Is “Empire” Resurrected or Defeated? Reinterpreting the EU

The definite resurgence of interest in empires as political entities is in our Zeitgeist; indeed, a wide range of authors (such as Zielonka, Zaki, Beck, Grande, Engels) have recently compared the European Union to an empire. There is however another, darker, aspect to the notion of empire: as a “historical ghost”, it feeds nationalist and Eurosceptic attitudes; as a foil to liberties and the rule of law, it also contributes to shaping the policies of the EU itself. More generally, the idea of a continental empire has long been considered antithetic to the European order. So how can we resolve the striking paradox of this twenty-first century resurrection of empire in a peaceful context?

By taking a historical perspective, this paper will define three key markers that apply to all continental empires in modern Europe (the “universal” mission of ruling, the providential figurehead, and the legitimate use of military force). From there, we will proceed to illustrate how a number of recent comparisons of the EU with an empire have led to a number of contradictions. By contrast, we will argue that a way forward for interpreting the nature of the Pax Europeana might instead lie with another trend of political thought tracing back to the “plans of perpetual peace” of the early eighteenth century, from Abbé de Saint-Pierre to Immanuel Kant.