POL21: the Idea of a European Union

POL21

(HSPS Part IIb, History & Politics Part II)

THE IDEA OF A EUROPEAN UNION

PAPER GUIDE

2021-2022

Course Organiser:

Dr Christopher Brooke

Introduction to the Paper

Lectures: There will be sixteen lectures given by Dr Brooke across Michaelmas and Lent Terms. They will take place on Thursdays, at 9 in both Michaelmas and Lent in Alison Richard Building Room 138. The bulk of this document outlines the kind of material that will be discussed in those sessions.

Supervisions: Students taking this paper can expect six supervisions, normally three in each of Michaelmas and Lent Terms, to be arranged with Dr Brooke.

Assessment: The Tripos examination paper in Easter Term will contain twelve questions, and candidates will answer three questions. The questions will cover a broad range of topics considered in the course, but will not necessarily narrowly track the weekly lecture topics, and may require candidates to put together material from the different parts of syllabus. Candidates are therefore advised to revise broadly. The Tripos papers from 2016 and 2017 are included at the end of this document, and give a decent idea of what the exam might look like (though this year’s iteration of the course has a little more historical and a little less recent theoretical material).

Foreign Languages: Although the bulk of the material on the reading lists that follow is in English, a number of items are in French, and there is a small amount in other languages. This reflects the subject-matter: there are important primary texts that have not been translated, and there is significant current non-Anglophone scholarship which does not have suitable equivalents in English. This material is listed, in order to make it available to students who can read these languages, and to indicate the kind of material that will be discussed in the lectures. But the course has not been designed with an assumption that students can read these languages, and care will be taken when constructing course assignments (and setting the exam paper) not to disadvantage those students who can only read the English-language texts and scholarship.

01/09/2021 1 COURSE OUTLINE AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

Michaelmas Term:

1. Introduction: the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries 2. 1713-1756: Saint-Pierre and the French Enlightenment 3. 1756-1789: Rousseau and the Physiocrats 4. 1789-1814: the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars 5. 1814-1830: Saint-Simon, the Restoration, and Congress Europe 6. 1830-1849: nationalists, socialists, republicans, and the Polish Question 7. 1849-1871: the new Bonapartism, Proudhon, and the 1860s peace movements 8. 1871-1890: the age of Bismarck: Nietzsche and the new international law

Lent Term:

9. 1890-1914: the liberals, customs unions, and imperialism 10. 1883-1917: the Marxists: Austro-Marxism, the SPD, and the Bolsheviks 11. 1918-1939: between the Wars: from Pan-Europe to Federal Union 12. 1939-1957: the Second World War and the creation of the EEC 13. Hayek, neoliberalism, and interstate federalism 14. MacCormick, legal theory, and sovereignty in Europe 15. The nature and future of the European polity 16. Conclusion: contemporary crises of the European Union

What follows presents an outline of the material to be covered in the sixteen lectures to be given over the course of Michaelmas and Lent Terms, with some thoughts on suitable literature. (To some extent they function as lecture handouts.) Additional reading may be suggested along with essay assignments or in lectures. Students are encouraged to explore further, especially in the stacks of the University Library, which contains a large amount of relevant material.

GENERAL OVERVIEWS

The reading lists that follow will focus on the literature that speaks most closely to the particular periods or topics being considered in the various lectures. But we begin with some books that offer an overview of the general theme of the course, or something close to it, with which you will do well to familiarise yourselves over the course of the year.

Derek Heater, The Idea of European Unity (Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1992) offers a fairly straightforward narrative account (though a lot is left out). More recent are Patrick Pasture, Imagining European Unity since 1000 AD (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2015) and Bo Stråth, Europe’s Utopias of Peace: 1815, 1919, 1951 (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2016). Most recent are Stella Ghervas, Conquering Peace: from the Enlightenment to the European Union (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2021) and Shane Weller, The Idea of Europe: a critical history (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021).

It’s reasonable to think that Anthony Pagden, The Pursuit of Europe (Oxford: Oxford University Press, November 2021, forthcoming) belongs in this company; he is also the editor of a useful collection of papers, The Idea of Europe: from antiquity to the European Union (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002).

01/09/2021 2 Perry Anderson has written various pieces on European union in recent years, some of which are collected in The Old New Europe (London: Verso, 2009), especially ch. 9 on the ‘Antecedents’ of the European Union, and more recently there were three long essays for the London Review of Books: ‘The European coup’, vol. 42, no. 24 (17 December 2020), ‘Ever closer union?’, vol. 43, no. 1, (7 January 2021), and ‘The breakaway: goodbye Europe’, vol. 43, no. 2 (21 January 2021).

MICHAELMAS TERM

Week One: Introduction: the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries

For discussion of some pre-modern themes, try Ross Balzaretti, ‘The creation of Europe’, History Workshop Journal, vol. 33 (1992), pp. 181-96; Jacques Le Goff, The Birth of Europe (Oxford: Blackwell, 2005); and Bronislaw Geremek, The Common Roots of Europe (Cambridge: Polity, 1996), esp. chs. 3 and 5. For some deep background on the legal side of things, Peter Stein, Roman Law in Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999). Older but still interesting on mediaeval Europe is Denys Hay, Europe: the emergence of an idea (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1957); and two short, classic articles on the modern period are H. D. Schmidt, ‘The establishment of “Europe” as a political expression’, The Historical Journal, vol. 9, no. 2 (1966), pp. 172-8 and Peter Burke, ‘Did Europe exist before 1800?’, History of European Ideas, vol. 1, no.1 (1980), pp. 21-9.

Three significant texts from the seventeenth century are Émeric Crucé, The New Cyneas, Thomas Willing Balch, ed. (Philadelphia: Allen, Lane & Scott, 1909 [1623]) https://archive.org/details/cu31924032525945; Maximilien de Béthune, duc de Sully, The Grand Design of Henry IV (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1921 [1638]) https://archive.org/details/sullysgranddesig00sullrich; and William Penn, An Essay towards the Present and Future Peace of Europe (Washington DC: American Peace Society, 1912 [1693]) https://archive.org/details/anessaytowardsp00penngoog.

Secondary discussions include Peter Schröder, Trust in Early Modern International Political Thought, 1598-1713 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 48-69; Andrew Mansfield, ‘Émeric Crucé’s “Nouveau Cynée” (1623), universal peace and free trade’, Journal of Interdisciplinary History of Ideas, vol. 2, no. 4 (2013), pp. 1-23; Daniele Archibugi, ‘Models of international organization in perpetual peace projects’, Review of International Studies, vol. 18, no. 4 (1992), pp. 295-317; Peter van den Dungen, ‘The plans for European peace by Quaker authors William Penn (1693) and John Bellers (1710)’, Araucaria, vol. 16, no. 32 (2014), pp. 53-67; and for an older discussion, Elizabeth V. Souleyman, The Vision of World Peace in Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-century France (New York, NY: G. P. Putnam’s, 1941).

Suggested supervision essay questions:

Was the Abbé de Saint-Pierre as naïve as his critics charged?

What was at stake in the disagreements between Voltaire and the Abbé de Saint-Pierre?

Week Three: 1756-1789: Rousseau and the Physiocrats

There are four places to find Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s main texts on the Abbé de Saint-Pierre in English. One is in the Appendix to Grace G. Roosevelt’s book, Reading Rousseau in the Nuclear Age (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1991). Another is in volume 11 of the University Presses of New England edition of Rousseau’s Collected Works, which is The Plan for Perpetual Peace, On the Government of Poland, and Other Writings on History and Politics, Christopher Kelly, ed. (Hanover, NH: University Presses of New England, 2005). A third is in: Stanley Hoffman and David P. Fidler, eds. Rousseau on International Relations (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991), pp. 48-100. The fourth is in an old volume called A Lasting Peace through the Federation of Europe and The State of War, C. E. Vaughan, ed. (London: Constable, 1917), which is available through archive.org. The French texts are collected in the third volume of the Pléiade Oeuvres complètes de Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The essay on ‘The state of war’ can also be found in Rousseau, The Social Contract and other later Political Writings, Victor Gourevitch, ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), pp. 162-76.

For discussion of Rousseau in these debates, see Grace G. Roosevelt (above); Patrick Riley, ‘Rousseau as a theorist of national and international federalism’, Publius, vol. 3 (1973), pp. 5-17; Stanley Hoffmann, ‘Rousseau on war and peace’, American Political Science Review, vol. 57, no. 2 (June 1963), pp. 317-33; Richard Tuck The Rights of War and Peace: political thought and the international order from Grotius to Kant (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), ch. 7; Béla Kapossy Iselin contra Rousseau: Sociable Patriotism and the History of Mankind (Basle: Schwabe, 2006), ch. 3, pp. 173-245; Céline Spector, ‘Who is the author of the abstract of Monsieur l’abbé de Saint-Pierre’s “Plan for Perpetual Peace”? from Saint- Pierre to Rousseau’, History of European Ideas, vol. 39, no. 3 (2013), pp. 371-93; and, especially, Céline Spector, ‘Le Projet de paix perpétuelle: de Saint-Pierre à Rousseau’, in Principes du droit de la guerre, Ecrits sur le Projet de Paix Perpétuelle de l’abbé de Saint- Pierre, Blaise Bachofen and Céline Spector, eds. (Paris: Vrin, 2008), pp. 229-94 http://celinespector.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Rousseau-Saint-Pierre-Spector.pdf. If you’re interested in contemporary international political theory, you might usefully read

01/09/2021 5 Grace G. Roosevelt, ‘Rousseau versus Rawls on international relations’, European Journal of Political Theory, vol. 5, no. 3 (2006), pp. 301-20.

A discussion of the French Enlightenment discourse around Russia is Graham Clure, ‘Rousseau, Diderot and the spirit of Catherine the Great’s reforms’, History of European Ideas, vol. 41, no. 7 (2015), pp. 883-908, and a fresh interpretation of Rousseau’s ideas about federal government is Michael Sonenscher, Jean-Jacques Rousseau: the division of labour, the politics of the imagination and the concept of federal government (Leiden: Brill, 2020).

The leading international lawyer of the period was Emer de Vattel, whose arguments are discussed by Theodore Christov, ‘Vattel’s Rousseau: ius gentium and the natural liberty of states’, in Quentin Skinner and Martin Van Gelderen, eds. Freedom and the Construction of Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), vol. 2, pp. 167-87, and by Isaac Nakhimovsky, ‘Vattel’s theory of the international order: commerce and the balance of power in the Law of Nations’, History of European Ideas, vol. 33, no. 2 (2007), pp. 157-73. See also Jennifer Pitts, ‘Empire and legal universalisms in the eighteenth century’, American Historical Review, vol. 117, no. 1 (February 2012), pp. 92-121.

Voltaire’s reply to Rousseau came in the form of a ‘Rescrit de l’Empereur de la Chine’, Journal encyclopédique (1 May 1761); there’s an online edition of it available here https://www.academia.edu/4465046/Voltaire_Rescrit_de_lempereur_de_la_Chine_introducti on_et_%C3%A9dition_critique_OCV_51B_Oxford_Voltaire_Foundation_2013_p_247_274? auto=download, and the text also appears in the Rousseau Collected Works edition mentioned above.

On Mirabeau and the Physiocrats, see Michael Sonenscher, ‘French economists and Bernese agrarians: the marquis de Mirabeau and the Economic Society of Berne’, History of European Ideas, vol. 33, no. 4 (2007), pp. 411-26, and François Pernot, ‘Les physiocrates, l’Europe unie par l’économie: L’idée d’Europe chez les physiocrates, economists et financiers de la fin du XVIIIe siècle’ in Gérard Bossuat, ed. Inventer l’Europe. Histoire nouvelle des groupes d’influence et des acteurs de l’unité européenne (Brussels: Peter Lang, 2003), pp. 27-39. Rousseau’s letter to Mirabeau is in Rousseau, The Social Contract and Other Later Political Writings, Victor Gourevitch, ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), pp. 268-71.

Suggested supervision essay questions:

Why is it so difficult to reconstruct Rousseau’s international political thought?

To what extent was the eighteenth-century debate about European confederation a debate about economics?

Is Rousseau better understood as a disciple or as a critic of the abbé de Saint-Pierre?

Week Four: 1789-1814: the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars

On Jeremy Bentham, see ‘A plan for universal and perpetual peace’ in John Bowring, ed. The Works of Jeremy Bentham (Edinburgh: William Tait, 1838-43), vol. 2, pp. 546-650, the also available here http://www.laits.utexas.edu/poltheory/bentham/pil/pil.e04.html, and for some context, Stephen Conway, ‘Bentham versus Pitt: Jeremy Bentham and British foreign

01/09/2021 6 policy 1789’, The Historical Journal, vol. 30, no. 4 (1987), pp, 791-809. A little later Bentham wrote ‘Emancipate your colonies!’, in Bentham, Rights, Representation, and Reform: Nonsense upon Stilts and Other Writings on the French Revolution, Philip Schofield, Catherine Pease-Watkin, and Cyprian Blamires, eds. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2002), pp. 291-316.

For Edmund Burke’s international thought at the time of the French Revolution, see Jennifer M. Welsh, Edmund Burke and International Relations: The Commonwealth of Europe and the Crusade against the French Revolution (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1995), and Welsh, ‘Edmund Burke and the commonwealth of Europe: the cultural bases of international order’ in Ian Clark and Iver Neumann, eds. Classical Theories of International Relations (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1996), pp. 173-92.

Relevant discussions of French Revolutionary politics include Marcel Dorigny, ‘Les Girondins et l’expansion révolutionnaire en Europe, 1791-1793’ in Marita Gilli, ed. Le cheminement de l’idée européenne dans les ideologies de la paix et de la guerre: Actes du colloque international organisé à l’Université de Besançon les 29, 30 et 31 mai 1990 (Paris: Diffusion Les Belles Lettres, 1991), pp. 27-36, and Thomas J. Lalevée, ‘National pride and republican grandezza: Brissot’s new language for international politics in the French Revolution’, French History and Civilisation, vol. 6 (2015), pp. 66-82. On Anacharsis Cloots, see Alexander Bevilacqua, ‘Conceiving the republic of mankind: the political thought of Anacharsis Cloots’, History of European Ideas, vol. 38, no. 4 (December 2012), pp. 550- 69, and Frank Ejby Poulsen, ‘A cosmopolitan republican in the French Revolution: the political thought of Anacharsis Cloots’, PhD (Fiesole: European University Institute, 2018). It is also well worth paying attention at this stage to István Hont, ‘“The permanent crisis of a divided mankind”: contemporary crisis of the nation state in historical perspective’ in Hont, Jealousy of Trade: international competition and the nation-state in historical perspective (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005), pp. 447-528, which raises issues which resonate throughout the rest of this course.

Immanuel Kant’s ‘Perpetual Peace: a philosophical sketch’ (1795) is in Kant, Political Writings, Hans Reiss, ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), pp. 93-130. One contemporary response is J. G. Fichte, ‘Review of Immanuel Kant, Perpetual Peace’ (1796), D. Breazeale, trans. The Philosophical Forum, vol. 32, no. 4 (2001), pp. 311-21. For context, see Reidar Maliks, Kant’s Politics in Context (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), ch. 5; also James Tully, ‘The Kantian idea of Europe: critical and cosmopolitan perspectives’, in Anthony Pagden, ed. The Idea of Europe: from antiquity to the European Union (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), pp. 331-58.

When it comes to the Gentz-Hauterive debate, primary texts include Friedrich von Gentz, Fragments upon the Balance of Power in Europe (London: Peltier, 1806), available at https://archive.org/details/fragmentsuponba00gentgoog; Gentz, On the State of Europe before and after the French Revolution (1801, English’d 1802), which is over here https://archive.org/details/onstateeuropebe00gentgoog; and Alexandre Maurice Blanc de Lanautte Hauterive, State of the French Republic at the End of the Year VIII, Lewis Goldsmith, trans. (London, 1801). chs. 1-4 [available through Google Books]. Secondary commentary includes Bo Stråth, Europe’s Utopias of Peace: 1815, 1919, 1951 (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2016), pp. 27-33; Isaac Nakhimovsky, ‘The “ignominious fall of the European commonwealth”: Gentz, Hauterive, and the debate of 1800’, in Trade and War: the neutrality of commerce in the inter-state system, Koen Stapelbroek, ed. (Helsinki: 2011),

01/09/2021 7 pp. 212-28, see https://helda.helsinki.fi/handle/10138/25843; Günther Kronenbitter, ‘“The most terrible war”: Friedrich Gentz and the lessons of revolutionary war,’ in War in an Age of Revolution (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), pp. 117-36; Murray Forsyth, ‘The old European states-system: Gentz vs. Hauterive’, The Historical Journal, vol. 23 (1980): pp. 521–38; M. A. Bond, ‘The political conversion of Friedrich von Gentz’, European History Quarterly vol. 3 (January 1973), pp. 1-12. For more on Gentz’s political thought, see Jonathan Allen Green, ‘Friedrich Gentz’s translation of Burke’s Reflections’, The Historical Journal, vol. 57, no. 3 (2014), pp. 639-659; and James Stafford, ‘The alternative to perpetual peace: Britain, Ireland, and the case for union in Friedrich Gentz’s Historisches Journal, 1799-1800’, Modern Intellectual History, vol. 13, no. 1 (April 2016), pp. 63-91. An older piece is Hannah Arendt, ‘Friedrich von Gentz,’ in Essays in Understanding, 1930-1954 (New York, NY: Schocken, 1994), pp. 50-6.

For Adam Jerzy Czartorysky see Marian Kukiel, Czartoryski and European Unity (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1955); W. H. Zawadzki, A Man of Honour: Adam Czartoryski as a statesman of Russia and Poland 1795-1831 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993); and Zawadzki, ‘Prince Adam Czartoryski and Napoleonic France, 1801-1805: a study in political attitudes’, The Historical Journal, vol. 18, no. 2 (June 1975), pp. 245-77.

On the Napoleonic period more generally, try Philip Dwyer, ‘Napoleon and the universal monarchy’, History, vol. 95 (2010), pp. 293-307; Biancamaria Fontana, ‘The Napoleonic empire and the Europe of nations’, in Anthony Pagden, The Idea of Europe: from antiquity to the European Union (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), pp. 116-28; Martyn P. Thompson, ‘Ideas of Europe during the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars’, Journal of the History of Ideas, vol. 55, no. 1 (1994), pp. 37-58; Wolfgang Burgdorf, ‘Imperial reform and visions of a European constitution in Germany around 1800’, History of European Ideas, vol. 19, nos. 1-3 (1994), pp. 401-8; Stuart Woolf, Napoleon’s Integeration of Europe (London: Routledge, 1991); and Woolf, ‘The construction of a European world-view in the Revolutionary-Napoleonic years’, Past & Present, vol. 137, no. 1 (November 1992), pp. 72- 101; Eli F. Hecksher, The Continental System: an economic interpretation (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1922); and—less academic but still interesting—David A. Bell, ‘Enlightened. Elitist. Undemocratic.’ in The Nation, 27 May 2015, http://www.thenation.com/article/enlightened-elitist-undemocratic/.

Suggested supervision essay questions:

How should the French Revolutionary context affect, if at all, the way we interpret Kant’s essay on perpetual peace?

Who had the better of the Gentz-Hauterive debate?

Is it plausible to view Napoleon’s ‘Continental System’ as the basis for a scheme of Perpetual Peace?

Week Five: 1814-1830: Saint-Simon, the Restoration, and Congress Europe

On the French Revolution as a spiritual crisis, see Gareth Stedman Jones, ‘Religion and the origins of socialism’, in Ira Katznelson and Gareth Stedman Jones, eds. Religion and the Political Imagination (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), pp. 171-89; see also Helena Rosenblatt, ‘On the need for a Protestant Reformation: Constant, Sismondi, Guizot

01/09/2021 8 and Laboulaye’, in Raf Geenans and Helena Rosenblatt, eds. French Liberalism from Montesquieu to the Present Day, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), pp. 115- 33. For the hardline Catholic reaction see Bee Wilson, ‘Counter-revolutionary thought’, in Gareth Stedman Jones and Gregory Claeys, eds. The Cambridge History of Nineteenth- Century Political Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), pp. 9-38; Richard A. Lebrun, Throne and Altar: the political and religious Thought of Joseph de Maistre (Ottawa, ON: University of Ottawa Press, 1965); and Joseph de Maistre, On the Pope (1819) http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/books/Maistre--Pope.pdf. See also Mary Anne Perkins, Christendom and European Identity: The Legacy of a Grand Narrative since 1789 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2004).

Turning to German Romanticism, Novalis, ‘Christianity or Europe: a fragment’ is available at http://www.starcenter.com/Novalis--Christendom.pdf, and there is good discussion by Pauline Kleingeld in ‘Romantic cosmopolitanism: Novalis’s “Christianity or Europe”’, Journal of the History of Philosophy, vol. 46, no. 2 (2008), pp. 269-84. Also useful is part of Martyn P. Thompson, ‘Ideas of Europe during the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars’, Journal of the History of Ideas, vol. 55, no. 1 (1994), pp. 52-5.

For Saint-Simon’s plan for the reorganisation of Europe, the main text is Henri de Saint- Simon, with Augustin Thierry, De la réorganisation de la société européene, ou, De la nécessité et des moyens de rassembler les peuples de l'Europe en un seul corps politique: en conservant à chacun son indépendance nationale (Paris: A. Egron, 1814). This is available at gallica.fr, and in English in Henri de Saint-Simon, Social Organization and the Science of Man and other writings, Felix Markham, trans. (New York, NY: Harper & Row, 1952), pp. 28-68, and there are also excerpts in Ghita Ionescu, ed. The Political Thought of Saint-Simon (London: Oxford University Press, 1976), pp. 83-98, and in Keith Taylor, ed. Henri Saint- Simon, 1760-1825: Selected Writings on Science, Industry and Social Organisation (London: Croom Helm, 1975), pp. 130-136.

Two other relevant contributions to the journal Le Censeur européen from 1817 are ‘Du système de l’équilibre des puissances européennes’ (vol. 1, pp. 93-142) and, especially, ‘Considérations sur l’état de l’Europe, sur les dangers de cet état, et sur les moyens d’en sortir’ (vol. 2, pp. 67-106). See also Marie-France Piguet, ‘L’Europe des Européens chez le comte de Saint-Simon’, Mots vol. 34 (March 1993), pp. 7-24 http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/mots_0243- 6450_1993_num_34_1_1771; and Claudio De Boni, ‘L’idée de «république occidentale» et le positivisme: de Condorcet à Comte’ in Alessandra Anteghini, Marta Petriciloi, and Donatella Cherubini, eds. Les États-Unis d’Europe: Un Projet Pacifiste (Bern: Peter Lang, 2004), pp. 195-212.

For Konrad von Schmidt-Phiseldek, see his Europe and America, or the relative state of the civilized world at a future period, (1820) https://archive.org/details/cihm_48311 and Der europaische Bund (1821) https://archive.org/details/dereuropischeb00schm; on which see also Alexander Hill Everett, Europe: or a general survey of the present situation of the principal powers; with conjectures on their future prospects (Boston, MA: Oliver Everett, 1822), and the discussion in Michael Sonenscher, Before the Deluge: public debt, inequality, and the intellectual origins of the French Revolution (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007), pp, 360-7.

01/09/2021 9 On the Congress system more generally, see Friedrich von Gentz, ‘Considerations on the political system now existing in Europe, 1818’ in S. E. Cooper, ed. Five Views of European Peace (New York, NY: Garland, 1972), pp. 71-2; Stella Ghervas, ‘Antidotes to empire: from the Congress system to the European Union’ in John W. Boyer and Berthold Molden, eds. EUtROPEs: The Paradox of European Empire (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2014), pp. 49-81 [available through the author’s academia.edu page], Ghervas, Conquering Peace: from the Enlightenment to the European Union (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2021), ch. 2, and Bo Stråth, Europe’s Utopias of Peace: 1815, 1919, 1951 (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2016), ch. 1.

For this topic, and for Weeks Six, Seven, and Eight, a vast amount of relevant material is presented in W. H. van der Linden, The International Peace Movement, 1815-1874 (Amsterdam: Tilleul, 1987).

Suggested supervision essay questions:

Is there anything distinctively ‘socialist’ about Saint-Simon’s scheme for the reorganisation Europe?

Compare and contrast the ideas of Saint-Simon and Joseph de Maistre for recasting European politics.

How did the rise of Russian power transform the problem of European political organisation around the time of the Congress of Vienna?

Week Six: 1830-1849: nationalists, socialists, republicans, and the Polish Question

For transnational aspects of the Revolutions of 1830, see Sylvie Aprile and Jean-Claude Caron, eds. La liberté guidant les peuples: les révolutions de 1830 en Europe (Seyssel: Champ Vallon, 2013).

On Poland, there’s interesting material in Europe of Free Nations: Idea of an Integrated Continent in Polish Nineteenth Century Thought, a pamphlet to accompany The Sejm Exhibition, 10-21 May 2008 http://oide.sejm.gov.pl/oide/images/files/wystawa1/leaflet.pdf. See also Adam Jerzy Czartoryski, Essai sur la diplomatie: manuscrit d’un philhellène publié par M. Toulousain (Paris: Firmin Didot Frères, 1830); Wojciech Bogumił Jastrzębowski’s Traktat o wiecznym przymierzu między narodami ucyywilizowanymi: konstytucja dla Europy (Treatise on the eternal union between the civilized nations: the constitution for Europe); Peter Brock, ‘A pacifist in wartime: Wojciech Bogumił Jastrzębowski’, The Polish Review, vol. 12, no. 2 (Spring 1967), pp. 68-77; and Adam Mickiewicz, The Books and the Pilgrimage of the Polish Nation (London: James Ridgway, 1833). . On the Saint-Simonians after 1830, see Neil McWilliam, Dreams of Happiness: social art and the French left, 1830-1850 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993); and for Michel Chevalier in 1832, see Michael Drolet, ‘A nineteenth-century Mediterranean union: Michel Chevalier’s Système de la Méditerranée’, Mediterranean Historical Review, vol. 30, no. 2 (2015), pp. 147-68.

01/09/2021 10 For the 1832 Hambach Festival, see Erich Schunk in Klaus Ries, ed. Europa im Vormärz: Eine transnationale Spurensuche (Ostfildern: Jan Thorbecke Verlag, 2016), pp. 87-97 (and see Manfred Hettling’s contribution for some caution about the transnational aspect of 1848).

On Mazzini and Young Europe, see Giuseppe Mazzini, ‘Thoughts on democracy in Europe’ in Salvo Mastellone, ed. Mazzini and Marx: Thoughts on Democracy in Europe (Westport: Praeger, 2003), pp. 89-96; also ‘The Holy Alliance of the Peoples’ (1849) in Mazzini, Life and Writings (London: Smith, Elder, 1891), vol. 5, pp. 265-82 https://archive.org/details/lifewritingsofjo05mazz. See also Mazzini, letter of 23 March 1857, to Jessie White Mario in Denis Mack Smith, Il Risorgimento italiano: storia e testi (Bari: Laterza, 1968), p. 422. For secondary discussion, Stefano Recchia and Nadia Urbinati, ‘Giuseppe Mazzini’s international political thought’ in Recchia and Urbinati, eds. A Cosmopolitanism of Nations: Giuseppe Mazzini’s writings on democracy, nation building, and international relations (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2013), pp. 1-30 http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i9042.pdf; C. A. Bayly and E. F. Biagini, eds. Giuseppe Mazzini and the Globalisation of Democratic Nationalism, 1830-1920 (Oxford: Oxford University Press for the British Academy, 2008); and Karma Nabulsi, ‘Patriotism and internationalism in the “oath of allegiance” to Young Europe’, European Journal of Political Theory, vol. 5 (2006), pp. 61-70.

On Victor Considerant, see Considerant, De la politique générale et du rôle de la France en Europe (Paris: La Phalange, 1840) http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k86103c; also Jonathan Beecher, Victor Considerant and the Rise and Fall of French Romantic Socialism (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2001), esp. pp. 373-5, and 402-7; and Patrice Rolland, ‘Considerant et le débat sur la Fédération européenne’, Cahiers Charles Fourier , no. 19 (décembre 2008) http://www.charlesfourier.fr/spip.php?article579.

For the 1840 tension across the Rhine, see James M. Brophy, ‘The Rhine crisis of 1840 and German nationalism: chauvinism, skepticism, and regional reception’, The Journal of Modern History, vol. 85, no. 1 (March 2013), pp. 1-35; and Michael Loriaux, European Union and the Deconstruction of the Rhineland Frontier (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2008), pp. 205-8.

On Friedrich List, see Keith Tribe, Strategies of Economic Order: German economic discourse 1750-1950 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), ch. 3, and Emmanuel N. Roussakis, Friedrich List, the Zollverein and the Uniting of Europe (Bruges: College of Europe, 1968).

Concerning German socialists, see in particular W. H. van der Linden, The International Peace Movement, 1815-1874 (Amsterdam: Tilleul, 1987), esp. pp. 254-8 and 312-3.

On Victor Hugo, see Le Rhin: lettres à un ami, E. Blewer, ed. in Oeuvres complètes: Voyages [= vol. 13] (Paris: Laffont, 2009 [1842]). The 1849 address is Victor Hugo, ‘Discours d’ouverture du congrès de la paix’, in Oeuvres complètes: Politique (Paris: 1985), pp. 299- 304. (A translation has been published as ‘The United States of Europe: Presidential Address at the International Peace Congress, Paris, August 22, 1849’ by the World Peace Foundation in its pamphlet series, October 1914—in a pamphlet which also contains a text by Mazzini, ‘The Map of Europe’.) For commentary on his ideas about Europe, see Edward Ousselin, ‘Victor Hugo’s European Utopia’, Nineteenth-Century French Studies, vol. 34, nos. 1 & 2 (Fall-Winter 2005-2006), pp. 32-43; Verdiana Grossi, ‘Victor Hugo et sa perception des

01/09/2021 11 Etats-Unis d’Europe’, in Alessandra Anteghini, Marta Petriciloi, and Donatella Cherubini, eds. Les États-Unis d’Europe: Un Projet Pacifiste (Bern: Peter Lang, 2003), pp. 49-73; and Angelo Metzidakis, ‘Victor Hugo and the idea of the United States of Europe’, Nineteenth- Century French Studies, vol. 23, nos. 1-2 (Fall-Winter, 1994-5), pp. 72-84. For a wider- ranging discussion, Philippe Darriulat, Les patriotes: la gauche républicaine et la nation, 1830-1870 (Paris: Seuil, 2001).

Suggested supervision essay questions:

Did nineteenth-century republicans offer a plausible model for combining patriotism and cosmopolitanism?

To what extent did the problem of European unification look different between 1830 and 1848 from the perspective of each bank of the Rhine?

Week Seven: 1849-1871: the new Bonapartism, Proudhon, and the 1860s peace movements

On József Eötvös, there’s Eötvös, The Dominant Ideas of the Nineteenth Century and their Impact on the State, D. Mervyn Jones, trans. (New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1996-1998), 2 vols, discussed by Éva Bóka, ‘József Eötvös on the personal principle’, Ungarn-Jahrbuch vol. 28 (2005-2007), pp. 55-67, and by Elizabeth A. Drummond, ‘Review of József Eötvös, The Dominant Ideas of the Nineteenth Century and Their Impact on the State. Volume I: Diagnosis’, in HABSBURG H-Net Reviews, April 1997 http://www.h- net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=974.

On the new Bonapartist regime in France, see Constantin Frantz, Louis Napoleon: Masse oder Volk, Günter Maschke, ed (Vienna: Karolinger 1990 [1852]), discussed by Iain McDaniel, ‘Constantin Frantz and the intellectual history of Bonapartism and Caesarism: a reassessment’, Intellectual History Review, vol. 28, no. 1 (August 2017), pp. 1-22. Also Konstantin Frantz, Untersuchungen über das europäische Gleichgewicht (Berlin: Schneider, 1859), and Ludwig Eckardt, Nationalität oder Freiheit? Centralisation oder Föderation? (Jena: Karl Hochhausen,1859).

For the new commercial diplomacy and the Cobden-Chevalier Treaty, see Peter T. Marsh, Bargaining on Europe: Britain and the First Common Market, 1860-1892 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1999).

On Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, the most important texts are La Guerre et la Paix, Recherches sur le principe et la constitution du droit des gens (Brussels: Hetzel, 1861), 2 vols, and Du Principe fédératif et de la nécessité de reconstituer le parti de la revolution (Paris: E. Dentu, 1863), in English: http://www.ditext.com/proudhon/federation/federation.html. See also Mikhail Bakunin, ‘Fédéralisme, socialisme, et anti-théologisme’ (1867), in Oeuvres, pp. 14- 21, in English: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/various/reasons- of-state.htm. Secondary scholarship includes Edward Castleton, ‘The origins of ‘collectivism’: Pierre-Joseph Proudhon’s contested legacy and the debate about property in the International Workingmen’s Association and the League of Peace and Freedom’, Global Intellectual History, vol. 2, no. 2 (2017), pp. 169-95, and Castleton, ‘Pierre-Joseph Proudhon’s War and Peace: the right of force revisited’, in Béla Kapossy, Isaac Nakhimovsky, and Richard Whatmore, eds. Commerce and Peace in the Enlightenment (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017), pp. 272-99. An older piece is M. Kofman,

01/09/2021 12 ‘The reaction of two anarchists to nationalism: Proudhon and Bakunin on the Polish Question’, Labour History, no. 14 (May 1968), pp. 34-45. (Colin Ward, Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004], ch. 9 has some useful remarks about ‘the federalist agenda’.)

Left internationalist organisations of the 1860s include the International Working Men’s Association, Mazzini’s Universal Republican Alliance, Frédéric Passy’s International and Permanent Peace League, and Charles Lemonnier’s International League for Peace and Freedom, which published a journal called Les États-Unis d’Europe. For a brief statement of Lemonnier’s general view, see ‘The problem of European peace and its progressive solution by means of tribunals of international jurisdiction based on federations of European states’ (London, 1887) [text to be circulated].

On peace conferences, see Sandi E. Cooper, Patriotic Pacifism: Waging War on War in Europe, 1815-1914 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991). See also the papers by Donatella Cherubini (‘Si Vis Pacem Para Libertatem et Justitiam. Les Etats-Unis d’Europe, 1867-1914’—which is in English), Vittore Collina (‘Les Etats Unis d’Europe: humanité, paix et amour de la Patrie’), Lisa Bartolomei, ‘The Impact of Civil Society on International Relations: the Ligue internationale de la Paix et de la Liberté’), Marcella Simoni (‘The Inner Frontier. Jews in Les Etats-Unis d’Europe’), Alessandra Anteghini (‘Charles Lemonnier [1806-1891], précurseur de l’européisme fédéraliste’), Fulvio Conti (‘De Genève à la Piave. La franc-maçonnerie italienne et le pacifisme démocratique, 1867-1915’), and Leszek Kuk (‘La Ligue internationale de la Paix et de la Liberté et la “question polonaise”’), all in Alessandra Anteghini, Marta Petriciloi, and Donatella Cherubini, eds. Les États-Unis d’Europe: Un Projet Pacifiste (Bern, 2003).

Also interesting from the 1860s is Michel Chevalier, ‘La guerre et la crise européenne’, Revue des deux mondes, vol. 36 (1866), pp. 758-85.

Suggested supervision essay questions:

Did the political fall-out from the 1848 Revolutions make a united Europe a more or less distant goal?

Why were the anarchists interested in the International League for Peace and Freedom?

When it comes to thinking about European co-operation, was Michel Chevalier’s passage from Saint-Simonianism to Bonapartism marked more by continuity or change?

Week Eight: 1871-1890: the age of Bismarck: Nietzsche and the new international law

For a snapshot of the discourse in England in 1871, see John Robert Seeley, ‘The United States of Europe’, MacMillan’s Magazine, vol. 23 (March 1871), pp. 441-4; also the letter from John Stuart Mill to Mrs M. C. Halsted, 19 January 1871 (#1636), in The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, J. M. Robson, ed. (Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press, 1963-1991), vol. 17, p. 1800. (See also an earlier letter, to T. E. Cliffe Leslie, 18 August 1860 [#467], vol. 15, p. 703.)

In general, on international law, see Martti Koskenniemi, The Gentle Civilizer of Nations: the rise and fall of international law 1870-1960 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

01/09/2021 13 2001). The main legal text is James Lorimer, The Institutes of the Law of Nations (Edinburgh: Blackwood, 1883), esp. book 5, ‘The ultimate problem of international jurisprudence’, vol. 2, pp. 183-299, available, e.g., at http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k935614.r=.langEN, in which he discusses the contribution of Johann Kaspar Bluntschli, which can be found in Bluntschli, ‘Die Organisation des europäischen Statenvereines’, in his Gesammelte kleine Schriften (Nordlingen: 1881), vol. 2, pp. 279-312 (though for non-German readers much of Bluntschli’s argument is reproduced in Lorimer’s notes). Also of interest by Lorimer are James ‘On the application of the principle of relative, or proportional equality to international organisation’, Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, vol. 24 (1867), pp. 557-71, and Of the Denationalisation of Constantinople and its Devotion to Internatinal Purposes (Edinburgh: Edmonston and Douglas, 1876). On the international lawyers’ racism, see Martti Koskenniemi, ‘Race, hierarchy and international law: Lorimer’s legal science’, The European Journal of International Law, vol. 27, no. 2 (2016), pp. 415-29; also Jennifer Pitts, Boundaries of the International: Law and Empire (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2018), ch. 6. Also Bruno Arcidiacono, ‘La paix par le droit international, dans le vision de deux jurists du XIXe siècle: Le débat Lorimer-Bluntschli’, Relations Internationals, vol. 149 (2012), pp. 13-26; and Betsy Röben, Johann Caspar Bluntschli, Francis Lieber und das moderne Völkerrecht 1861-1881 (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2003).

For Nietzsche, see Human, All Too Human, R. J. Hollingdale, trans. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), esp. vol. 1, §475, §481; vol. 2 §6 of the Preface; and vol. 3 (‘The wanderer and his shadow’), §87 and §292; and Beyond Good and Evil, R. J. Hollingdale, trans. (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1973), §208, §251, §255, §256. Recommended secondary literature includes Hugo Drochon, Nietzsche’s Great Politics (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2016), and Christian J. Emden, Nietzsche and the Politics of History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), and Nicholas Martin, ‘“We good Europeans”: Nietzsche’s new Europe in Beyond Good and Evil’, History of European Ideas, vol. 20, nos. 1-3 (1995), pp. 141-4.

Suggested supervision essay questions:

Were the international lawyers presenting familiar arguments about European unification, but in a distinctive jargon, or was there really something new here?

Is it possible to present Nietzsche’s ideas about Europe in a way that is both coherent and attractive?

LENT TERM

Week One: 1890-1914: the liberals, customs unions, and imperialism

[Just for background, do note that there was an earlier flurry of European customs union proposals around 1879, on which see Gustave de Molinari, ‘Union douanière de l’Europe centrale’, Journal des économistes, vol. 5, no. 2 (February 1879), pp. 309-318; Richard de Kaufmann, ‘L’association douanière de l’Europe centrale’ (Paris: Guillaumin, 1879); Alexander Peez, Zollvertrag mit Deutschland oder wirtschaftliche Autonomie? (Vienna, 1879), Léon Walras, Studies in Applied Economics: Theory of the Production of Social Wealth, Jan van Daal, trans. (London: Routledge, 2005), vol. 2, pp. 245-6; and Gustav Bergmann, Die zukünftigen Zollverträge auf der Grundlage autonomer Tarife der industriellen Länder des Europaïschen Kontinents (Strasbourg: R. Schulz, 1879).]

01/09/2021 14

On the McKinley Tariff and its consequences, see Walter Mattli, The Logic of Regional Integration (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001); also Konstantin Rössler, Die Zukunft der Völker von Mitteleuropa (Berlin: Druck und Verlag von Georg Reimer,1890); Henry W. Farnam, ‘German tariff policy, past and present, II’, The Yale Review, vol. 1, no. 1 (May, 1892), pp. 20-34.

For the 1890s debate on a European customs union, see Paul de Leusse, La paix par l’Union douanière franco-allemande (Strasbourg: J. Bussenius, 1888); de Leusse, ‘L’union douanière européenne’, Revue d’économie politique, vol. 4, no. 4 (1890), pp. 393-401; Alexander Peez, ‘Les Congrès des trois Amériques’, Revue d’économie politique, vol. 4, no. 3 (1890), pp. 272- 86; Peez, ‘À propos de la situation douanière en Europe’ Revue d’économie politique, vol. 5, no. 2 (1891), pp. 121-139; Peez, Zur neuesten Handelspolitik (Vienna: G. Szelinski, 1895); and Emile Worms, ‘Une association douanière franco-allemande avec restitution de l’Alsace- Lorraine’ (Paris: 1888); and for near-contemporary discussion see George M. Fisk, ‘Continental opinion regarding a proposed Middle European Tariff-Union’, Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science, vol. 20 (1902), pp. 575-622.

Turning to the liberals, for W. T. Stead, see The United States of Europe on the Eve of the Parliament of Peace (London: William Clowes, 1899); also The Americanization of the World, or the Trend of the Twentieth Century (New York, NY: Horace Markley, 1901); and The Last Will and Testament of Cecil John Rhodes: with elucidatory notes to which are added some chapters describing the political and religious ideas of the testator (London: Review of Reviews Office, 1902).

For H. G. Wells, see Anticipations of the Reaction of Mechanical and Scientific Progress upon Human Life and Thought (London: Chapman & Hall, 1902 [1901]; and for secondary discussion see Joseph O. Baylen, ‘W. T. Stead and the early career of H. G. Wells, 1895- 1911’, Huntington Library Quarterly, vol. 38, no. 1 (November 1974), pp. 53-79; Duncan Bell, ‘Founding the world state: H. G. Wells on empire and the English-speaking peoples’, International Studies Quarterly, vol. 62, no. 4 (December 2018), pp. 867-879; Bell, ‘Pragmatic utopianism and race: H. G. Wells as social scientist’, Modern Intellectual History, vol. 16, no. 3 (2019), pp. 863-95; John S. Partington, ‘Europe in the writings of H. G. Wells’, keynote address to the ‘Reception of H. G. Wells in Europe’ conference (Leipzig: Universität Leipzig, 2002) https://www.academia.edu/1693184/Europe_in_the_Writings_of_H.G._Wells; and Partington, ‘H. G. Wells and the world state: a liberal cosmopolitan in a totalitarian age’, International Relations, vol. 17, no. 2 (2003), pp. 233-46.

For J. A. Hobson, relevant texts include Problems of Poverty: An Inquiry Into the Industrial Condition of the Poor (London: Methuen, 1891), The Evolution of Modern Capitalism: A Study of Machine Production (London: Walter Scott, 1894), The Problem of the Unemployed: An Enquiry and an Economic Policy (London: Methuen, 1896), The War in South Africa: Its Causes and Effects (London, James Nisbet, 1900), and, especially, Imperialism: A Study (London: James Nisbet, 1902).

Suggested supervision essay questions:

What, if anything, was distinctively Marxist about Marxists’ arguments about European union in the period before 1917?

‘The solution of the European union within the capitalist social order can objectively, in the economic sense, mean only a tariff war with America, and in the political sense only a colonial race war’ [ROSA LUXEMBURG]. Discuss.

01/09/2021 16 Week Three: 1918-1939: between the Wars: from Pan-Europe to Federal Union

General or wide-ranging treatments include Mark Hewitson and Matthew D’Auria, eds. Europe in Crisis: intellectuals and the European idea, 1917-1957 (Oxford: Berghahn, 2012); Carl Pegg, Evolution of the European Idea, 1914-1932 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1983); Menno Spiering and Michael Wintle, eds. Ideas of Europe since 1914: the legacy of the First World War (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2002); Peter L. Lindseth, Power and Legitimacy: reconciling Europe and the nation-state (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), ch. 2; Peter M. R. Stirk, ed. European Unity in Context: the interwar period (London and New York, NY: 1989).

Significant interventions include Friedrich Naumann, Central Europe [Mitteleuropa] (London: King & Son, 1916); José Ortega y Gasset, The Revolt of the Masses (New York, NY: W. W. Norton, 1932), esp. ch. 14. For more on right-wing Europeanism, John P. McCormick, ‘Carl Schmitt’s Europe: cultural, imperial and spatial proposals for European integration, 1923-1955’, in Christian Joerges and N. S. Ghaleigh, eds. The Darker Legacy of European Law: legal perspectives on a “European order” in the Fascist era and beyond (Oxford: Hart, 2004); Stuart Elden, ‘Reading Schmitt geographically’, Radical Philosophy, no. 161 (2010), pp. 18-26; Arnd Bauerkämper, ‘Ambiguities of transnationalism: Fascism in Europe between pan-Europeanism and ultra-nationalism’, Bulletin of the German Historical Institute London, vol. 29, no. 2 (November 2007), pp. 43-67 [available through academia.edu]; and Benjamin G. Martin, The Nazi-Fascist New Order for European Culture (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2016).

On Pan-Europa, there’s the recent Martyn Bond, Hitler’s Cosmopolitan Bastard: count Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi and his vision of Europe (Montreal, QC: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2021); also Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi, ‘The Pan-European outlook’, International Affairs, vol. 10, no. 5 (September 1931), pp. 638-51; David Mitrany, ‘Pan- Europa – a hope or a danger?’, The Political Quarterly, vol. 1, no. 4 (1930), pp. 457-78; Daniel C. Villaneuva, ‘Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi’s “Pan-Europa” as the Elusive “Object of Longing”;, Rocky Mountain Review of Language and Literature, vol. 59, no. 2 (2005), pp. 67-80; and Benjamin J. Thorpe, ‘Eurafrica: A Pan-European Vehicle for Central European Colonialism (1923-1939)’, European Review, vol. 26, no. 3 (2018), pp. 503-13. See also and especially Dina Gusejnova, ‘Noble Continent? German-speaking nobles as theorists of European identity in the interwar period’ in Hewitson and D’Auria (see above), pp. 111-33 (also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQD5D8GtPYo).

On the Briand proposal, there’s Conan Fischer, ‘The failed European Union: Franco-German relations during the Great Depression of 1929-1932’, The International History Review, vol. 34, no. 4 (2012), pp. 705-24; and Édouard Herriot, The United States of Europe (London: George Harrap, 1930).

For the debate in Britain, including Federal Union, Michael Burgess, The British Tradition of Federalism (Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1995); Or Rosenboim, ‘A plan for plenty: the international thought of Barbara Wootton’, in Patricia Owens and Katharina Rietzler, eds. Women’s International Thought: a new history (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021), pp. 286-305; Rosenboim, ‘Barbara Wootton, Friedrich Hayek and the debate on democratic federalism in the 1940s’, International History Review, vol. 36, no. 5 (2014), pp. 894-918; W. Ivor Jennings, A Federation For Western Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1940), https://archive.org/details/federationforwes031229mbp; the relevant

01/09/2021 17 sections of Andrea Bosco, ed. The Federal Idea (London, Lothian Foundation Press, 1991), vol. 1 (‘The history of federalism from the Enlightenment to 1945’).

Other pieces of interest include Jean-Michel Guieu, ‘The debate about a European institutional order among international legal scholars in the 1920s and its legacy’, Contemporary European History, vol. 21, no. 3 (2012), pp. 319-37; Jan-Werner Müller, ‘Julien Benda’s anti-passionate Europe’, European Journal of Political Theory, vol. 5, no. 2 (April 2006), pp. 125-37; Johan Schot and Vincent Lagendijk, ‘Technocratic internationalism in the interwar years: building Europe on motorways and electricity networks’, Journal of Modern European History, vol. 6, no. 2 (2008), vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 196-217; Christian Bailey, Between Yesterday and Tomorrow: German visions of Europe, 1926-1950 (New York, NY: Berghahn, 2013); Dilek Barlas and Serhat Güvenç: ‘Turkey and the idea of a European union during the inter-war years, 1923-1939’, Middle Eastern Studies, vol. 45, no. 3 (2009), pp. 425-46; and John W. Hiden and David J. Smith, ‘Looking beyond the nation state: a Baltic vision for national minorities between the Wars’, Journal of Contemporary History, 41:3 (2006), pp. 387-99.

Suggested supervision essay questions:

Was the project of European unification in the interwar period largely a project of the Left or of the Right?

How was debate about uniting Europe different after the First World War, compared with what had gone before?

Week Four: 1939-1957: the Second World War and the creation of the EEC

For the Second World War, Walter Lipgens, ed. Documents on the History of European Integration, 4 vols. (Berlin: de Gruyer, 1985-), vols. 1 and 2; John Pinder, ed. Altiero Spinelli and the British Federalists: writings by Beveridge, Robbins and Spinelli, 1937-1943 (London: Federal Trust, 1998); Jean-Luc Chabot, Aux origines intellectuels de l’Union européenne: L’idée d’Europe unie de 1919 à 1939 (Grenoble, 2005); Peter M. R. Stirk, ‘Integration and disintegration before 1945’, in Desmond Dinan, ed. Origins and Evolution of the European Union (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), pp. 9-28; Christian Bailey, ‘The European discourse in Germany, 1939-1950: three case studies’, German History, vol. 28, no. 4 (2010), pp. 453-78; Thierry Grosbois, ‘The activities of Józef Retinger in support of the European idea (1940-1946)’, in Thomas Lane and Marian Wolánski, eds. Poland and European unity: ideas and reality (Wroclaw: 2007), pp. 13-51; Walter Lipgens ‘European federation in the political thought of Resistance movements during World War II’, Central European History, vol. 1, no. 1 (March 1968), pp. 5-19; Pascal Delwit, ‘Les conceptions d’Europe dans le mouvement communiste entre 1940 et 1947’, in Michel Dumoulin, ed. Plans de temps de guerre pour l’Europe d’après guerre, 1940-1947 / Wartime Plans for Postwar Europe, 1940-1947 (Brussels: 1995) [available through academia.edu]; also Philippe Mioche, ‘Une vision conciliante du future de l’Europe: Le plan d’Alexis Aron en 1943’, in the same volume, pp. 307-23.

Since the War, there have been discussions of ‘the idea of Europe’, contributing to a kind of philosophical inquiry which has continued down to the present day. See, e.g., F. Chabod, ‘L’idea di Europa’, La Rassegna d’Italia (1947), pp. 3-17, 25-37; Stuart Woolf, ‘Reading Federico Chabod’s Storia dell’idea d’Europa half a century later’, Journal of Modern Italian

01/09/2021 18 Studies, vol. 7, no. 2 (2002), pp. 269-92; Vittorio Dini, ‘Lucien Febvre and the Idea of Europe’, Mark Hewitson and Matthew D’Auria, eds. Europe in Crisis: Intellectuals and the European Idea, 1917-1957 (Oxford: Berghahn, 2012), pp. 271-83; Denys Hay, Europe: the emergence of an idea (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1957); D. W. Brogan, ‘The idea of European union’ (Leeds: University of Leeds, 1949); James Joll, ‘Europe: a historian’s view’ (Leeds: Leeds University Press, 1969); Denis de Rougemont, The Idea of Europe (New York, NY: Macmillan, 1966); Rougemont, The Meaning of Europe (Liverpool: Sidgwick & Jackson, 1965).

For the creation of the European Economic Community, there’s Walter Lipgens and Wilfried Loth, eds. Documents on the History of European Integration, 4 vols. (Berlin: de Gruyer, 1985-), vols 3 and 4. On Christian Democracy: Wolfram Kaiser, Christian Democracy and the Origins of European Union (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007); Alan Fimister, Robert Schuman: neo-scholastic humanism and the reunification of Europe (Brussels: Lang, 2008). On the Milward and Moravscik theses: Alan S. Milward, The European Rescue of the Nation-State, 2d ed. (London: Routledge, 2000) [1st ed., 1992]; Andrew Moravscik, The Choice for Europe: social purpose and state power from Messina to Maastricht (London: UCL Press, 1999); and a perspective from France: Craig Parsons, A Certain Idea of Europe (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2003).

There is also the intriguing argument about ‘Eurafrica’, which belongs in this section: Peo Hansen has written a lot on the topic, for example, ‘European Integration, European Identity and the Colonial Connection’, European Journal of Social Theory, vol. 5, no. 4 (2002), pp. 483-498; Peo Hansen and Stefan Jonsson, ‘Bringing Africa as a “Dowry to Europe”: European Integration and the Eurafrican Project, 1920-1960’, Interventions: International Journal of Postcolonial Studies, vol. 13, no. 3 (2011), pp. 443-463. The book, which is available on open access, is Peo Hansen and Stefan Jonsson, Eurafrica: The Untold Story of European Integration and Colonialism (London: Bloomsbury, 2014).

Also interesting from a political thought perspective is William Sellinger, ‘The politics of Arendtian historiography: European federation and The Origins of Totalitarianism’, Modern Intellectual History, vol. 13, no. 2 (August 2016), pp. 417-46.

Suggested supervision essay questions:

What, if anything, is there to be learned from postwar debates about ‘the idea of Europe’?

Is the creation of the European Economic Community best understood as the rescue or the abolition of the democratic European nation-state?

What is the significance of the fact that the European Union was founded in the period of decolonization?

Week Five: Hayek, neoliberalism, and interstate federalism

The key text is Hayek’s 1939 essay, ‘The economic conditions of interstate federalism’, reprinted in his collection Individualism and Economic Order (London: Routledge & K. Paul, 1949), pp. 255-72 https://mises.org/library/individualism-and-economic-order. It can usefully be read alongside The Road to Serfdom (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1944), which was written only a few years later. Hayek really didn’t like the Saint-Simonians: The Counter-

01/09/2021 19 Revolution of Science: studies on the abuse of reason (Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1952), esp. Part Two https://archive.org/details/counterrevolutio030197mbp. For a related study, see Elie Halévy, The Era of Tyrannies: essays on socialism and war (London: Allen Lane, Penguin, 1967). For the debate on a single currency, see Hayek, Denationalisation of Money: an analysis of the theory and practice of concurrent currencies (London: Institute of Economic Affairs, 1976), https://mises.org/library/denationalisation-money-argument-refined.

For a broader historical arguments about the origins of neoliberalism in interwar internationalist thought, see Quinn Slobodian, Globalists: The End of Empire and the Birth of Neoliberalism (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2018).

For commentary, see Perry Anderson, The Old New Europe (London: Verso, 2009), esp. pp. 30-2, 64-6, 91-4, 480-9, 540-1; Otmar Issing, ‘Hayek, Currency Competition and European Monetary Union’ (London: Institute of Economic Affairs, 2000) http://www.iea.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/files/upldbook19pdf.pdf; Giandomenico Majone, ‘Political and normative limits to piecemeal integration: rethinking the European project after the crisis of monetary union’, keynote address to RECON conference on ‘What is left of European democracy’, November 2011 [text to be circulated]; Richard Bellamy and Albert Weale, ‘Political legitimacy and European monetary union: contracts, constitutionalism and the normative logic of two-level games’, European Journal of Public Policy, vol. 22, no. 2 (2015), pp. 257-74; and H. S. Jones, ‘The era of tyrannies: Elie Halévy and Friedrich von Hayek on socialism’, European Journal of Political Theory, vol. 1, no. 1 (2002), pp. 53-69.

Suggested supervision essay questions:

Is the European Union best understood as a departure from, or as one more step along, Hayek’s ‘road to serfdom’?

Does today’s European Union owe more to the ideas of Hayek or of Saint-Simon?

To what extent does Slobodian’s argument about the origins of neoliberalism apply to the origins of the unification of Europe?

Week Six: MacCormick, legal theory, and sovereignty in Europe

For some key texts from the Scottish jurist (and Scottish Nationalist politician) Neil MacCormick, see: ‘Beyond the sovereign state’, The Modern Law Review, vol. 56, no. 1 (January 1993), pp. 1-18; ‘The Maastricht-Urteil: sovereignty now’, European Law Journal, vol. 1, no. 3 (November 1995), pp. 259-66; Questioning Sovereignty: law, state, and nation in the European commonwealth (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999); Who’s Afraid of a European Constitution? (Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2005); ‘The European Union and the idea of a perfect commonwealth’, the 2006 Hume Lecture (March 2006), Hume Occasional Paper, no. 68 (Edinburgh: The David Hume Institute, 2006) http://www.davidhumeinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/01/HOP-68.-The-European- Union-and-the-Idea-of-a-Pefect-Commonwealth-MacCormick.pdf; ‘Sovereignty and after’, in Hent Kalmo and Quentin Skinner, eds. Sovereignty in Fragments: the past, present and future of a contested concept (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), pp. 151-68. There is a complete bibliography of MacCormick’s works online, at http://www.law.qmul.ac.uk/maccormick/bibliography/index.html.

01/09/2021 20 For critical discussion of MacCormick’s arguments, see Hans Lindahl, ‘Sovereignty and the institutionalization of normative Order’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, vol. 21, no. 1 (Spring 2001), pp. 165-80; A. J. Menéndez and J. E. Fossum, eds. Law and Democracy in Neil MacCormick’s Legal and Political Theory: the post-sovereign constellation (Dordrecht: Springer, 2011). See also the essays in Neil Walker, ed. Sovereignty in Transition (Oxford: Hart, 2003) and Jean L. Cohen, Globalization and Sovereignty (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), ch. 2. For a traditional account of sovereignty restated in the context of Maastricht, see Noel Malcolm, ‘Sense on sovereignty’ (London: Centre for Policy Studies, 1991) [http://www.cps.org.uk/files/reports/original/111027161740- SenseofSovereignity1991.pdf].

For some consideration of relevant Scottish politics, see Atsuko Ichijo, Scottish Nationalism and the Idea of Europe (London: Routledge, 2004) and, more recently, James Stafford, ‘Independence after the crash’, Renewal: a journal of social democracy, vol. 22, no. 1-2 (2014), pp. 6-14.

Suggested supervision essay questions:

If the European Union is understood as a kind of empire, as what kind of empire is it best understood?

Can there be a European democracy in the absence of a European demos?

What, if anything, is there still to be said on behalf of a European super-state?

01/09/2021 21 Week Eight: Conclusion: contemporary crises of the European Union

We will consider Jürgen Habermas, The Crisis of the European Union (Cambridge: Polity, 2012), and his debate with Wolfgang Streeck. The key text is Streeck, Buying Time: the delayed crisis of democratic capitalism (London: Verso, 2014), but see also Streeck, ‘Small state nostalgia? the currency union, Germany, and Europe: a reply to Jürgen Habermas’, Constellations, vol. 21, no. 2 (2014), pp. 213-21, and Streeck, ‘Why the Euro divides Europe’, New Left Review, II:95 (September-October 2015), pp. 5-26. This webpage provides a helpful overview of the debate, and some useful bibliography: http://www.resetdoc.org/story/00000022360.

See also Mark Blyth, Austerity: the history of a dangerous idea (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015 paperback ed.), ch. 3; and if you’re interested in Blyth, do look also at the round- table on his book in Comparative European Politics, vol. 11, no. 6 (2013). There is also Jan Zielonka’s short book, Is the EU Doomed? (Cambridge: Polity, 2014).

Suggested supervision essay questions:

Who won the Habermas/Streeck debate?

How might the history of the argument about European union inform today’s conversations about Britain and the EU after Brexit?

APPENDIX: A SAMPLE EXAMINATION PAPER

1. Were the pre-1800 schemes for ‘perpetual peace’ (and the like) utopian? Discuss with reference to AT LEAST THREE such peace plans.

2. ‘Ideas about commerce and money have produced a sort of political fanaticism, they cause the apparent interests of all Princes to change so suddenly that one cannot establish any stable maxim based on their true interests, because now everything depends on economic systems, most of them extremely bizarre, which run through the heads of ministers.’ [ROUSSEAU] Discuss with reference to arguments about European unity.

3. Was the ideal of the ‘universal republic’ a reasonable extrapolation from French Revolutionary politics?

4. What, if anything, was the enduring significance of contributions to the debate on European union at the close of the Napoleonic period? Discuss with reference to AT LEAST TWO of Saint-Simon, Maistre, Schmidt-Phiseldek, and the Holy Alliance.

5. Were the arguments about European union in the 1830s and the 1840s new ones?

6. In what ways were arguments about European union,1848-1914, better understood as arguments about imperialism? Discuss with reference to AT LEAST TWO of the liberals, the republicans, the anarchists, the international lawyers, and the Marxists.

7. To what extent can the pre-twentieth century arguments about European union be extricated from their religious context?

01/09/2021 22 8. Did Pan-Europa matter?

9. How much do arguments about ‘Eurafrica’ actually illuminate?

10. Is there a contradiction between a commitment to neoliberalism on the one hand and to building a strong European Union on the other?

11. Have proponents of European unification got good answers to objections from those who build their case on the terrain of national democratic sovereignty?

12. Why has the problem of British membership in a European union been so fraught for so long?

APPENDIX B: THE 2016 AND 2017 POL18 TRIPOS PAPERS

2016

1. ‘All the powers of Europe form a sort of system among themselves which unites them by one single religion, the same international law, morals, literature, commerce, and a sort of equilibrium that is the necessary effect of all this, and which, without anyone in fact thinking about preserving it, would not be as simple to break up as many people think.’ [ROUSSEAU] Discuss.

2. Which of the eighteenth-century criticisms of the Abbé de Saint-Pierre’s peace plan were good ones, and which were not?

3. Did the period of the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars (1789-1815) transform the problem of European unification, and, if so, how?

4. Was the ‘United States of Europe’ in the nineteenth century ever really more than just a slogan?

5. What were the particular challenges facing EITHER anarchists OR socialists in developing their thinking about the unification of Europe?

6. What, if any, is the distinctive contribution that legal theorists have made to political arguments about European integration?

7. To what extent does the European Union represent the triumph of political Catholicism?

8. Why is it so hard to disentangle ideas of a European union over the last three hundred years from the ambition to dominate Muslims?

9. Is the European single market a Hayekian project?

10. Does thinking about today’s European Union in terms of ‘neo-mediævalism’ illuminate more than it misleads?

01/09/2021 23 11. Why have quite so many of the various ideas of a European union been manufactured in France?

12. Does adequate political thinking about the future of the European Union require an engagement with arguments from the past?

2017

1. ‘One cannot deny that it is above all to Christianity that Europe still owes today the sort of society that has endured among its members.’ [ROUSSEAU] Discuss.

2. Why did the Abbé de Saint-Pierre think that it would be possible to combine monarchies and republics in the same European confederation?

3. EITHER [a] Why were writers of the Revolutionary period so interested in the idea that Europe had until recently formed a single commonwealth or republic? Discuss with respect to AT LEAST TWO of Burke, Gentz, and Hauterive.

OR [b] Why did the question of ‘spiritual power’ feature so prominently in schemes for the reorganisation of Europe after the defeat of Napoleon?

4. ‘I recognise as my brothers all members of Young Europe and commit towards them all the duties of fraternity in whatever place and time they ask it of me.’ [The Oath of .Allegiance to Young Europe.] Why was the idea of brotherhood so central to the politics of nineteenth-century transnational republicanism?

5. To what extent can the ideas of Bluntschli and Lorimer about European unification be disentangled from their ideas about race?

6. What have been the most powerful left-wing arguments against the political and economic unification of Europe?

7. To what extent does the European Union reflect the ideals of movements ‘from below’? Discuss with respect to AT LEAST TWO of the International League for Peace and Freedom, Pan-Europa, and the Resistance.

8. Has the debate over the ‘idea of Europe’ generated any interesting conclusions?

9. Is the European Union best understood as an imperial or as a post-imperial formation?

10. Is the Hayekian case for a single European currency stronger or weaker than the Hayekian case against?

11. EITHER [a] Should we think of the European Union in terms of sovereignty, non- sovereignty, or post-sovereignty?

OR [b] ‘A kratos without a demos.’ [PIERRE MANENT] Discuss, in relation to the European Union.

12. To what extent have ideas of a European union been shaped by geopolitics? Answer with respect to AT LEAST TWO of the United States of America, Russia (including the Soviet Union), and Turkey (including the Ottoman Empire).

01/09/2021 24 APPENDIX C: THE 2016 AND 2017 EXAMINERS’ REPORTS

2016

Nine candidates sat the paper. There were four answers on each of Qs 9 (Hayek) and 10 (neo- mediævalism), three on 4 (the United States of Europe), 5 (anarchists and socialists), and 7 (political Catholicism), two on 3 (1789-1815), 6 (legal theorists), 11 (France), and 12 (the future), and one on 1 (Rousseau) and 2 (Saint-Pierre), with no attempt at Q8 (Muslims). The general quality of the answers was good, and a handful of the essays were really very good indeed, offering sophisticated discussion of primary texts, secondary literature, and relevant political contexts. Of the nine scripts, two ended up with a first-class mark, with six upper seconds and one lower second.

The paper was a challenging one, insofar as the questions did not always neatly map onto individual topics from the syllabus, but rather often encouraged candidates to think across the breadth of the course, and put material together that had been encountered in its different parts. Given the fairly small number of answers to each of the questions, and the pleasing range of approaches that was taken when answering them, it is difficult to make generalisations about how candidates fared on the paper. Nevertheless, a few observations follow. Discussion of the ‘United States of Europe’ (Q4) had curiously little reference to the USA as an obvious political model and inspiration (and essays on this topic spent a bit too much time on Mazzini). Essays on political Catholicism (Q7) sometimes slipped too quickly into a bland and not entirely to-the-point rehearsal of standard positions in the secondary literature (e.g. Lipgens vs. Milward). Answers on Hayek (Q9) were sometimes a bit quick to run together the single market and the Eurozone. It is always worthwhile paying close attention to the wording of the questions—e.g., to the reference to ‘particular challenges’ in Q5. Finally, a number of essays would have been stronger if the candidates had had a bit more of a grip on historical narratives, than they were able to demonstrate—especially with respect to the history of France (Q3, Q11).

2017

Six candidates sat the paper. Although the exam paper itself gave equal attention to the syllabus material presented across Michaelmas and Lent Terms, it was striking that around two thirds of the questions attempted dealt with the earlier part of the course. The more popular questions concerned the Abbé de Saint-Pierre, the Revolutionary period, nineteenth-century republicanism, and Friedrich Hayek, each attracting three or four answers.

The scripts were all of upper second-class quality. Although markers are habitually exhorted to ‘use the full range of marks’ it just was not possible on this occasion, where all of the scripts were solid, but where no candidate was working at a consistently superior level. Individual essays sometimes attracted First- or Lower Second-class marks, but the overall marks for the scripts converged in the middle 60s. One marker marked the scripts overall in the range 63-69, the other in the range 63-67— and their disagreements never exceeded two marks.

If there was a general problem across the scripts, it was that they didn’t press as hard as they might have done on the questions, to tease out what was most interesting or challenging about the issues that they raised. A little too often, description was offered in place of explanation, or gentle survey in place of a focussed argument. Good knowledge of relevant texts was shown, but sometimes the texts could have been worked a bit harder than they were. Thinking about particular questions: the Abbé de Saint-Pierre was both tedious and repetitive, and it was refreshing to see candidates write about his arguments in ways that were neither; answers on republican brotherhood would have done well to consider the fraternity of revolutionary conspirators in addition to the ‘brotherhood of man’; there was some fine knowledge of Hayek’s various contexts on display.

01/09/2021 25