to a value-based citizenship goes counter to the
tendency in most member states to wards an ethnicis ation of their national
law and discourse. It shows that the European political space has a margin
of autonomy in the way it deals with values.
Polysemy: diversity is celebrated constantly as a core European value, but
it is sometimes also a fact to be promoted as such as the brand of European
POLITIQUE EUROPÉENNE N°45 | 201420 François Foret et Annabelle Littoz Monnet
specificity, and sometimes a threat to European homogeneity that needs to
be circumscribed. Diversity has also been given diferent meaning in time.
It was originally mainly understood – and presented by EU elites - as the
diversity of national cultures within an overarching and co-existing
European cultural unity. Later, it was mobilized to defend local cultural diversity
against the homogenizing efects of European integration. In the mid-1990s,
negative aspects of European history were integrated in European cultural
heritage, but this new trend was still an attempt to create commonality
amongst Europeans through an acknowledgement of shared trauma. Since
the mid-1990s, the rise of ‘intercultural dialogue’ (instead of cultural
heritage) as the new buzz word in the EU elites’ discourse reflects an increasing
concern for better communication with cultural ‘Others’, both outside Europe
with global partners and competitors of the EU, but also within Europe with
migrants as the main targets.
European elites reject the idea that minorities should assimilate in the ethos
of the majority but state also that the specificities of values and cultural
practices have to comply with universal fundamental rights and cannot justify
their violation. This testifies to the constant quest both in EU and domestic
levels of governance, for an equilibrium between claims for universality and
necessity to contain heterogeneity.
One purpose of this special issue is to analyse whether the meaning, role and
efects of values are comparable in identity and in morality politics and
policies. Aurélia Bardon brings a useful contribution to this reflection by analysing
the labeling of values as ‘political’ or ‘non-political’ (especially religious ones)
3values in France and in the United States in debates about stem cell research.
The precise account she ofers of these debates illustrates a great national and
political diversity in the way such normative questions are approached and
human dignity is defined in Europe. But common characteristics also emerge
among European countries (that tend to exclude direct references to religion)
when the comparison is enlarged to the US (characterised by a strong
influ3 The input of Bardon’s article is mostly conceptual, relying on the distinction
made in liberal political theory between political and non-political values.
The US and France as cases illustrate empirically this conceptual reflection.
Although the paper is not directly related to the EU as such, a comparative
overview of national diversity regarding the regulation of stem cells research
is offerred. Despite this diversity and with due caution, France may still
stand for a ‘European way’ of dealing with ethical questions, in contrast to
an American logic.