Normative contestation, procedural consensus: the dual politics of EU autonomy narratives in defence, economics and digital policy.

Is the European Union's much-discussed geopolitical/geo-economic turn towards autonomy more than rhetoric, and how can it be assessed across policy domains? This article argues that the EU's autonomy agenda rests less on normative consensus than on procedural alignment at the level of policy instrum...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:International Affairs Vol. 102; no. 4; pp. 1139 - 1159
Autor principal: Hoeffler, Catherine
Formato: Artículo
Publicado: Oxford University Press / USA Jul2026
Materias:
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ssf&AN=195222513&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ssf
    uiTerm: 195222513
    longDbName: Social Sciences Full Text (H.W. Wilson)
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        00205850
        INA
      jtl: International Affairs
      issn: 00205850
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Jul2026
      vid: 102
      iid: 4
      pid: 622
      pub: Oxford University Press / USA
    artinfo:
      ui:
        195222513
        10.1093/ia/iiag085
      ppf: 1139
      ppct: 20
      formats:
      tig:
        atl: Normative contestation, procedural consensus: the dual politics of EU autonomy narratives in defence, economics and digital policy.
      aug:
        au: Hoeffler, Catherine
        affil: University of Geneva, rue des Vieux-Grenadiers 10, 1205 Genève, Switzerland
      su:
        European Union
        Economic policy
        Political autonomy
        Military policy
        Political competition
        Policy analysis
        Consensus (Social sciences)
        High technology industries
        Narration
      sug:
        subj:
          Economic policy
          Political autonomy
          Military policy
          Political competition
          Policy analysis
          Consensus (Social sciences)
          European Union
          High technology industries
          Narration
      keyword:
        copyrightHolder:The Royal Institute of International Affairs
        copyrightYear:2026
        Digital sovereignty
        inLanguage:en
        open strategic autonomy
        publisher:Oxford University Press
        sameAs:https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiag085
        strategic autonomy
        strategic narratives
        copyrightHolder:The Royal Institute of International Affairs
        copyrightYear:2026
        Digital sovereignty
        inLanguage:en
        open strategic autonomy
        publisher:Oxford University Press
        sameAs:https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiag085
        strategic autonomy
        strategic narratives
      ab: Is the European Union's much-discussed geopolitical/geo-economic turn towards autonomy more than rhetoric, and how can it be assessed across policy domains? This article argues that the EU's autonomy agenda rests less on normative consensus than on procedural alignment at the level of policy instruments. Drawing on literatures on strategic narratives and ideational approaches to policy change, it distinguishes between two dimensions of autonomy narratives: a normative dimension concerning the meaning and goals of autonomy for the EU, and a procedural dimension concerning how autonomy should be operationalized through policy instruments. Empirically, the article examines EU defence, economic and digital policy since 2019, and identifies two competing autonomy narratives: an Interdependent Union narrative emphasizing the need to govern interdependence and relying on regulatory, market-oriented instruments, and a Sovereign Union one, defining autonomy as self-sufficiency and focusing on domestic capacity-building through fiscal commitments and industrial policy. The central claim is that EU policy-makers continue to compete over the ends of autonomy while converging on procedural solutions, particularly regulatory instruments. This convergence occurs not because they share a common vision, but because regulatory tools can accommodate divergent strategic projects, avoid redistributive conflicts and increasingly serve capacity-building purposes. This finding challenges accounts that interpret regulatory continuity as evidence of modest change, showing instead how the EU advances its turn through procedural compromise while deeper questions about its strategic identity remain contested.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Article
      src: R
    language: English
    refInfo:
    copyright:
      @attributes:
        flag: N
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N