This introductory article situates the three contributions to this special issue on ‘Europe and the world’ within the broader academic discussion on the European Union’s (EU) international role. It expands on the two central questions that run as a red line through this issue: what is the role and power of EU level players in the external policymaking process; what kind of power is Europe in the world? The fi rst part focuses on the explanatory power of rational choice theories and more particularly the principal-agent model when trying to understand the power struggle between the European and national level. The second part addresses the question whether the EU constitutes a sui generis type of international actor, as suggested by the Normative Power Europe hypothesis. With the articles in this special issue as a starting point, it points to the promises and pitfalls of the particular approaches for researching Europe’s international role and makes suggestions for future research.

In 2006, the European Union was still suffering from a legitimacy crisis following the ill-fated referenda on the Constitutional Treaty in 2005. Nevertheless, this overview of different internal and external European initiatives in 2006 presents a more ambiguous picture. On the one hand, EU policy-makers failed to gather momentum for new and ambitious European initiatives; on the other hand the EU did make some progress in a number of new and running dossiers.
The extended reflection period did not result in a solution for the institutional impasse, despite some limited proposals (‘Plan D’, a mini-Constitution) to turn the tide. In spite of clear signs of enlargement fatigue, two new member states (Romania and Bulgaria) acceded to the EU. The enlargement negotiations with Croatia and Turkey continued – even though the talks with Turkey were somewhat scaled down. In 2006 the energy issue reached the top of the European political agenda, with ambitious proposals from the European Commission, but this did not result in specific EU policy decisions. The EU did finally reach a compromise on other dossiers that had been stuck in the EU decision-making machinery for years, such as the Bolkestein directive on the liberalisation of services and the REACH regulation on chemicals. The EU’s external and foreign policies were characterised by the EU’s involvement in a number of crisis situations (Lebanon, Congo) and the elaboration of the European Neighbourhood Policy (Action Plans). EU initiatives in the areas of migration and energy also link up with Europe’s external policies – especially in relation to the EU’s neighbouring regions.

In this article, we argue that there are indications for the emergence of a third phase in the idea of global governance. After the phase of extensive state intervention and etatism (1945-1980) and the phase of deregulation and marketization (1980-now), this third phase aims at restoring typically governmental functions (e.g. social cohesion, financial stability, public health). Indications are international measures against the drawbacks of globalization (e.g. financial instability), the eroding legitimacy of the market-oriented WTO regime, the formulation of new security concepts establishing links between national interest and transnational problems and the enhanced interest in global policy coordination (e.g. UN Millennium Development Goals). Yet today, unlike in 1945-1980, globalization and complex interdependence are accepted as facts, and we also witness attempts to realize ‘governmental’ functions at the global level. But the direction which global governance will follow the years ahead, remains to a large extent a matter of political choice.