tìuw»' :fa

'îÇfcÎâilJâSXfVf i«l.t ? I Ü> \*Ü f'¿ í» ii‘ ^ ^,Uk|M i I ^ ' * £T?T£ijïföL5 ïi * t *1 :■» j J t Í * ^ ii^y^TTT^fV^ 'M& miîliâiâM Èà»ÎïmmmmÊàÈÎÈmâiààmtiiÎ^*iÊilUl^^^mM mtmmâiÊ*ÊiÈUM ÊÊ^Ê*làÈ^»limaÊÎÈiàÉIIÊmàÊ*mÊmÎtl^amiÙÊ^im^Êm^im± âwfâfâi

*mmm A UNIVERSITY FOR EUROPE

PREHISTORY OF THE EUROPEAN

UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE IN FLORENCE (1948-1976)

ed. Jean-Marie P a l a y r f t with the assistance o f Richard Sc iir e u r s

translated by Iain L. Fras er

PRESIDENCY OF THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION AND PUBLISHING This book is dedicated to the sixteen hundred researchers of the European University Institute who have, from 1976 to date, wished to devote some crucial years for their training and their academic progress to a profound European experience.

LIB 378.4 PAL CONTENTS

Acknowledgements...... p ai, 9 Preface...... » | j

Introduction...... » 13 Archival sources-List of abbreviations used ...... » 15

P a r t I

'T n i: s o w e r s o f id e a s ” : t h e r c x it s o f a Eu r o p e a n w o h e r EDUCATION EFFORT, 1948-55 ...... pai, ¡7 I - Initiatives of the pro-European movements...... » 19

A) From the Congress o f Europe (The Hague, A fay ¡948) to the European Cultural Conference (Lausanne, December 1 9 4 9 )...... ! ...... » 19 H) The first achievements in the direction o f a European Cultural C om m unity...... » 25 1) The European Cultural C e n tre ...... » 26 2) The College in B ru g es...... » 30

II - A minor European role for universities...... » 35

P a r t II

Till- COMMUNITIES TAKE UP THE QUESTION OF THE EUROPEAN u n iv e r s it y , 1955-60 ...... Pag. 41

I - The European University in the Rome Treaty negotiations » 43

II - Implementing the treaties: the project developed under Euratom auspices (1955-60)...... » 48

A) First official mention o f the European University in Article 9(2) of the Euratom Treaty...... » 48

3 B) The question o f legal interpretation...... Pag. 50 C) Preparatory work and the Euratom Commission proposal » 5 4 D) The rejection o f the European University by the Community Councils (January - October 1959)...... » 61 E) The European Parliament s action ...... » 67

111 - The work of the Interim Committee: a charter for the European University...... » 69

A) The interim Committe ’s rem it...... » 69 B) The Interim Committee Report (October 1959 - April 1 9 6 0 )...... » 73 1) The European University in the strict sense ...... » 75 2) The “European Institutes” of higher education and research ...... » 80 3) The expansion of university exchanges...... » 85 4) The University’s institutional infrastructure...... » 87 C) Adjournment of the Interim Committee Project at the EEC and EAEC Councils (June - July I 9 6 0 ) ...... » 93

P a r t III

T h e EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY PROJECT IN THE CONTEXT OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION

I - The University in Florence...... Pag. 101 A) The background to the headquarters question: Luxembourg or Florence...... » 101 B) The Italian diplomatic offensive and the choice o f Florence » 105

II - The “ Florence project” in the context of the Fouchet plan » 109

A) The origins o f the Fouchet P la n ...... » 109 B) Cultural Cooperation and the Study Committee .... » 111 C) The Bonn Declaration o f 18 July 1961: The “Italianhation” o f the Florence Institute...... » 117 D) The reaction o f the supranational bodies...... » 122

4 1) The Commission’s determined, though qualified, involvem ent...... Pag. 122 2) The consistency of the European Parliament’s inter- ventions in favour of the Florence pro je c t...... » 123 a) The EP's attachment to the Community legal frame- work for a European University...... » 123 b) The appropriate extent o f the European University's academic m ission...... » 125

III - The action carried on by Italy (1961-5)...... » 126

A) Italy's action domestically...... » 126 1) The organizing committee for the European University » 127 2) The Italian draft law setting up a Iiuropcan University in Florence...... » 142 li) Italy's action internationally...... » 143 1) The position of the States parties at the outset of negotiations...... » 145 2) The activity of the Pcscatorc working group .... » 146 3) The activity of the Sattlcr group ...... » 148 C') The disappointing epilogue to the Bonn declaration . . » 150

P a r t IV

Tin: ij ir t h o f t h e Eu r o p e a n u n iv e r s it y in s t it u t e 1969-76

1 - History of the convention...... Pag. 155

A) The "relaunching o f the European University " ...... » 155 1) Conditions for the relaunch...... » 156 2) The Hague summit: a false s t a r t ...... » 158 B) Agreement takes shape...... » 160 1) Franco-Italian concertation...... » 160 2) The Florence and Rome intergovernmental conferences (1970-1)...... » 161

5 3) The meeting of national Education Ministers and the signature of the C o nvention...... Pag. 163

II - Content of the Convention...... » 166

A) Modest ambitions...... » 166 1) The Institute’s tasks ...... » 166 a) Its objectives...... >* 166 b) Specialization...... » 167 c) The researchers...... » 168 b) “Diplomas” ...... » 168 2) The place of the Institute among European institutions » 169 B) Complex structures...... » 169 1) Numerous bodies, specific p o w e rs...... » 170 a) The collective b o d ies...... » 170 b) The individual authorities...... » 171 2) Relative au to n o m y ...... » 171 3) Further development hard to predict...... » 172 C) Compromises...... » 173 1) The language q u estio n ...... » 173 2) Financial q uestions...... » 174

III - S t a r t -u p p r o b l e m s a n d p r o s p e c t s f o r gr o w t h . . . Pag. 175

A) The Institute's profile: programmes, teachers, researchers » 175 B) Nomination of the Principal and Secretary...... » 180 C) The buildings question: Villa Tolomei or Badia Fiesolana? » 185

Conclusion...... » 189 Mens humilis ei term aliena. motto of students in medieval Europe

"The establishment of Academics and Literary Societies, spread prodigiously in Italy and then throughout the Europe and was the source of emulation and taste ' die Sixteenth Century onward, began in Florence in >sl all genres. The Academics of France, of Germany, of l,Hl, took their model from Florence. Ei a word, the Sciences, Arts, Trades, even Roman Law, ' ve almost all of them to Florence, the mother of disco- and of establishments useful to humanity”. (Diderot, Encyclopedia)

}

1

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Without the encouragements and good will we have enjoyed it would have been hard for us to follow such a long history with so many ups and downs. Our thanks go first to Professor Patrick Masterson, Principal of the European University Institute, who was the first to guide us to this return to the sources of the European University. He has followed the progress of our work with active benevolence, and has kindly enhanced the interest of this work through his preface. The Institute's Secretary, Antonio Zanardi Landi, spurred on and facilitated our research, smoothing out all the difficulties that risked obstructing a happy conclusion to our work. Without his attentive, confident support at every moment, this book might never have seen the light. We express our heartfelt gratitude to him here. In our voyage through the German, Belgian, French, Italian and Dutch archives, we enjoyed valuable assistance. We wish to thank all the keepers of archives who helped us, sometimes in difficult conditions, to get access to sources, as well as the staff who kindly supplied us with files, for their politeness and speed. We have a very particular debt to the directors and authorities of the national archives and Foreign Ministries of the countries visited: Giovanni Cassis (Italy), François Renouard, Alain Erlandc-Brandenburg (France), François-Marie Pcemans (Belgium), Jean Mischo, Cordcl Meder (Luxembourg), M. W. H. J. Simmers, A. L. M. Van Zeeland, Ms F. Van Anrooij and Dr Koops (Netherlands) and Ms H. Pütz (Germany) allowed us the broadest access to the holdings entrusted to their administration. Assistance at the Community Archives was no less unstinting. The friendship and support of those in charge of them, Hans Hoffmann, Jacques Schoullcr and Willem Stols, were precious. We wish to thank them here. We would also thank for their hospitality and competence the keepers who guided us through the archival holdings in the six countries: Monique Constant, Pierre Fournie and Grégoire Eldin at the French Foreign Ministry Archives, Dominque Devaux, Thibaud Girard and Madeleine Debrand of the National Archives, Odile Gaullhier-Voituriez of the National Foundation for Political

9 Science; Mr Pellegrini, Ms Ruggeri and Ms Turini at the Archivio Storico del Ministcro degli Affari Esteri, Fioretta Mazzei and A nti- nesca Tilli of the Giorgio La Pira Foundation, Jocelyne Collonval and John Sueters at the European Commission’s Archives, M s Sabatini at the European Parliament Archives, Mr Estcvcns an d Mr Gonçalvcs at the European Council Archives, Kristine Clara o f the Bruges College and Henri Rieben of the Jean Monnet Founda- tion for Europe (Lausanne). In the tiresome writing stage we have enjoyed the unfailing support of the dynamic European Community Historical Archives team in Florence: Madeleine Lemaire, Sylvie Pascucci, Ruth Meycr- Bclardini and Evy Chiostri gave of themselves most generously for the sake of a successful outcome to a joint undertaking. This book owes them much. But it would certainly never have seen the light without the careful, tirelessly patient work of Agnès Brouet, responsible for the task of typing and proof-reading. We cannot thank her too much. The Institute’s translation coordinator, Mr Di Tomasso, and the translators Iain Fraser, Dieter Mosclt, Catcrina Paolucci and Andrea Bcchcrucci have, despite very short deadlines, done an outstanding job, keeping both the letter and the spirit of the original in the English, German and Italian versions. Mariella Partilora proofread the Italian. Paola Massini and Barbara Bonke worked tirelessly at the typing and correction of the Italian and German versions. We are delighted to be able to pay friendly thanks to all of them here. Special thanks go to Sasha Baillie, EUI researcher, who most kindly agreed to do the typing of the English version. We are beholden to Brigitte Schwab, EUI Publications Officer, for her valuable technical assistance. We wish finally to express our deep gratitude to those involved who were kind enough to entrust us with their memories and let us consult their archives: His Excellency Bruno Bottai, Italian ambassa- dor to the Holy See, Mr Félix-Paul Mercercau, former chef de cabinet to Etienne Hirsch, Mr Jean-Claude Eeckhout, EC Commission direc- tor responsible for relations with the European Parliament, and Mr Max Kohnstamm, first Principal of the European University Institute. In closing the principal author wishes to dedicate this book to his wife France, for all those stolen moments. The Authors

10 i

PREFACE

On the 20th Anniversary of the European University Institute, it is very appropriate to recall and record the work and efforts of all those people whose generous and enlightened vision paved the way for the creation of this unique European centre of multicul- tural and scientific research. We trust that the work of the Institute fulfils their hopes. Their endeavours remain a source of inspiration for us all. From 1976 to the present, under the guidance of the three Principals who preceded me. Max Kohnstamm, Werner Maihofcr and Emile Noel, and of our late lamented Secretary, Marcello Buzzonctti, the Institute has not ceased contributing by its activ- ities to the development and dissemination of the cultural and scientific heritage of Europe, in its unity and diversity. The cooperation of European Union Member States in the areas of postgraduate education and research has continued and become significantly enriched. Today the European University Institute, with 450 researchers, 45 professors, 30 Jean Monnct Fellows and dome seventy doctoral theses defended during 1995, has established itself as the institution conferring the largest number of PhDs in Europe in the disciplines pursued in its four departments. I wish here to express my warmest thanks to the Italian Prime Minister's Office, w'hich has decided to include publication of this work in the activities of the Italian Presidency of the European Union. These thanks go in particular to Dr Stcfano Parisi, head of the Publications Department at the Office. He has rightly understood how the history of the negotiations to create the European University Institute in Florence higlights the irre- placeable part played over the years by the Italian Government, which has been the major artificer of the project for a European University. Thanks go also to the Secretary of the European University Institute, Antonio Zanardi Landi, whose determination and wise suggestions have brought the undertaking to success. I wash finally

II to express sincere appreciation to the author, Dr Jean-Marie Palayret, Director of the European Community Historical A r- chives, who has accomplished the feat of completing this work in record time.

Pa t r ic k Ma s t f r s o n Principal o f the European University Institute INTRODUCTION

The European university docs not have to be invented, since it has existed, all the more truly since it was a spontaneous creation, since the Europe of the Middle Ages. Speaking the same learned tongue (Latin) and practising the same scholastics, teachers and students crisscrossed the Respahliea Christiana from Montpellier to Bologna, from Oxford to Heidelberg, in complete freedom even before the idea of Europe had come into being. From their creation in the late 12th century, universities were the product of the division of Europe, and the agent of its unity. The status of stadium generale with a licence to teach valid in the whole of Catholic Europe differentiated universities from the stadia particalaria of cathedrals, monasteries and towns. By granting uni- versities the privileges that protected them against local authorities, the central authorities of the Middle Ages sought to use them to defend the unity of Europe threatened by spiritual and political divisions. The universities represented Europe’s intellectual unity, even once the Reformation broke Roman Church unity in the 16th century. The degrees conferred by universities, of bachelor, master or doctor, were then recognized throughout Christian Europe1. In the early modern period the universities became a factor for the consolidation of monarchical sovereignties, and in the 19th century turned into hotbeds of nationalism. They were then consti- tuted as national institutions, whose teachers were State officials, with study programmes, degrees and the practice of academic pro- fessions controlled by governments. The idea of a European university reappeared only in the 20th century, as an cpiphcnomcnon of efforts to organize international society. The theoretical outlines floated by pro-European circles in the ambit of the Hague Congress (May 1948) took shape in a set of official projects around 1950. At that time, the establishment of an economic common market had taken the lead in the construc- tion of Europe, following the failure of the first tries at political

1 Walter Rüeeg, "Division et unité de l'Furopc: le rôle des universités" in Relations internationales, n*’ 73. printemps 1993, p, 27-42.

13 union and of the proposal for a European Defence Community. Attached for a while to the endeavour by the Community of Six to “relaunch Europe”, the development of the idea of a European university was initially hampered by the successive crises and slumps that affected economic Europe, and by the failure of the projects for political cooperation (the Fouchet Plan). Moreover, it met with reservations or indifference in university circles, themselves divided by anarchical attempts at intergovernmental cooperation. Very soon, the question was raised whether it was appropriate to set up a geographically and administratively concentrated university which would possess symbolic value, or else to promote coopera- tion among existing universities, which would not necessarily need direct involvement of governments. Relaunched in 1969 once the student revolt had brought a major university reform movement in most countries of Europe, the project came through in April 1972 with a compromise in the form of a Convention setting up a European University Institute, with its scat in Florence. ARCHIVAI, SOURCKS List of abbreviations used

ECHA European Community Historical Archives, Florence ARC-COM Archives of the European Commission, Brussels ARC-CONS Archives of the Council of the European Communities, Brussels ARC-EP Archives of the European Parliament, Luxembourg MAEE Krcnch Ministry of Eoreign Affairs, Paris MAEB Belgian Ministry of Eorcign Affairs, Brussels MALI Italian Ministry of foreign Affairs, Rome MA EN Dutch Ministry of f oreign Affairs - Ministerie van Buite- nlandse Zaken - The Hague AN f rench National Archives, Fontainebleau AA Auswärtiges Amt, Bonn PA/AA Archives of German Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Politisches Archiv des Auswärtigen Amtes) - Bonn BA-HN f ederal Archives - Hallstcin Papers (Bundesarchiv - Hal- Istein-Nachlaß) - Koblenz ARA Dutch National Archives (Algemeen Rijksarchicf) - The I lague OKW-HO Dutch Ministry of Education, Arts and Sciences - Higher Education Department (Onderwijs Kunsten en Weten- schappen - Hoger Onderwijs) - Zoetermcer

15

PART ONE “THE SOWERS OF IDEAS” * THE ROOTS OF A EUROPEAN HIGHER EDUCATION EFFORT, (1948-55)

An expression of Robert Schuman s. denoting the pro-European movements Mutatiaan The European University Institute in Florence is the starling point for an original experiment. Yet it was the end-point of a current of thought that was already in the 50s hoping to organize a university Community alongside the Economic Community.

I - In iti ati ves o f t he pr o -eu k o pea n mov em en ts

From Montrcux (1947) to Lausanne (1949), a scries of con- gresses that brought together politicians and intellectuals from the most diverse backgrounds prepared for the union of Europe by rejecting nationalisms2. This action by European movements inten- sified still further once the division between the two victor blocs became obvious and inescapable: in August 1948 the Wroclaw conference marked the break between intellectuals and artists of East and West.

A) From the Congress of Europe (The Hague, May 1948) to the European Cultural Conference (Lausanne, December 1949) i Considering the evolution of the idea of creating a Euro- pean University, it may be said to date back to the best known of these congresses, which met at The Hague from 7 to 11 May 1948, chaired by Winston Churchill, who had on 19 September 1946 in Zurich launched the notion of a “United States of Europe", though without making it clear whether his country would join. Called under the auspices of the International Committee of Movements for European Unity,' which brought together the majority of European movements from a variety of political tendencies, such as the European Union of Federalists, the In- ternational Study and Action Committee for the United States of Europe (socialist), the United Europe Movement (conserva- tive) and the Nouvelles cquipes internationalcs (Christian-

2 Jean-Marc Purro, ¡.'Europe des congrès: principes et problèmes f ¡944-1949), Fri- bourg, Hd. Universitaires, 1977.

19 Democrat), the Hague Congress welcomed some eight hundred people from political, social and business circles. It highlighted the lively interest the European question was arousing in broad public opinion, in every country of Western Europe. Though marked by worsening strains between “unionists” and “federalists”, it can be considered as the founding act of the Euro- pean construction1 *3. Its lively discussions brought out a number of key ideas. The Europeans meeting in The Hague called for the free movement of people, goods and ideas. Thus, the Political Committee, chaired by Paul Ramadicr, drafted the Human Rights Convention and guaranteed its applica- tion by setting up a judicial system. Its discussions also led to the creation of the Council of Europe, exactly one year later. The Economic and Social Committee, chaired by Paul Van Zeeland, proposed a European Economic Union favouring free trade by breaking down customs barriers. A third committee dealt with cultural affairs4. Chaired by Don Salvador de Madariaga, it promoted, on the basis of a report drawn up by Swiss philosopher and writer Denis de Rougcmont, the project for a European Cultural Centre as a propaganda ve- hicle for the European idea, catalyst of cultural exchange and coordinator for initiatives in the education area5. The Committee at first approached only incidentally the question of creating a European University. It contented itself in its resolution with supporting “ efforts tending towards a Federa- tion of European Universities and towards a guarantee of their

1 Guy De Puymcguc, “ Le rôle du Centre européen de la culture”, in Relations internationales, no. 73, printemps 1993, p. 13-26. 4 On the activities of the three committees at the Congress of Huropc sec Walter Lipgcns and Charles Visinc, ABC de l’Europe, tome I, LPDJ, Paris, 1967, p. 151. On Denis de Rougcmont see Mary-Jo Deering. Denis de Rougemont, l'européen: combats acharnés, Denis de Rougemont et tes fondements de l'unité européenne, Fondation Jean Monnet pour l'Europe, 1992. 5 The resolution proposed on 9 May and voted unanimously by the Congress states: “Established independently o f all governmental supervision, this body would have as its general task to give expression to the conscience o f Europe", in ECHA/MK/540. Resolution on Cultural Questions, The Hague, 9 May 1948; English in Congress of Europe - May 1948 - Verbatim Report - IV - Cultural Committee - The Hague, 1949. (Council of Europe).

20 freedom from State or Political pressure" l\ The project remained at the idea stage. A university project was presented more specifi- cally in January 1949 in London by Jcan-Paul de Dadclsen at the meeting of the cultural section of the European Movement, a standing body created by the Congress with the initial remit of specifying the structure and functions of the European Cultural Centre. The note drafted by de Dadclsen, secretary-general of the section, indicated that there was no question of claiming to organ- ize the teaching of such non-existent disciplines as a “European physics”, but of contemplating ways of organizing initially periodic meetings by a limited number of professors and students '"to teach universal disciplines in a European c o n te x t These lecture series and summer schools would, should they succeed, allow the gradual, natural formation of the embryo of a European University. To this end, the note contemplated creating the first nucleus of a university campus, while leaving open the possibility of later creating special- ized European Universities in several cities. At the same meeting, agreement in principle was reached on the setting up of a centre or university institute for specifically European education. The draft report for presentation to the Executive Committee of the European Movement in 1949 men- tioned as one of the points for discussion: "the College of Europe as nucleus of a future European University" 1. The European Cultural Conference organized in Lausanne from 8 to 12 December 1949, u'ith participation by Denis de Rougemont, Raoul Dautry, Etienne Gilson, David Rousset and Jean Sarrailh, recommended creating chairs in European educa- tion in universities, and the possibility for students to choose their study or examination programme partly within national pro- grammes and partly on the corresponding European questions, as 67

6 ECU A, Congress of Europe, The Hogue, May ¡948, Resolutions. International Coordinating Committee of Movements for European Unity, Paris and London. English in he. cit. (fn. 4). 7 ECU A, ME/Ml, Cultural Set lion, “Xotc on a project for a European University presented at the meeting in London on 4 and 5 January", (SC. 7) and "Historique d'une université européenne et projets présentés jusqu'ici" in Dusun Sidjanski. Bulletin du Centre européen de ta culture, 5 rn,e année, no. juillet ¡958,

21 uropean Cultural Conference, Lausanne, December 1949, ianding from left to right: unknown individual, Jean-Paul de Dadelsen. tting; Joseph Retingcr, Denis de Rougemont, Paul-Henri Spaak, 5 European Cultural Centre, Geneva, given by the Jean Monnet Foundation for urope, Lausanne). well as to attend a variety of European universities for a semester or two. Also suggested was formation of an academic corps ca- pable of moving from one university to another for regular lec- ture scries, and the establishment of a "European University Council"s. It will be noted that most of these proposals sought to promote European education in existing universities. The members of the Hague Cultural Committee and of the Cultural Section of the European Movement were in fact divided on this point. The most influential figures, Madariaga and Rougemont, felt it inappropriate to create a European University out of nothing, or to confer the status of European University on one of the existing universities. The idea of a European University in the form of a new creation with its own staff and new equipment seemed "dangerously chime- rical, both from the psychological viewpoint and considering the eco- nomic state of Europe” to the French Cultural Commission for a United Europe8 9, which preferred the formula of an itinerant European University with a full staff, moving about, possibly only in sections (faculties or institutes) or by semester, among various universities of Europe. Why these hesitations? The fact was that creating a university was regarded by the pro-Europeans as a very slow solution. It was also a costly one. The programme for a complete four-faculty university would, moreover, cover a number of subjects that would not gain anything from being taught from a European perspective. Finally, it would probably be an ineffective solution for the goal being aimed at. A university would be too big to enable the students to live together, to form a “ family" with its own spirit and style, and allow a personal relationship between teachers and pupils. The point was not to replace the old nationalisms by a more simplistic European chauvinism. This middle-of-the-road position resulted from discordant voices being raised among some of the currents that co-existed

8 ECHA. ME/540, European Cultural Conference, Resolutions and Final Declaration (Resolution XX, Higher Education), p. 13, 8-12 December 1949. 9 ECHA, ME/540, Jean Bayet, "Rapport à la conférence culturelle de l'Europe unie sur l'éducation” (enseignement supérieur), p. 5.

23 V-

within the broad front that the European Movement was. Within it, the minority federalist tendency of the European Union of Federalists (UEF) favoured a single European University. In April 1949, the Congress of the Inter-university Federalist Union in Strasbourg called for creation of a genuine European University with a largely sociological programme and a devel- oped system of seminars to accustom students to personal re- search ,0. This tendency was also represented strongly on the Council of Europe. At the first meeting of the Consultative As- sembly on 6 September 1949, André Philip, chairman of the Socialist Movement for the United States of Europe, remarked: “ We all feel — those of us who are members o f universities — that... we might... benefit by contacts which would be not merely transitory but which would involve working together... in a common University, recognized as a European U n iv e r s ity It would confer diplomas recognized throughout Europe. Prcscient- ly, he continued: “ The danger which threatens us is that uc may witness the setting up of an excessive number o f organizations of this kind on private initiative, none o f which will be able to meet the need because there will be too great a dispersal o f effort" M. At the second session, “ the Assembly recommends that the Committee of Ministers instruct the governmental experts to consider the prac- tical conditions in which a European University can be formed if the principle thereof is accepted, and to indicate the rules to which existing universities would have to subscribe in order to receive the title and the rank o f European Universities from the Council o f Europe" 10 1112. In 1950 the French delegation to the Council of Europe pre- sented a project for a European University which would have the aim of furnishing young graduates of the universities of Europe with additional training aimed at orienting their education toward

10 EC HA, UEF/UF1, Rapports, motions, statuts adoptés par le Congrès constituant de Strasbourg, cd. de FUnion fédéraliste inter-universitaire, 1949, p. 17. 11 Report of First Session of Consultative Assembly of Council of Europe. Sixteenth Sitting, 6 September 1949. 12 Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe, Second Session, Recommenda- tion no. 41 on the European University, 24 August 1950.

24 I M

the idea of European solidarity and a knowledge of the European services and organizations. However, no follow-up was made to the recommendations for creation of a European University. It was recognized that universities attached great value to their indepen- dence and dreaded any meddling in their affairs by an outside body,3. The European Movement then chose to move to cultural ac- tion, without awaiting the formation of an official supranational authority. Cultural action would in fact have possibilities that political action could not yet have, “since the governments cannot oppose the creation o f private13 14 15 institutions o f tomorrow's Europe, and that is just what cultural institutions are” ,5. The point was to create institutions capable of taking root and then acquiring an independent existence. The results were the European Cultural Centre in Geneva and the College of Europe in Bruges; the Euro- pean Movement had to confine itself to retaining some control over their general policy, while endeavouring to have them recog- nized and subsidized by the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe16.

B) The first achievements in the direction of a European Cultural Community

The activity of the Cultural Section of the European Move- ment thus deliberately aimed at the creation of new institutions17. By 1949-50 two of these private institutions were ready for oper- ation. These were the “European Cultural Centre” in Geneva and the “ College of Europe” in Bruges.

13 Balance sheet of the work of the Council of Europe (1949-1954), Council of Europe, Strasbourg, p. 54; May 1950. 14 Emphasis in the text. 15 ECHA, ME/541, Cultural Section, “ Note on the future of the cultural activities of the European Movement” (undated). 16 Subsidy from the Assembly would “make these two European Institutions into institutions officially recognized by an authority which, albeit consultative, is nonetheless European; it would free the Centre from exclusive dependence on Swiss funds, and the College from exclusive dependence on Belgian funds”, ECHA, ME/541, ibid. 17 ECHA, ME/541, “Note on the future of the cultural activities of the European Movement”, Cultural Section, op. cit.

25 1) The European Cultural Centre

The Lausanne Conference ratified the Hague Resolution on the creation of a European Cultural Centre, whose inauguration came on 7 October 1950. Conceived at the outset as the embryo of a future European Council for Research and Education, the Centre was deeply marked by the thought of Denis de Rougcmont18. It was indeed he much more than Madariaga (who conceived of the Centre as an institution inspired by certain national academies) who after having won acceptance for the idea “ imprinted on it its character as a veritable hotbed o f initiatives and creativity, as a very flexible but efficient little entity acting outside the privileged spheres of governments, mandated to 'look further' and co-ordinate ef- forts” 19. Denis de Rougemont’s commitment to a federated Europe was in fact the end-point of his personalist philosophy. Regarding the person, simultaneously free and responsible, autonomous and bound to society, as the supreme value of European culture, Rougcmont tirelessly sought to underline the cultural unity of the whole continent, and denounce the nation State as the main ob- stacle to the union of Europeans. For culture was not confined to its literary or artistic expressions, but had to be extended to the sense of a system of values common to a human group and guiding their behaviour. Though diverse in sources and expressions, European culture, so understood, was also single in terms of its determining values, shared by all Europeans. Similarly, the products of this common culture, from Romanesque to Gothic art, to opera, parliaments and socialism, were common to all Europeans; they did not come

18 Denis de Rougemont (1906-85) Swiss writer and philosopher. Rougcmont stood out right from the very first congresses as one of the pioneers of European cultural federalism. Given an ovation in Montreux in 1947, he was asked to be rapporteur to the Cultural Committee at The Hague and organizer of the Lausanne Conference, and then pul in charge of the European Cultural Centre. Cf. Gerard Bossuat, Les Fondateurs de ¡ Europe, Paris, Belin, 1994, p. 114; Mary-Jo Deering, Denis de Rougemont ¡'européen, op. cit., p. 116-119. 19 Guy de Puymégue, “ Le rôle du Centre européen de la culture" in Relations internationales, no. 73, printemps 1993, p. 17.

26 From left to right: Joseph Rclingcr, Salvador dc Madariaga, Raymond Silva, Bonhabes dc Rouge, Paul van Zeeland, Robert Schuman, Denis de Rougemont, Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, at the establishment of the European Cul- tural Centre, Geneva, 1950. {© European Cultural Centre, Geneva, given by the Jean Monnet Foundation for Europe, Lausanne).

27 * i

from this or that nation but from local centres, to spread thence throughout the continent. As Mary-Jo Deering has rightly noted, this somewhat “ethnographic” concept made culture a motor of societies. Rougemont felt that “ institutions must be created to guarantee and make manifest the unity o f our cultures in their diversity... And young people must be trained to become bearers of the federal idea without which our technical and material reforms will remain a dead l e t t e r 20. Starting from the principle that the obstacles to the union of Europe lay not in facts but in minds shaped by the nationalist discourse of the schools, the European Cultural Centre was, from the first years of its existence in Geneva, to develop activities in a host of areas. To simplify we shall mention only three of them:

1) The formation of “cultural networks” as the original feature of the “ Rougemont method” for uniting Europe. As from the 50s, the ECC invited those in charge of specific activities to meet in Geneva for exchanges of views on the respect- ive problems of their various countries. It then showed them the benefit there would be for them in setting up transnational links, flexible and interactive, but permanent. The transnational associ- ations thus set up were equipped with statutes of their own and as light as possible an administrative infrastructure (they were — at least to start with — housed at the Centre, which shared equip- ment and services with them). The list of participants in these first meetings and the institu- tions that emerged from them is impressive: physicists (to study notably the creation of a European nuclear research “pool”, from which CERN was to emerge); historians (to write history text- books in a European spirit); directors of European institutes; di- rectors of news agencies and national radio stations; film makers. The Centre also made a major contribution in terms of funding for

20 ECHA, ME/538, European Cultural Conference, Lausanne, “ Presentation of gen- eral report by D. de Rougemont” (speech delivered on 8 December 1949 to the first plenary session).

28 ______—L

European cultural activities, by creating, in 1954, the European Cultural Foundation, whose seat is now in Amsterdam. These first European cultural networks helped toward the formation of a genuine "European fabric"21.

2) A European civics training. To the hypothetical, dangerous search for a "European cultu- ral identity", Rougemont preferred “education to a common awareness of Europe”. The "European Civic Education Cam- paign" was for long (1961-78) to be the Centre’s main activity. Its programme, with which representatives of the Council of Europe, the European Communities, the European Schools Day, the Euro- pean Teachers’ Association and various national education minis- tries were associated, involved four chief elements: a survey of the situation of civics education in the countries of Western Europe, training courses for primary and secondary teachers, regular publi- cations and a European educational documentation centre.

3) The cultural dialogue. Rougemont did not intend to replace Stale nationalisms by a sort of European nationalism: “the point is not", he stated in the introductory report to the Lausanne Conference, “for us to set up a European nation opposed to the great nations of the East and West; nor to seek a “synthetic ” European culture, valid for us alone and closed in on itself: that would mean betraying the genius of Europe, cutting us off from its Christian and humanist roots"22. The ECC thus sought as from the late 50s to promote an exchange of ideas turning around action among representatives of great cultural regions. The goal aimed at was to set up an on-going dialogue among the great cultures of the planet. The themes of this dialogue, as defined at the two meetings held in Geneva in 1961

:| Cïuy de Puymêguc, ttrt. eit., p. 20 and “ Deux initiatives du CF.C. Documents sur les origines du Cf-R N et de la Fondation européenne de ta culture”, in Bullcnn du Centre européen de Ut eutfure, no. 4, hiver 1955. “ FCHA. MK/55X. Furopean Cultural Conférence. Lausanne, “Présentation of gen~ erat report", op. eit., p. 8. 9 Deecmber 1949.

29 and Basel in 1964, related to the problems of society on a global scale: the impact of European-born technology on all cultures, educational problems, threats to the environment23. The ECC thus offered, despite the slender resources available to it, a definite contribution that usefully complemented the much cruder action of governments and intergovernmental institutions.

2) The College in Bruges

The College of Europe was designed as both a cadre school and a school for higher European studies: its role was to train an elite of young Europeans who would for the first time have not just specialized knowledge but a European “general culture”. The College in Bruges was meant in the ideas of its promoters more specifically to guide these young people towards careers as Euro- pean or even national administrators. But the College was regarded as no more than a “primus inter pares”. Subsequently, other col- leges might develop the same general culture among young people aiming toward other areas of European life24. As stated in the first report presented in Lausanne by the secretariat of the Cultural Section of the European Movement: “ The project of a College of Europe comes out of a more limited idea than that o f a European University, hut is more specific and more immediately feasible"25. The cultural section, as the report says, preferred first of all to “move fa st” and second to “keep low”, in order to make the institution to be set up coherent and let it “grow like a living organism". Also, it wished to opt for a sol- ution which would not preempt future possibilities for a European University.

23 Guy dc Puymcguc, art. cit., p. 22; Compte-rendu des débats du Colloque de Genève, 15*17 septembre 1961, in Bulletin du Centre européen, de la culture, no. 1-2, avril 1962; “ L'Europe et le monde. Débats et résolutions de la Conférence européenne dc la culture”, in Bulletin du centre européen de la culture, no. 1-2, automne 1965. 24 ECHA, ME/541, “ Note on the future of the cultural activities of the European Movement”, Cultural Section (confidential), May 1949. 2i ECHA; ME/356, European Cultural Conference, Institutional Committee: project for the permanent establishment of a College of Europe.

30 As from the first months of 1949, the town of Bruges, which hoped to resume links with its cosmopolitan past as “the Venice of the North”, had made two buildings available to the College26 27, along with a credit of 50,000 francs for converting them. In a sec- ond stage, the Belgian council of the European Movement (chaired by Paul Van Zeeland) secured a subsidy of 3,000,000 Belgian francs from the Belgian Government for 1950, through the Minis- ter for Education. Officially presented to the various national committees of the European Movement at the Lausanne conference, on 19 May the following year the College took the form of a public-benefit insti- tution with the aim of “ creating and running an institution for high-level academic education, to supplement students’ training in the area o f the human sciences from the viewpoint o f substituting a pol- itical, economic, intellectual and social entity for the present compart- mentalization of States"21. In the meantime, the executive bureau of the European movement had appointed the Dutchman Hendrik Brugmans as rector of the new institution28. The project was to develop to take account of various needs: 1) The desire to stay within the framework of action by the European Movement: the College of Europe would give students initial training to enable them to gain access to the annual intakes of staff trained under Movement patronage for the European insti- tutions being set up. 2) The desire to offer these students an original programme and a new atmosphere, while preparing them to supply the cause of European unity with a fresh input of elite militants.

26 The Hôtel Saint-Georges as a home for students and professors, and the Musée Brangwyn to house academic activities. 27 Report of the special committee for the College of Europe. 5p. (no place or date) probably May 1950. Chaired by Julius Hostc, chairman of the Cultural Committee of the Belgian council of the European Movement, this special committee set up to study the legal structures for the College included Hendrik Brugmans, Jean Drapier, Etienne De La Val- lée-Poussin, Jan Willems and Father Verlcyc. 2,1 On all these points sec the Mémoire by Caroline Vermeulen, Le Collège d'Europe à 1ère des pionniers, 1950-1960, Louvain-!a-Ncuvc, 1995, 176 p. 31 a i

Prof. Hendrik Brugmans, first rector of the College of Europe, Bruges. '£*) String Communication cv Bruges).

52 3) The need to be content at the outset with restricted funds of national and municipal origin. 4) The concern to avoid the hostility of existing universi- ties 20. These concerns did not fail to mark the structures and functio- ning of the College. Even if the College was always to stand up for itself as an international and independent institution, its operation would always largely depend on the Belgian national contribution and the benevolent cooperation of the Bruges authorities10. The students (around fifty at the outset), selected by national committees consisting of members of movements, representatives of the academic world and College alumni themselves, all held grants from their country of origin -11. They had to have com- pleted a university course and speak the College’s two official languages (French and English). Since they were there more to acquire the habit of constructive work in common rather than listen to lectures in the subjects they were already supposed to have degrees in, they set up research and working teams under the supervision of non-resident professors with European reputa- tions in a number of disciplines (history, law, public administra- tion, etc.). With its framework of communal living, the College proposed to offer a restricted number of students an opportunity to form a civilizing nucleus. “ Training Europeans from within" 12 was its principal mission. The need was to bring fifty young people and

2<> ECHA; ME/541, Cultural Section, “ Note on the Bruges project”, 22 October 1949. ■w Given the reticence of the neighbouring countries that hesitated to participate in funding the College, Belgium more or less maintained its original contribution of 3.000,000 Belgian francs in the first few years, thereafter reducing it to 2,300.000 Belgian francs. Cf. Caroline Vermeulen, op. c i r p. 44, The American Government helped College funding by sending a professor of administrative science on sabbatical almost every year. In 1955, the Ford Foundation made a gift of $ 11,500 for the College library and European documenta- tion centre, following a trip by rector Brugmans to the United States, sponsored by the American Committee on United Europe. 11 A study grant at the College of Europe amounted to 50,000 Belgian francs per student per year, 12 Speech by Madariaga at the inauguration of the College of Europe on 12 October 1950.

33 -J

College of Europe, Bruges: 12 October 1950: opening of the first academic year. From left to right: Hendrik Brugmans, Roy Harrod, Gouverneur van Outryve d'Ydewallc, Mayor van Hocstcnbcrghe, Salvador dc Madariaga, Duncan Sandys, Baugnict, and Julien Hoste. (f) String Communication cv Bruges).

34 professors together each year at Bruges in a “pocket-size Europe” 31, so as to go on to create centres of dissemination continent-wide.

II - A MINOR EUROPEAN ROLE FOR UNIVERSITIES

That Europe was being made was something no one in the early 1950s could any longer doubt. Victory had certainly not been won, but the movement was under way - not just the movement of ideas, but also the economic process, with the launching of the Schuman Plan in 1950; and the institutional one, with the setting up of the first European organizations: the Council of Europe (1949), the European Coal and Steel Community (1952) and the Western European Union (1954). How did this historical development affect university life? It did so in a number of ways* 14: It was able to supply sufficient trained staff for combined research on an international scale in new, cosily areas that went beyond the scientific possibilities of a single country. In 1953, fourteen Western European countries set up CERN (Conseil Euro- pecn pour la recherche nuclcairc, the European Nuclear Research Centre)15. Cooperation in this area was to enable European re- search to rise to world level, in particular responding to the Ameri- can challenge. European integration by itself raised problems of all sorts that called for serious, systematic scientific analysis (what the Ger- mans call Europa-Kunde). - Integration called for personnel especially trained for new jobs, not just in the European institutions as such, but also in national administrations, in politics, journalism, diplomacy, busi- ness and trade-union life, etc.

33 Ibid. 14 ARC; COM/BDT 056/79, “ Le problème de l'unité européenne", lecture by Henri Brugmans to the European Student Congress at the FCSC pavilion, Brussels World Fair, 22 July 1958. -,s On the creation of CF.RN sec John Krige, Dominique Pestre, History o f CERN, Vol. I, Oxford-Amslcrdam-North Holland, 1987, p. 64-88.

35 - The universities’ European role was reinforced by the C oun- cil of Europe’s multilateral conventions on the equivalence of d i- plomas leading to admission to universities (1953), on the equival- ence of periods of university study (1956) and on the academic recognition of university qualifications (I959)36. But though “ European ist” projects aroused a certain interest in some university circles, it has to be said that the bulk of them stayed with a much stricter pragmatism, and rejected in chorus the idea of a centralized European university. Apart from individual stances and those of student movements, the European idea devel- oped outside the universities, and when they did take a position all the proposals were in the direction of “Europeanizing" existing structures. Among such proposals was to teach European affairs in the context of the classical faculties of law, economics, or human sciences. For instance, Jean Monnct’s aim in his 1955 creation o f the “ European Community Institute for University Studies” was “to encourage the creation in the great universities of chairs de- voted to issues of European integration, by contributing financially to endowing the holders of these chairs with the necessary re- sources for research and studies that should be as extensive as possible” 37. The 1955 reform in France gave a more important place in law and economics faculties, after the licence stage, to international law, international relations and therefore also European issues. In 1956, Professor de Visschcr gave a course on the ECSC at the University of Liège. Little by little the movement spread: by fifteen years later, there were hardly any universities not offering some more or less thorough teaching on European matters3lt. On 24 September 1946, five days after Winston Churchill’s famous speech developing the vision of the United States of Europe

,(l Kurt-Jürgen Mass, Europapolitik, Die Arbeit des Europarates ini Hochschulbereich, Hamburg, Stiftung Huropa-Kollcg, 1970, p. 73 ff. ,7 Lausanne University was the first, in 1957, to create a chair in European integra- tion, which went to Professor Rieben. The Ford Foundation, moreover, awarded an amount of $ 50.000 to the F.uropcan Community Institute for University Studies. w Daniel Thcrond, L'Université européenne: vicissitudes et perspectives, Law thesis. Université Jean Moulin. Lyon (III), 1975, p. 69.

36 at Zurich University, the agenda for the sixth session of the Nordwestdeutsche Ilochschulkonferenz, bringing together, on the in- itiative of the military authorities, the rectors and Lander represen- tatives of the British occupation zone in Germany, scheduled an item on “ Development o f methods to emphasize European Unity in Philosophy and Art". The head of the university section in the military government referred to the widespread criticism among public opinion in Germany and abroad that held the universities responsible for the pre-war nationalist spirit. It praised the efforts of current universities to support students in becoming good Euro- peans, and proposed strengthening these efforts by introducing the European dimension to curricula. The rectors, however, saw in the European angle only an — important — contribution to the opening up to the outside world of the isolated German universities, and the Conference chairman, the rector of Bonn University, resumed discussion without men- tioning the word Europe. A few German educationalists did how- ever advocate the European idea, such as Sprangcr and Stein, who published works on European education19. Founded in 1951 at the suggestion of the European Cultural Centre by six institutes, the Association of Institutes of European Studies (AIES), meeting in Bruges on 10 June the same year, also noted "the progress of the European idea in European university circles..." and expected from it "the realization of the effective moral unity of Europe’s universities". But it regarded as useless “the creation of a centralized body to be superimposed on or sub- stituted for the existing universities” 40. These specialized institutes, the European Studies institutes of Nancy, Saarbrücken, Rome and Turin, the European College in Bruges, the European College of Economic and Social Sciences in Paris, the Bologna Center of the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies and the Strasbourg University Centre for Higher European Studies, appeared within universities

.W (^f Waller Rüegg, "Division cl unilé de l'Europe: le rôle des u n iv e rsitésin Rehuions internationales, no. 73, printemps 1973. p. 27-42. 4,1 Bulletin du Centre européen de la culture. 6"™ année, no. 3, "Historique de l’idée d'Université européenne", report by Dusan Sidjanski, p. 6.

37 ¿¡âieaïKS&ssaiiM i

during the fifties. They dealt either with the study of specifically European questions, or with more general studies, but drawing on a multinational teaching staff. Among the common features of the European institutes are that they were post-graduate and that the area of study, while concentrating chiefly on European affairs, was confined neither to the Six, nor to the Seventeen, nor even to Europe. The length o f courses was in principle two semesters, in which students took full-time courses and did team work. Usually operating with a re- stricted body of professors and assistants, the institutes also called in university professors, specialists, and senior European or national officials. While the courses generally led to a higher degree, it was not so much the intrinsic value of the title conferred that should go to the credit of the institutes as the experience they brought of personal thinking undertaken in an enriching hu- man environment. It is no surprise that representatives of the A IES and the Association of European University Teachers stressed the institutes’ contribution and the advantages of their scatter: “ Their plurality artel the diversity of formulae they offer are in line with the multiplicity o f needs felt by European youth. Their geographical scatter presents indisputable advantages, such as the multiplication o f centres for spreading the European idea [...} the possibility for students from other countries to perfect an institute’s main language and gain more intimate knowledge o f the region it is located in, and the variety o f the programmes”, as well as the community atmos- phere brought by the small size of each institute41. This opinion was essentially taken over by the majority of university meetings in the fifties. University congresses in Saarbriicken and Trieste, and the rectors and vice-chancellors of the universities of seventeen coun- tries meeting in Cambridge from 20 to 27 July 1955 under the auspices of the Western European Union, rejected the idea of creating a classical-type European university. The projects instead referred to the establishment of a post-university institution to

41 See the resolution of the working group on the European University meeting in Geneva on 4 and 5 July 1958. Section HI, Bulletin du Centre européen de la Culture, bemc année, no. 3, juillet 1956, p. 44.

38 give graduates of national universities additional specialized edu- cation J2. Summarizing, for university circles the European university’s path lay primarily in coordinating national institutes offering spe- cialized education at postgraduate level. Their proposals aimed at differentiating universities by their quality of work, enabling them to establish centres of excellence and attracting the best professors and students to them from all countries, at least in Europe. The academics were less concerned with training elites in a European perspective. At the level of bachelors’ and masters’ degrees, they were keen on safeguarding the mission of traditional universities, which would progressively be penetrated by a “European spirit", particularly by promoting inter-European exchanges of professors and students and by establishing appropriate programmes. A European university in the broad sense, requiring the har- monization of national university systems, or a university in the strict sense, the daring experiment of an unheard-of institution: these forerunners of the project involved as many possible real openings as virtual controversies. If one of the trends was to fail to recognize the role of institutions in the search for genuine cultural integration, the other perhaps testifies in its ambition to an excess of abstraction. These two contradictory but inseparable acceptations of the concept of “ European university" were at the centre of the debate which began when the question came on to the diplomatic stage as part of the relaunching of Europe in the mid-fifties. The Commu- nity bodies then had the matter brought before them by the gov- ernments of the Six. 42

42 L'Europe des universités. Das Europa der Universitäten: Historique de ht Conférence permanente des recteurs et vice-chanceliers des universités européennes, Documentation établie par Hann s-Albert Steeger, Bad-Godesberg, Westdeutscher Rektoren konferenz, 1964.

39

PART TWO THE COMMUNITIES TAKE UP THE QUESTION OF THE EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY (1955-60)

Th e Eu r o pe a n Un iv e r s it y in t h e Rome Tr ea t y n e g o t ia t io n s

The idea of the European University was relaunched in 1955 a narrower political context, that of the six Member States of e European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), meeting in the iessina Conference as the first stage of developing the treaties of ’■tome. In the run-up to the conference (June 1955), the Govern- ment of the Federal Republic of Germany presented a memo- randum on the advancement of integration. Professor Hallstcin, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the Adenauer Govern-, ment and head of the German delegation, added the proposal for a European University to the proposals for creating a com- mon market. The document states that '"’the Federal Government hopes to show tangible testimon y to young people of the desire for European union, through the foundation o f a European University to be ereated by the six ECSC States"** In so doing, Bonn asserted that it had been guided by the idea that integration ought not to be achieved in the economic area only, but also in culture. Given the number and importance of points to deal with, there was not enough time to discuss the specific point of the university; but the ministers referred the matter to the expert- assisted intergovernmental committee they set up. The Spaak report, the content of which was already volumi- nous and controversial, did not devote any study to the university question44. However, the European University was mentioned, howbeit incidentally and secondarily, in the report from the heads of delegation to the Foreign Ministers drawn up on 21 April 1956. The Euratom Commission is seen as having the mission of setting up a joint atomic research centre and a number of schools to train specialists, since “ Europe is suffering from a great lag in the number

4’ ARC-CONS; CM/3, no, 315. ‘History of the negotiations'. Article 9; ECHA; CM J\958, no. 951. section C in Minutes o f the meeting o f Ministers i f Foreign Affairs in Messina, 1 and 2 June 1955. 44 Cf. Atlilio Cattani. “ L‘Université européenne'' in Problèmes de fEurope. no. 46. Paris-Rome 1969, p. 12. © Presse- und Informationsamt der Bundesregierung, Bundcsbildstcllc, Bonn). and degree o f specialized training of its technicians"45 46. "The school and research centre might constitute the basis for a European University where scientists from the various countries would teach together; like any university it would have to have recognized autonomy"46. The report by heads of delegation was approved by the ministers on 29 and 30 May in Venice. A second intergovernmental committee chaired by Paul-Henri Spaak was given the task of drafting the treaties, and negotiations began at Val Duchesse near Brussels. In the Euratom group, the first meetings were devoted to what became Chapter I of the Treaty, the promotion of research. It was on 3 and 4 July 1956, when it came to the creation of the joint nuclear research centre (present Article 8), that the bomb- shell came. The German delegate Hacdrich announced his Govern- ment’s intention to deposit a note on the project for a European University, the essence of which he presented: the joint nuclear research centre would consist of a “ European institute of advanced studies” complete from undergraduate to postgraduate level, with its traditional faculties of science, arts, medicine and law and the two-fold function of teaching and research. According to the testimony of the French delegate to the Euratom group, Felix-Paul Mcrccrcau, the document caused real amazement. Nobody had contemplated a joint research centre with such a design. It is true that the Federal Republic of Germany did not yet have any atomic research centres: Karlsruhe was just under construction. Most other countries already had centres running: Ispra in Italy, Mol in Belgium, Pcttcn in the Netherlands, Saclay, Fontcnay aux Roses and Marcoulc in France. On the French side, it was believed that the Auswärtiges Amt had a lack of informa- tion47. Everyone then sought to convince Haedrich of the need for a quite different pattern from a university. In vain: Hacdrich stuck

45 ARC-CONS; CM/3, no. 315, “History of the negotiations”, Article 9; and Inter- governmental Committee set up by the Messina Conference. Report by heads of delegation to the Foreign Ministers, Part 2, Chapter 1, section 1. 46 I hid. 47 F.CHA; tnt/PM, transcription of the testimony of Félix-Paul Mercereau, French delegate to the Euratom intergovernmental committee, June 1986. and interview with him by Jean-Marie Palayrct, Isscy-lcs-Moulincaux, 19 March 1996.

45 to his guns. Van der Meulen, the Belgian delegate, recalled that the Spaak report in fact mentioned a European University, but with- out going any further into the project than several others mentioned in the report. Other delegations stated they were interested in the project for a university, whilst stressing that it went beyond the frame- work of the treaty48. Ought it then to appear in the Euratom Treaty? For the Federal Republic of Germany’s five partners, it could not in any case act as a joint centre. A long discussion began, from which it emerged that while one could not ignore a project that appeared in the Bible — the Spaak report — the wisest thing for the moment was to set it to one side and go on with the work. It was so decided. Only at the very last sessions of the committee at ministerial level did Hallstein recall that no decision had been taken on the European University and that one was necessary49. The point had been reached of the haggling at the end of negotiations. The creation of schools for nuclear specialists, hoped for by the French atomic energy commission, was confirmed, since the French side was not refusing to make available to the Commu- nity the educational installations annexed to the Saclay Centre, which might perhaps be used by the university if it were set up, and at the same time it was decided to insert a second paragraph in Article 9 of the Treaty, providing for the setting up of an “institution o f university status” 50. What might the federal government’s motives have been? The Auswärtiges Amt’s archives and the Hallstein papers deposited in the Bundesarchiv in Koblenz allow us to do rather more than conjecture what lay behind the German proposal. The first finding is that university circles and the Bundesministerium für Atomfragen were caught on the hop by the Messina memorandum. In general, they started by reacting very negatively to the university proposal* 44

4,1 ARC-CONS; CM; doc. MAE 145, f/56, p. 4 and CM/3, no. 157, Intergovernmen- tal conference. Minutes of meetings of 3 and 4 July 1956, p. 3. 44 ARC-CONS; CM/3, no. 315, Euratom group, Note from German delegation, 5 September 1956. w ECHA; Int/PM, Interview with Felix-Paul Mercereau, member of the Euratom group, op. cit. supra.

46 m

produced by the Auswärtiges Amt. In a note sent to the latter, Dr Fischer, secretary of the Westdeutsche Rcktorcnkonfcrcnz, asked for information and expressed the wish that no premature decision be taken in the matter by the politicians, "since the universities cannot accept an atomic university being parachuted in, the way the Soviets did in Dresden" M. As for the “ Federal Ministry for Atomic Affairs, it indicates that nothing can be done without the assent of Franz-Josef Strauss” s:. However, scarcely had Hacdrich, federal government representative in Brussels, indicated that the proposals related not just to an atomic research centre when the Bundcsministcrium für Atomfragen lost interest in the matter. In a meeting at the Bundcsministcrium des Innern (Ministry for Home Affairs) on coordination of education policy, which in Germany is the exclusive responsibility of the Uinder, Hacdrich stressed that the project was not a purely university one, but one born of “political and psychological necessities”; it constituted “a new starting point (Ansatzpunkt) for European integration” 51*53. The second point is the role as instigator played by Walter Hallstcin. As from the Messina conference he had become the project’s champion. The conception of a centralized university organized in con- centric circles around a central “ nuclear” core was largely his work. A professor and intimate collaborator of Chancellor Ade- nauer, Walter Hallstein had, alongside Etienne Hirsch and Max Kohnstamm, been a member of the Association of the European Community Institute for University Studies created by Jean Mon- net. Among the values of Europe, he set the high quality of its elite in first place. He felt Europe was lagging in terms of specialized education and research. As for Germany, it was deplorably lacking in universities. Integration was necessary, but it was not an end in itself. Hallstcin rejected the partial, scattered initiatives that might be set up in existing universities, a chain of institutes or a federa- tion of national universities. He wanted a university that could

51 PA/AA; Referat 604 - Hand 502/1. Or Fischer to Dr Horst. 27 March 1956. ¡hid,, Mayer-Golding to Ophuels, 14 September 1956, M ¡hid., Sitzungsniederschrifl of 26 November 1956.

47 enable a genuine European spirit to be got across to intellectuals. However, he was not dreaming of building the University of Europe at a stroke; the essential thing in his eyes was to define the objective and create the atmosphere54. Hallstein rejected a university for postgraduates, since these did not exist in Germany. At most, he would accept a European University for students who had done five or six semesters of study nationally. As to the disciplines that should be taught, he thought first of technology chairs, since the basis was the Euratom Treaty (nuclear physics, technology and medicine). One ought then to think of the ECSC (mining research, metallurgy), then political science, compa- rative law (harmonization of jurisdictions, competition law, etc.), and economics, all of which might be able to bring analysis to bear on the specific aim of European integration. But the most important disciplines in his eyes remained the human sciences: philosophy, history, languages, literature, sociology of peoples. The university should enable European integration to be supplemented “by bringing it from the level o f material facts to a higher context It would thus be responding to a purely practical need: “only a concentration o f training potential in one place can create the technical capability for giving us the highly qualified officials who will succeed us an adequate training, that is, one befitting their task”55.

II - Imp lem en ta ti on o f t h e t r e a t ie s : the pr o je c t de ve l op e d UNDER EURATOM AUSPICES

A) First official mention of the European University: Article 9(2) of the Euratom Treaty

The treaties signed in Rome on 25 March 1957 were ratified and entered into force on 1 January 1958. Louis Armand was

54 BA; HN Band n. 215. “Observations on the project for crealing a European Univcrsity presented by Walter Hallstein”, undated (Spring 1959?). 55 OKW-HO; 254, vol. 1. Vortrag des Prof. Dr. Walter Hallstein über die Euro- päische Universität vor dem Europa-Kolleg in Hamburg am 18. Juli 1958.

48 appointed president of the Euratom Commission, with as other members Medi, Dc Groote, Sassen and Krekeler. Two articles in the Euratom Treaty mention the creation of an institution at university level: Article 9(2), in the first chapter of the Treaty, on research in the nuclear area: ‘M n institution of university status shall be established; the way in which it will function shall be determined by the Council, acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission" and the other in Article 216, which is included in the provisions for the initial application of the Treaty: " The Commission proposals on the way in which the institution of university status referred to in Article 9 is to junction shall be submitted to the Council within one year o f the entry into force of this Treaty" s7. The wording is vague to the point of scarcely seeming to commit the governments. However, it could be an important open- ing on the road to actually creating a European University, if one notes the fact that the decision to create it can be taken by simple qualified majority on the Council. The ambiguity of the wording regarding the size to give the planned institution confirms this impression: while Article 9 is in the part on nuclear research, so that one might logically presume that the future institution would be devoted to research and teach- ing in the specific Euratom areas. Article 216 gives no details as to the scientific framework envisaged, allowing a much broader interpretation of the project for a European University5K. *57

% Treaty establishing the F.uropcan Atomic Energy Community (Euratom), in Treaties establishing the European Communities. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg. 1973. p. 524. 57 thiil, p. 631. ' K This problem of interpretation was raised by Louis Armand. president of the Euratom Commission, at the first meeting of the EEC-EAEC Councils dealing with the question of the European University; ef. ECHA; CM/195S. d. 951, Extract from the minutes of the restricted session of the EEC and EAEC Councils. Brussels. 20 May 195K: '’First exchanges of views on the subject of the creation of a F.uropcan university institution and a joint nuclear research centre”.

49 B) The question of legal interpretation

It was on 20 May 1958 in Brussels, at Von Brcntano’s re- quest59, that the project for creating a European University was the subject of an initial exchange of views at a restricted session of the EEC and Euratom Councils, attended by the presidents of the Commissions. Two positions faced each other during the discus- sion: that of the advocates of creating a great university giving teaching not only to students of nuclear sciences but also to those of other disciplines such as economics or social and political scien- ces, against that of supporters of strict application of Article 9(2) of the Euratom Treaty, keen on starting by creating a university- level nuclear institution. The first position was upheld chiefly by the German delegation and by EEC Commission president Walter Hallstcin, and in various ways by the other delegations, except for the French delegation. In the mind of secretary of state Muller-Armack, head of the Bonn delegation, and in Hallstein’s, in the meantime appointed to the head of the EEC Commission, the thesis of the full university was supported by the preparatory work in the Treaties, by their subjective interpretation of Article 9 (2) of the Euratom Trcaty, and in particular by political considerations. According to them, creating this sort of university had been contemplated at the Messina Confer- ence. The European relaunch, in the mind of the protagonists at the conference, ought to take three directions: economic, atomic, cul- tural. The last aspect had not, for lack of time, been discussed thoroughly at that meeting, and the Foreign Ministers were held to have postponed that discussion to the Treaty negotiations. But these negotiations too had to be carried on in a very limited time frame. Creation of a university had certainly been mentioned at the Val Duchesse talks, but there had not been enough time to draw up a sufficiently exact project, and it was then felt that the Communi- ties could do the job the Treaties had only sketched out60.

59 ECHA; CM/1958, no. 951. Extract from the minutes of the restricted session of the Committee of Permanent Representatives held in Brussels on 14 May 1958. 60 MAEF; series on European international questions (hereinafter QIE), vol. 175. Car- bonnel (Permanent Representative of France at the European Communities) to the Minister of

50 In these circumstances, the Euratom Treaty, in Article 9(2) and Article 216, had designedly mentioned an “ institution of university status” without specifying whether it would be purely scientific or nuclear in nature. On the German interpretation, the fact that the institute was mentioned only in the Euratom Treaty and in an article the first paragraph of which dealt with the creation of an atomic research centre was merely fortuitous. It simply marked the negotiators’ concern not to forget the question of the European University, left open since Messina. And Hallstcin went on to ex- plain rather nonchalantly that it was for lack of time and of any logical link with the other parts of the text that this university had not been mentioned in the EEC Treaty. Conversely, the idea of the research centre contained in the Euratom Treaty quite naturally called up the idea of a university institution, without the drafters having wished to limit its activities to the technical area only. Finally, important political reasons, again on the German view, militated in favour of the creation of a European University of a general nature. It would mark a new, important stage in the # construction of Europe. For the Community’s future elites, it would be a meeting-place and point of contact that would enable them to get to know each other better and combine their efforts in the spirit that ought to How from the Rome Treaties. An institution intended to train atomic scientists and technicians could not meet the more ambitious goals the Messina and Val Duchcsse negotiators had had in mind. For Mullcr-Armaek and for Hallstcin, not only ought the future European University to extend its activities into scientific, economic, political, legal, social and cultural areas, but it ought also, in its first years when it would have to meet major expenditure, to be endowed with an annual budget of 10 million dollars (EPU units of account). For its part, the Federal Republic of Germany was prepared to make a contribution up to the limit of 15 million Deutschmarks. The Ford Foundation would be prepared to give the institution financial support61.

Foreign Affairs, Europe Directorate, 13 May 1958. ECU A; CM .'1958, no. 951. Extract from the minutes of the restricted session of the F.F.C and Euratom Councils in Brussels on 20 May 1958. 61 ECU A, CM '1958. no. 951. Extract from the minutes of the restricted session of the FEC and Euratom Councils held in Brussels on 20 May 1958 (speeches by Mfiller-Armack, p. 4-8, and by Hallstcin. p. 14-16). 51 In procedural terms, the German delegation proposed setting up a preparatory committee with the remit of considering the questions associated with setting up the university, in collaboration with representatives of the six countries. In the face of this maximalist position, the French delegation, led by Maurice Faure, supported a more qualified viewpoint. It was based essentially on a strict interpretation of Article 9(2) of the Euratom Treaty. According to Maurice Faure, who followed in this respect the opinion of legal experts in the Europe Directorate at the Quai d’Orsay, the very location of the paragraph providing for creation of an institution with university status meant that the Treaties’ authors essentially had in mind the creation of an atomic studies centre to supply the scientists and technicians the Commu- nity needed62. This does not mean that the broader projects for a European institution of a more general nature had to be aban- doned; but the two problems ought to be kept clearly separate. According to the French delegation, it had to be for the Euratom Commission to design the institution, within the time limits laid down in the Treaty, in the scientific sense that was the one meant. Moreover, the project for creating a university of a general nature could not emanate from the European Atomic Energy Community alone, and ought to be brought under study by the Six. The representatives of the other delegations, Larock for Bel- gium, Bech for Luxembourg, Luns for the Netherlands and Mar- tino for Italy, gave sympathetic consideration to the idea set forth by the German delegation, but nonetheless pointed out how for lack of preparation the discussion was moving in an uncertain framework. They hoped it would be resumed on the basis of more exact data63. For there were still great uncertainties as to the shape to give this university of a general nature, even if it seemed to be

6Î MAEF; QIE, vol. 175, Political directorate, note from the sub-directorate for European organizations to President Maurice Faure (European University), 16 May 1958. Article 9(2) is in fact in Title 11, dealing with “ provisions for the encouragement of progress in the field of nuclear energy", in a chapter 1 devoted to the “promotion of research". In the light of the texts, it accordingly seems that the institution of university status should be equated with an advanced-level institute specializing in the nuclear sciences. ECHA, CM/1958, no. 951. Extract from minutes of meeting of the EEC and Euratom Councils on 20 May 1958 (speeches by Larock, Bcch and Martino, p. 16-17).

52 Ihc case that unanimity was emerging to bring the question under study. What size should the institution be? Ought it to train stu- dents straight from secondary school, as the Germans and Italians wished, or instead be a postgraduate training institute, a solution that would suit the French, Belgians and Dutch, as well as the Euralom Commission? What might its budget be? All these ques- tions needed to be clarified before the ministers could decide on the basis of sufficient elements for evaluation. Following the exchanges of views, the Councils adopted a res- olution whose terms are, it must be admitted, rather vague: "It is planned to found a European University, as an autono- mous, permanent institution for teaching and research, bringing to- gether professors and students coming chiefly from the Community countries"1 64. They proposed to ask the Euratom Commission — in order to remain within the framework set by the Treaty — for a preliminary study. It was understood that the Commission would draft its proposals*by discussion in a committee consisting of representa- tives of the six governments — to meet the suggestion of the French government — the EEC and Euratom Commissions and the ECSC High Authority. This committee was to submit its report by 1 October 1958. The initial discussions on the European University thus faltered at the project's legal ambiguity. Article 9(2) refers to an “ institution of university status”, without specifying whether it is to be a school specialized in the nuclear area, or else an institute intended to become the embryo of a bigger body. Development of the project was accordingly subordinated to the interpretation of the texts hastily drafted at Messina and Val Duchcsse, which did not discuss the basis of the matter. For the French government, which favoured a textual interpretation, the university had not been provided for in the Treaties creating the Common Market and Euratom* 65.

w ¡hid, p. 18. 65 MAHF; QIF, vol. 175, legal service to Alain Peyrefitte (Kurope Directorate), 23 June 1958.

53 By contrast, the Germans and Italians deliberately located the proposed institution in the context of the “European relaunch”. Hallstein and M artino66 affirmed that the creation of a joint uni- versity of the Six had been proposed at Messina as a tangible sign of the six governments’ desire to give the process of political unification of Europe a new and effective stimulus. To this end, the European University could play a unique role: awareness of belong- ing together was necessary, and only culture could create it. The Treaties, the economic, military and political institutions created to promote the union of Europe, were necessary but not sufficient instruments. Europe could not be unified by its rulers’ will unless it was integrated in the peoples’ consciousness, that is to say, in intellectual and moral terms67. In these circumstances, declared the authorized commentators on the Euratom Treaty, “it may be af- firmed that the Commission has been left the fullest freedom as regard the tenor of its proposals” 68.

C) The preparatory work and the proposal from the Euratom Com- mission

In application of the Council’s decision of 20 May 1958, a working group had been set up to prepare Commission proposals

66 ARC-PE; Debates of the European Parliament, May 1959 session, op. cir. Speech by Gaetano Martino, who stated essentially: “ The first objective to he aimed at by the creation o f a European University (or university-level institution) Is the one clearly indicated by Mr Hallstein at Messina, and disputed by no one during these long negotiations that have led to the Treaties setting up the Common Market and Euratom. The first objective is the training o f a European consciousness, essential in order to arrive at the final objective ( ...) the political integration o f Europe (...). That is why the university ought not to cover exclusively objectives o f a technical and scientific nature. That is why it is necessary for the humanities to be taken into consideration". 67 A summary of this position can be found in ARC-PE, European Parliament, document drawn up for discussion of Mr Geiger’s report on the European University (APE 1926, May 1959). 6K J. Errera, E. Symon, L. Vernaevc, J. Van dcr Meulcn, Euratom, analyse et commen- taire du traité, éd. de la Librairie encyclopédique, Bruxelles, 1958. Thus Charles de Visschcr, intcmational-law specialist, writes in connection with the interpretation of treaties relating to international organizations that “ one cannot apply to them in all their rigour the current rules for interpreting texts, without risking compromising the sustained creative effort required in implementing them, or disrupting the solidarities that gave birth to them”, in Charles dc Visschcr, Problèmes d'interprétation judiciaire en droit international public, Pédonc, Paris, 1963.

54 on the creation of the university. This group, chaired by Professor Medi, Euratom Commission vice-president, held four meetings in Brussels and Paris between 13 June and 3 October 1958. The report resulting from its work, presented on 18 December 1958, finally proved fairly close to the German-Italian project. Was it best to start off by creating a university covering all the traditional disciplines, or ought one to start by developing education in the nuclear sciences? Rallying round the Italian memorandum submitted in September69, supported by the Germans and Luxem- bourgers, the working group considered that there was “no doubt that the foundation o f the university m ust... consist in teaching related to the nuclear sciences"; it would be “a very grave error not to supplement it by general European studies”. The Italian project, es- sentially taken over in the working group’s report, planned for the setting up of faculties of chemistry, physics and mathematics, biol- ogy, agronomy, political and legal sciences, economics and com- merce, civil engineering, literature and philosophy. Special training courses for diplomats and European officials might be added. What would be the level of student recruitment? The joint memorandum presented by the Italians, Germans and Luxcmbour- gers proposed creating a university open to school leavers, with between three and six thousand students70 71. The Germans and Italians each gave estimates in figures, showing that the investment costs would be some sixty to eighty-five million dollars. This was accordingly an orientation towards a complete uni- versity with a high number of departments going from first year to doctoral level, meeting the wishes of Germany, where there were no postgraduate students7'. The working group's report nonetheless makes a few concessions to the French position by accepting that at the start the university could give only a few courses, thereafter growing progressively.

M ARC-COM; BAC 79/1982, no. 235. Memorandum submitted by the Italian Gov- ernment on the project for creating a European University, 3 October 1958 (annex). 70 MAEF QIE vol.175; Memorandum on the project for creating a European Univer- sity submitted by the German, Italian and Luxembourg governments, October 1958 (copy). 71 Ibid., Report of the working group on the European University. 18 December 1958, and MAEF QIE vol. 17. Minutes of the meeting of experts held in Brussels on 13 June 1958 to study the project for a European University, 18 June 1958.

55 The French Government’s position was, however, more syste- matically presented from October onwards. It remained unshake- ablc on the legal point: the project for a complete European Uni- versity went beyond Article 9; it might very well be discussed, but no longer within the framework of Article 9. However, France was prepared to apply the Treaty, that is, favoured creation of the nuclear studies centre, which might be supplemented by the estab- lishment of a system of “ European university cooperation”, draw- ing on existing universities by setting up a “ European Higher Education Council” with a mandate to supervise and coordinate their activities in terms of courses and degrees. The proposed programme further proposed creating new institutes with a Euro- pean status at the best-equipped universities72. The respective positions of the experts, which in fact represen- ted the opinions of each of their governments, arc to be explained by many reasons. For the German authorities, apart from the deep European conviction that inspired such figures as Miillcr-Armack and Ophuels, one can sec in this the concern to have a university that would, in contrast to existing universities, be outwith the authority of the Lander and in part under the control of the federal government. The Italians’ viewpoint was different: the Rome Government felt, it would seem, that it had been disadvan- taged among its partners in the Europe of the Six, and hoped to regain on the cultural level, especially if, as it hoped, the university was set up in Italy, the consideration that was eluding it in econ- omic and, it felt, political areas. The Belgians and Dutch, embar- rassed by the complicated situation of their own higher education institutions, feared above all the considerable expenditure entailed in creation of a great university. It is likely that the Hague Govern- ment further feared that this creation might signal too great a desire for particularism in relation to the Western powers outside the Europe of the Six, especially Britain, and hoped to take the opportunity to bring London back into Community negotiations73.

72 MAEF QIE vol. 175, note no. 72 from the Directorate-General for Cultural and Technical Affairs on the negotiations on the question of the European University, addressed to Jacques Soustcllc, minister-delegate to the prime minister, 28 January 1959. 73 Ibid.,

56 The new French proposals were the outcome of consultations by the Directorate-General for Cultural and Technical Affairs (Roger Scydoux) with academics, atomic scientists in the CEA and the Ministry of Finance, in the framework of the Interministerial Technical Committee on matters relating to application of the Euratom Treaties74, The opinion of the Commissariat á Ténergie atomique repre- sentatives (Francis Perrin, Fernand Goldschmidt) was decisive in relation to the French wish immediately to create a nuclear train- ing centre. They stated that a training in atomic science, even of a general and theoretical nature, could not be given without a fully equipped laboratory (cyclotron, etc.). The institution of university status that was to teach and research in the area of applied nuclear science could be set up only in the immediate neighbourhood of the joint nuclear research centre. In this connection, the CEA proposed broadly opening the National Institute of Nuclear Science and Technology at Saclay to Community students75. As for “ European university cooperation”, Gaston Berger was its inspirer. This industrialist, director of a Marseilles soapworks and retrained as professor of philosophy, put his stamp, through the duration and quality of his action, on the Higher Education Directorate to which he was appointed shortly after the War. The Euratom Commission had asked for him to be appointed as head of the French delegation on the working group. Gaston Berger did the job enthusiastically. He seems to have convinced Roger Seydoux of the benefits there would be for France in taking a more flexible stance in the negotiations on the European University. France would have all the more chance of getting its viewpoint across by taking the initiative speedily from the German authori- ties and combating their project not just with negative arguments, but through a realistic counter-project. Gaston Berger looked at

74 MAEF Q1E vol. 175. Letter from Roger Scydoux to de Groole, 4 November 1958, and statement by Gaston Berger (annex), ¡hid. Chair of Interministerial Technical Commit- tee on matters relating to application of the Euratom Treaties, minutes of the meetings of 4 and 6 June 1958. 75 MAEF QIE vol. 175. Telegram from Maurice Faure to Carbonnel (Brussels), 6 May 1958; ¡hid., note on “ nuclear education”, 23 June 1958.

57 Roger Scydoux, Director-General for Cultural and Technical Affairs at the Minis- try of Foreign Affairs, Paris. (3D Archives du Ministère des Affairs étrangères, Paris

58 things exclusively from a viewpoint of the interests of French scientific research and higher education. He noted that many spe- cialized institutes existing or being created in French universities could rise to “international class” only by drawing on professors from several countries (for instance, the Institute of Nutritional Physiology in Dijon). He felt this enlargement would come quite naturally from attachment to a European University. From this viewpoint the latter, far from being a sort of luxury, would instead permit full utilization of installations themselves necessary, and spread among several countries expenditure France risked bearing alone in the present state of affairs. In the mind of the director- general for Higher Education, it was a matter of course that the European University ought to be set up in France. Finally, the university would assure the French language, because of its posi- tion in relation to the languages spoken in the Community, of great preponderance in research and teaching76. Roger Seydoux and Foreign Minister Maurice Couve de Mur- ville were tempted by Gaston Berger’s programme77. The argu- ments set out by the director for Higher Education retained their value in their eyes, however, only as long as the European Univer- sity stayed limited in size and oriented to areas where it could usefully complement the teaching given in national universities. The French project - which already had the sympathy of the Benelux countries and apparently of Italy - according to which the European University would take in only graduate students was a formula that in this connection would limit expenditure consider- ably, by cutting the number of students and professors and en- abling “ the centralized organs o f the university to be compressed, making it essentially a sort of federation o f specialized teaching and research institutes already in being at national universities” 78.

76 On all these points cf. AN-EN 750508/130. Note from Gaston Berger to the Minister for National Education, 7 October 1958, and MAEF QIE vol.175. Notes from Directorate-General for Cultural and Technical Affairs (Roger Seydoux) to the Europe Directorate, European Organizations Division, re the negotiations on the European Univer- sity, 30 September, 23 October 1958. 77 Ibid., Note from Directorate-General for Cultural and Technical Affairs on “ talks on the projects for a European University”. 29 October 1958. 78 Ibid., Note from Roger Seydoux to Europe Directorate, 21 October 1958.

59 On 18 December 1958, once the working group had completed its work, the Euratom Commission made the proposal provided for in Article 216. It plumped for creation of a “university with general competences” to be “the university of Europe for Europe” ; it dis- carded, as not falling within the Treaty framework, the French suggestion to set up a European Higher Education Council, but took up, secondarily, the idea of developing certain existing insti- tutes. It noted that many prior questions had first to be studied, but nonetheless proposed to the ministers to create an institution to be called the “ European University”. The Commission proposal in- volved the idea that the university might be set up progressively, and enumerated three main subject areas; exact sciences, human sciences, training of interpreters. The institution envisaged was nonetheless classical in type, with a full-time professional staff, and students following, in certain disciplines, a complete course of teaching. In a first stage, it would have only an administrative council of 26 members. It would be this administrative council that would have the task of laying specific proposals before the Commission. The creation of an academic council was also envisaged79. The 18 December proposal was welcomed with some reserva- tions by the national representatives, who were not much in favour of giving carte blanche to the administrative council suggested by the Commission. Most delegations nonetheless supported the Com- mission in the idea that a decision in principle to set up the European University ought to be taken as soon as possible. An interim committee would immediately thereafter study the details of its functioning. The French permanent representative remained isolated regarding both the legal analysis of the Treaty and his reservations on the order of work: he felt the details ought to be studied before any decision. The French side insisted on the com- plexity of the matter and the importance of prior questions (level of studies, value of degrees)80, while the other delegations were ready to rally round the “compromise” proposed by Belgium,

w MAEF Q1E vol. 175. Euratom Commission proposals regarding creation of a uni- versity institution (copy), 19 December 1958. Ibid., note from Directorate-General for cultural and technical affairs for the minister’s office, 16 December 1958. 80 /hid, Telegram from Roger Seydoux to Carbonncl (Brussels), 20 January 1959. which considered that the European University project could be considered as a "stage in the working out o f Article 9”: the Euro- pean University was premature, but its usefulness in the long term could be recognized, starting work immediately on nuclear science and related areas, while at the same time making a major effort in the area of humanizing curricula and programmes, equivalence of degrees etc.M

D) The rejection of the European University by the Councils of the Communities (January - October 1959)

But the French delegation’s isolation was overcome in the course of the following months. First the German delegate, Ophucls, on 18 December joined in with Seydoux and Berger’s idea of insisting, in order to fight the project for creating an “ Adminis- trative Board of the European University”, that there should be an interim body to advance the ongoing studies further (which might be the working group, assisted by University representatives). This tactical retreat by Bonn is explained by the fact that the Federal Government had gone forward in supporting the European Uni- versity project without first ensuring itself of the support of the Länder Ministers of Culture and the all-powerful German univer- sity rectors. During the discussions that ran from February 1958 to January 1959 between representatives from the Auswärtiges Amt and spokesmen for German higher education (Professors Jahrreis and Braun from the Westdeutsche Rektorenkonferenz; Hess from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and Scheiber from the Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst), the viewpoints of the two parties clashed vigorously*2. *82

1,1 ECHA; BAC 118/86, n. 2193, Committee of Permanent Representatives, draft minutes of restricted session held in Brussels on 21 January 1959; ECHA; CHAB2. no. 1676. report by Collowald (ECSC representative on the working group) to Rabier. High Authority Information Service, on consideration of the Euratom proposals by the Committee of Permanent Representatives, 21 January 1959. 82 EHCA; BAC 118/86, N° 2190, “ Discussion of project for a European University on the invitation of the Auswärtiges Amt. 19 February 1958”, AN-EN 770508/131, French 61 -I

Despite the stress placed by the Auswärtiges Amt on getting its project through, German academics persisted in thinking that the proposed institution did not meet the requirements for a uni- versity. They felt that the attempt was being made to ignore diffi- culties that would inevitably arise, leaving it up to the proposed institution to resolve them. For while the Auswärtiges Amt was ready to guarantee the autonomy of the proposed institution, in this respect it advocated a “ University of the European Communi- ties”. It opposed the French project: the point was not to organize studies abroad for students or exchanges of professors, something already long a reality, but essentially to arrive at European integra- tion of the teaching body83. The national universities were founded on the homogeneity of the teaching body. The need was to go further. The generalized Europeanization of the existing universi- ties was certainly useful and should be considered in every possible form, but the need was to have a centre from which this encour- agement could come. The University of the European Communi- ties would constitute that centre. For the academics, the Auswärtiges Amt project was a mixture of a specialized technical school, an advanced institution for officials and a general European training centre; this approach did not at all correspond with what was meant by a university. That was why the Ministers of Culture, on 5 December, unanimously rejected the project. Moreover, Professors Jahrreis and Hess recalled a decision the previous spring proposing to set up an Institute for Advanced Studies along the lines of Princeton in the US. The Auswärtiges Amt by contrast stressed training: there was no need in principle to prevent students in the early years from attending the institute. *3 ambassador in Bonn to Maurice Couve de Murvillc, 6 January 1959, on creation of a European University. S3 The EEC Commission president, speaking of the European University, stated that: — this new university was not merely desirable but essential, since the European idea did not yet have any deep roots in European intellectual circles: “Europe needed an ‘intellectual homeland’ able to forge the European consciousness and strengthen it”, adding that it would be counterproductive to create a European University in the framework of an existing one; — the financial argument was not valid. In the time that was to come, all the European States would find themselves forced to make great efTorts to bring their higher education up to the needs of the atomic era. in PA/AA; ref. 604 - Band 806, Walter Hallstcin's speech to the second congress of the Cultural Foundation in Milan, 13 December 1958.

62 Finally, the rectors felt that creating a supranational Euro- pean'’ university would diminish the standing of the national uni- versities, many of which had existed for centuries. The existing universities all had a European spirit, and had always endeavoured to bring out this aspect in their work. That had been particularly true in recent years. In its opposition to the project for a European University, France received unexpected support from the Netherlands. Cer- tainly, the French and Dutch positions had coincided on several points since summer 1958, but the first signs of a rapprochement came only in March 1959. Right from the first exchanges of views in June 1958 in connection with the university-level institution, Dutch Foreign Minister Funs drew attention to the fact that Euratom Article 9 did not provide for anything but applied nu- clear research In explaining a note drawn up for the Council of Ministers on 4 July 1958, Cals, Minister for Education, Science and the Arts, regretted that the European University had, for political reasons, been contemplated in the Euratom Treaty. A university limited to the Six would be too narrow. The Council of Europe’s Cultural Committee or the European Universities Committee of the Western European Union, which had been working on similar projects for two years, seemed to him more appropriate settings, and easier to handle in financial terms85. There was no intention on the Dutch side to accept financial obligations in teaching and research other than those laid down in the Treaty. Thus, when the Italo-Gcrman-Luxembourg memor- andum presented to the working group mentioned equipment expenditure for the university that might be over sixty million dollars (EPU), the Netherlands reacted immediately. In a letter sent in late July to the new Euratom president Etienne Hirsch, and then in a September 1958 memorandum, the Dutch Govern- ment put the stress on the limits to Article 9, on the postgraduate nature of the nuclear research centre to be set up, and on its over-narrow geographical framework. It also announced its rc- ***

K4 ARA; MR (17). Council of Ministers minutes, 27 June 1958. ** ARA; MR (17). Council of Ministers minutes, 4 July 1958.

63 fusal to take part in any expenditure commitment exceeding the normal Euratom budget86. However, the positions of Paris and The Hague diverged on one essential point: the Dutch Foreign Ministry (Buitenlandse Zaken) had very soon called for extension of the planned university cooperation among the Six to other countries, particularly Britain87. In short, by contrast with the slogan put forward by the Italians, Germans and Luxembourgers in connection with the university: “/$ great school in the service o f a great idea”, the Dutch slogan was more like “ cr small university for the greater Europe”, Despite concordant positions on the main points, the rap- prochement between Paris and The Hague was shaky. Roger Seydoux and Carbonncl noted bitterly in despatches to the Europe directorate “the hesitations o f the Dutch delegation", which main- tained its reservations, “ though with some tendencies to conces- sions on the actual principle o f the university, which they did not go so far as to reject outright as did the French delegation"88. Ought one to sec here the effect of Dutch reluctance to depart from solidarity with their partners, and display before European public opinion over-close collusion with France in a “ rejection front”? The fact is that until October 1958 Dutch delegates taking part in the negotiations on the European University received instructions to maintain an attitude of reservation towards the French sug- gestions89. It was not until March 1959 that the Dutch Government definitely rallied behind the French analysis of Article 9. Seydoux notes this change after receiving Reinink, Director-General for ***

Rfi ARC-COM; BDT; 056/79, n. 39, working group. Memorandum from Dutch Gov- ernment, September 1958 and OKW-HO; 251-11, Pickaar to Cals, 12 June 1958. K7 OKW-HO; 251-11. Second note for Council of Ministers, 25 October 1958. ** MAEF; Q1E, vol 175. Note n. 72 from the Directorate-General for Cultural and Technical Affairs (Roger Seydoux) to Jacques Soustcllc, minister-delegate to the Prime Minister, 28 January 1959. Ibid. Note for the Minister on "European University, Nether- lands suggestions", 12 March 1959. ** OKW-HO; 251-MI. Third note for Council of Ministers, 22 June 1959. This note alludes to the Council of Ministers on 7 November 1958, when it was decided to maintain a reserved attitude towards the French suggestions.

64

-4 ■aH M h a K O i

Cultural Relations at the Dutch Ministry of Education, on 12 March: “ It appears that the Hague Government is now more resolved than in recent months to drop the project for creating a complete European University, so as to join the French project for European cooperation. 1'his Government would earnestly hope that u r might have joint action at the Council o f the European Communities sched- uled for 16 and 17 Starch"1*'. Rcinink nonetheless let it be understood that his Government would not be hostile to keeping the term “ European University", “to meet the Germans’ desire for the European flag at least to he shown in this i/m /’’1'1, and recalled the Dutch Government’s desire to extend university cooperation to other countries, particularly Britain, it was to this end that he hoped regarding the procedure that the Council of the Communities, once it approved the project for creating a nuclear institute, be kept out of any project concer- ning university cooperation over and above that speciality. It was the six countries' Education Ministers that ought henceforth to deal with this point (a reference to the work begun within the Western European Union), and to decide what other European nations might be associated with this collaboration92. The limits to rapprochement between the French and Dutch positions can thus be seen. The French Government wished to take the university (with general competences) away from the direct auth- ority of the Brussels institutions, recognizing which would mean admitting that the European Treaties could without the need for new agreements among the Six be used to open up new areas for European cooperation policy. But going beyond the framework of the Six, at least at the start, would in its eyes mean risking compro- mising the chances of favouring the use of French. In the opposite *12

w MAFF; QIF, vol 175, Note n. 227 for the Minister on the “ European University", 12 March 1959. 1)1 Ml. 1,1 MAFF; QIF, vol. 175. Note from the Directorate-General for Cultural and Tech- nical Affairs: “ European University, Netherlands suggestions", 12 March 1959, and OKW-HO; 251-11, Note from Pickaar, 6 February 1959.

65 direction, the Hague Government felt that the Conventions setting up the European University ought to be entirely detached from the enterprise embarked on by the Six, and be inspired by a willingness in principle by the founding States to welcome other States too. This attitude brought the Dutch, like the French, to oppose the use of Article 9 and the existing Community mechanisms, but also to recommend forming a sort of fourth Community open to the outside world, in which the French language risked losing the place of undisputed privilege it enjoyed in the framework of the Six. There was accordingly an immediate tactical convergence between the two Governments, which explains why no action was adopted at the level of the Community Councils throughout spring 1959. Disappointment in the working group was keen. Though the new Euratom president, Etienne Hirsch, was aware of the back- ground to the matter, he was resolved to fight, while remaining cautious. Since the project was to be the object of a Commission proposal, there was no other solution than to take over the one already on the Council table, make amendments to it and present it again in acceptable form. So the work went back to the drawing board, in the form of a “ Draft Decision by the Councils”. Etienne Hirsch multiplied his contacts and asked Gaston Berger to enquire into the French Governments’ objections. The most important one was that the course would cover all university levels. Gaston Berger assured him that limitation to postgraduate level would give a hope of succeed- ing. But the impetus seemed to have been lost. Only the Italians, who in the meantime had become enthusiastic for the project, seemed to be keeping at it, and were ready for any compromise in order to see it succeed. When the working group met again to clarify the situation on 14 April 1959, it had before it a project from Ambassador Cattani proposing the creation of a university in which the professors could give courses in their mother tongue or French, and of a European Higher Education Council. The Italians asked for the decisions on these two points to be taken immediate- ly; as for the details, the working group, which had been converted into an interim committee, was to make detailed proposals by 30 November. This project, still based on Euratom Treaty Articles 9 and 216, took up again, with some changes, the Commission 66 ideas on setting up the university gradually and on the subjects to be taught l>\ it included a paragraph on the seat of the university, which the Italians proposed to locate in Florence1,4. The French delegation tabled a number of amendments regar- ding this text, aimed at substituting a university council and an initial higher education institute for the university itself, and calling for courses to be reserved to students with three or four years’ study behind lheml,\

K) Action by the European Parliament

In the first three months of 1959, the Strasbourg Parliament's Committee on Scientific Research considered the question of the European University: the Report by German Christian Democrat MEP Geiger stressed the " capital importance of creation of the university to the formation of a European Community " w\ During the debates the principle of the university w'as adopted, and on 14 May the Assembly voted a resolution calling on the Councils to join Euratom efforts to establish a European University whose object would be to serve the Communities and the associated overseas countries in a prospect of furthering scientific and techni- cal progress, the social and economic sciences and philosophical and historical research, and of elaboration of Community law. It hoped creation of the university would be combined with applica- tion of EEC Treaty Article 57(1) on the mutual recognition of degree certificates, and proposed considering whether it was poss- ible to associate “other European countries non-signatories of the Rome Treaty'"*1 with it. Parliament thus showed its determination to make the European University an institution open to the outside.

g’ “ Starling from a training in science, with a central core of human science courses, and a school for interpreters, teaching could he extended to other areas". l>4 ARC-t’OM; U1)T 05ft/79, Draft proposal to the Council presented by Ambassador Cattani at the working group meeting on the European University. 16 April 1959 (Annex 11). ^ ¡hid., “ Amendments proposed hy Mr Scydoux to Mr Catlani's draft" (Annex III). 'H' ARC-PE. interim report on the creation of a European University (Hugo Geiger), March 1959. 1,7 ECHA; IIAC 79/1982, n. 235; European Parliament, 14 May 1959.

67 tienne Hirsch, President of the Euratom Commission and President of the iterirn Committee for the creation of the European University (1959-60), ') Commission of the European Union). i It aroused the irritation of certain governments, but spurred the Community executive to give it not inconsiderable support.

Ill - T h e w o r k of t iif . In t e r im Co m m it t e e : a c h ar te r f o r t h e Eu rop ean Uni ve rsi ty

A) The Interim Committee’s remit

During this second stage, which lasted until July 1959 and saw Etienne Hirsch’s authority and negotiating skills work wonders, new working group meetings unblocked the position. On 16 April the French representatives accepted the principle of a European University, but to be set up very gradually and following thorough study. All that would initially be created would be a “ European education council”, which, along the lines of the French proposal for university cooperation, would confer the title of European institute on existing institutions whose activities seemed useful to the Europe of the Six, as well as an “initial Higher Education Institution” limited in numbers and courses91*. Additionally, the French project for European institutes and coordination among national universities was maintained. These measures, and those in respect particularly of equival- ence of degrees and harmonization of programmes, were to be elaborated by an “ Interim Committee” whose membership would he the same as the working group created in May 1958, plus representatives of national universities. Finally, the proposed decision was this time based no longer only on Euratom Treaty Articles 9 and 216, but on the articles in the Rome Treaty providing for additional action to be decided unanimously (Article 235 of the EEC Treaty)99. in a letter giving his agreement to the Commission and Eura- tom proposals, ECSC High Authority representative on the work- ing group Albert Coppe observed in connection with them:

69 Iccting of the Interim Committee for the creation of the European University, alazzo Vecchio, Florence, April 1960. 0 Studio Press Photo, Florence).

) “ They are very close to the formulae we should like to see adopted: in a first stage, teaching some human science subjects, in addition to the nuclear sciences (possibly starting at postgraduate level); according to recognized needs, gradually extend subjects taught and expand admission to students in the first years o f univer- sity study; finally, ensure combination with other measures: harmoni- zation of programmes and equivalence o f degrees on the one hand, coordination and specialization policy for European institutes already in being or in course o f being set up on the other" ,0°. The Councils of the Communities discussed the proposals on 23 July 1959, Basically, the new draft more or less reflected the conclusions of the working group, but left it up to the Interim Committee to determine whether students without postgraduate degrees could enter the university. Couvc de Murvillc, to the other delegations’ surprise, made a general reservation on all the texts, and tabled amendments aimed essentially at specifying that the initial Higher Education Institution would be open only to stu- dents already holding a university degree* 101. The testimony of Felix-Paul Mcrccrcau, Etienne Hirsch’s close collaborator, throws light on the matter: “That morning, before the meeting opened, Couve de Murville came to meet us and said with his downcast air that a few days earlier the draft had been considered in Paris and not been accepted. However reluctantly, he would have to state his opposition in the meeting due to begin. But, said Hirsch to him, why did you not present any direct or indirect objections, at any stage o f developing the draft? It is true, replied Couve, I had no objections to make, but this meeting induced me to put an end to the operation. It is a meeting in high places, you know! I am as sorry as you are, said Hirsch, but I shall fight for this project!

,ft0 ECHA; BAC 79/1982, n. 299, letter from Albert Coppc to F.tiennc Hirsch. 21 May 1959. 101 MAEF; QIE, vol 175. Letter from Jean Fran^ois-Ponccl (Europe Directorate) to Roger Scydoux, 31 July 1959.

71 ƒ can understand that, replied Couve” l02. The meeting in high places the French Foreign Minister was referring to was undoubtedly the Council of Ministers, where both Prime Minister Michel Debré and President de Gaulle himself rejec- ted the draft because of the guidelines adopted on the line to pursue vis-à-vis the Communities: “ The Treaty, nothing but the Treaty". Presidential and ministerial papers are opened in France on a sixty-year rule, making it impossible at present to confirm the fact from those archives. It is nonetheless certain that the position taken by Couve de Murville on the specific point of the European University was in line with the overall doctrine laid down at that time by General de Gaulle’s Government, that the Treaties establish- ing the European Communities could not be used, without new agreements among the Six, to open up new areas to European policy103. It was finally agreed that the Governments would give their opinions on the drafts in writing. The Germans remained very favourable to the European Uni- versity as such. They drew attention to the need to preserve the Lander’s constitutional autonomy for everything concerning the cre- ation of European institutes; finally, they rejected the place given to the French language in the Italian proposals. In fact, the Federal Government could no longer hide the German universities’ position of strict opposition to any project for a European University. It was the Italians that now pushed most for creation of the European University. They accepted the Commission document, insis- ted on the urgency of the matter and drew attention to the need to award an appropriate number of grants. However, the Rome Govern- ment too had some unease about reluctance by its universities. The Dutch asked for the university’s details of operation to be laid down before any decision. Noting that the new Commission proposals now referred to Article 235 of the EEC Treaty, they

102 ECHA; Int PM, transcription of testimony by Fclix-Paul Mcrccrcau, member of Etienne Hirsch’s cabinet, June 1986, and interview with him by the author at Issy- les-Moulineaux, 19 March 1996. 10, MAEF; QIE, vol 175. Note from the Directorate-general for Cultural and Techni- cal Affairs to the Europe Directorate, “ Project for European university cooperation", 26 April 1960.

72 proposed going a little further and recognizing that this was a mat- ter that should be covered by a separate agreement to be ratified by the various States104 105. The Belgians proposed that the terms of reference of the In- terim Committee be spelled out t0\ Finally, the EEC and EAEC Councils decided on 19 October 1959 to take up the Euralom Commission’s suggestion to set up an interim committee chaired by Etienne Hirsch. In terms of the objec- tives laid down by the Ministers, the Interim Committee set up five working groups. The first three, with Martino, Pcscatorc and Will- ems on them, dealt with the academic, legal and financial difficulties of the proposed university; another group, led by Gaston Berger, considered the question of European teaching and research insti- tutes, while a fifth chaired by Sattler considered problems of har- monization of programmes, equivalences of degrees and university ex- changes. The Interim Committee approved the results of its working groups in Florence between 25 and 27 April 1960, and produced a draft for submission to the Council of the Communities.

B) The Interim Committee Report (October 1959 - April I960)

The report submitted in April 1960 by the Interim Commit- tee 106 still today seems the founding charter of any real European university policy. The point was not in fact to promote a mere new teaching institution, but to stimulate an overall university move- ment that might take on manifold diverse forms. Given the needs felt and the resistance found, the committee worked very effective- ly, producing a triptych of proposals: on the university as such, on the European Higher Education and Research Institutes, and on university exchanges.

,l>4 OKW-HO; 252-VI. “ Minutes of talk between Hirsch and Cills on 31 March 1960”, in a note by Linihorst-Homan, Netherlands Permanent Representative in Brussels, 6 April 1960. 105 AN-F.N 770808/139: “ Discussion on creation of a Furopean University". 16 November 1989 (Rotlc). 11)6 FCHA; Report from Interim Committee on the Furopean University to the FEC and FAFC Councils, Florence, 27 April I960.

73 Etienne Hirsch, President of Euratom meeting, with Giovanni Gronchi, President >f the Republic of Italy, Florence, 24 April 1960. CO Torrini Fotogiornalismo, Florence).

74 1) The European University in the strict sense What were the objectives to be pursued by the projected insti- tution ,07? It was important, firstly, to provide for the study of problems arising in the construction of Europe, but that did not mean neglecting immediate tasks like training personnel for the Commu- nity institutions. In this context the Committee would, not without difficulty, have to decide among a few essential options. Regarding the required level of students, it was finally deci- ded to open the institution to candidates who already had three or four years of education at national level and displayed suffi- cient aptitude for collective research. Candidates were to display language knowledge. As to the number of students, plans were modest: for the first year, 250 students, on the basis of one professor or assistant for every ten students. By the end of the first five year-period it would be providing additional training for some five hundred students, with the course being two years long and leading to the single degree of “ Doctor of the European University'’ 1<)S. Another problem was to define the nature of the teaching given. As we read on page 8 of the report: “ The European University as proposed has a different structure from traditional universities. It is not a full university, and will cover only certain disciplines grouped by department rather than faculty, in both the human sciences and the exact sciences" m . The conclusion was in fact arrived at that the university ought to be oriented towards the human sciences. This major develop- ment was certainly the outcome of the debates between maxima- lists and minimalists in the Committee’s working group"0. Etienne Hirsch, in the chair, the other Community representatives present, 107*110

107 Cf. Etienne Hirsch’s statement in the proceedings of the Brussels colloquium of 22 and 23 March 1962, p. 19-29. U)R ECHA; Interim Committee Report, op. cit. p. 8. I(W Ibid.. 110 Cf. MAFF; QIE, vol 175. Note from Directorate-General for Technical and Cultural Affairs, 6 November 1959.

75 in particular Hallstein, and the German and Italian delegates led by Ophuels and Martino held out for a ‘‘university of humanism”, devoted essentially to the human sciences: law, sociology, political science, history, human geography, languages. The French delega- tion (Seydoux, Berger, Debiesse) was able only very grudgingly to accept that the specialized working group set up by the Interim Committee ought also to consider the possibility of teaching the exact sciences (“There is no such thing as European mathematics”, said Etienne Hirsch). It seems that the change in attitude by the Interim Committee chairman was decisive in this respect. In his Memoirs he presents it like this: "M y first concern was to define the object of the European University; since the provision originating it is to be found in the Euratom Treaty, it could be deduced that this object ought to be concentrated on the exact sciences. I thought that in this area there was a common language, and that those concerned could meet and talk among themselves with no problem. On the other hand, this was not the case for scholars o f the human sciences; there was scarcely any common language among economists, lawyers, historians and political scientists. Establishing a link among them uy/.v a matter of urgency in the context of the construction o f Europe. This idea at first shocked Martino, Italian Foreign Minister, who had been a physician, but I was comforted to find that he soon came round to my way of thinking" 11’. In explaining his conversion, however, Etienne Hirsch has not failed to mention in his Memoirs (Ainsi va la vie) his consultation of American scholars like Oppenheimer (father of the atom bomb) and Lilienthal, during a visit to the US by the presidents of the three Communities111 112. The testimony of Felix-Paul Mercereau, who accompanied Etienne Hirsch to Princeton, is particularly enlightening as to the decisive influence of the Americans:

111 Etienne Hirsch. Ainsi va ta vie, Fondation Jean Monnet pour l'Europe, Lausanne, 1988, p. 163-164. 112 Etienne Hirsch, Ainsi va la vie, op.cit., p. 65.

76 “ While u r had heen inclined to fall hack on the area o f the exact and natural sciences, where we felt more assured because of the Treaty itself they (the Americans) convinced us o f the primordial importance o f the human sc iences to European integration. That is why »tv agreed to limit the institute’s field of action to its present departments" nl.

The minutes of the discussion held at the institute for Advanced Studies in Princeton in June 1959 arc conserved in the Florence Archives*114. Oppcnheimcr, describing the mission of the Institute for Ad- vanced Studies, where people from different disciplines came together, in fact insisted on the need to avoid, in the whole range of knowl- edge, what he called “ islets of insularity”. As to the actual design of the university, Lilicnthal insisted on the need to go beyond the traditional concept of university by resolutely looking forward rather than backward, something Oppcnheimcr supplemented by saying that the object of any university ought to be discovery and education, that is. preparing students for what their life would be. From these viewpoints it seemed indisputable that the universi- ty ought to be on a single campus and adopt a co-cducational system. Starting up the University was also discussed: the Americans were unanimously in favour of limiting student numbers at the start, with a figure of five hundred for a first year seeming to them a maximum. Not only did the spirit have to be created, but teaching methods forged, something calling for close cooperation among pro- fessors and students. At the outset, one should consider each profes- sor himself choosing a small group of pupils from various countries and going with them through a first year’s real period of experience. There should be joint work among them, without formal lessons. The idea that the projected university might be regarded as competing with existing universities seemed surprising to the Ameri- cans given the position in Europe, which, said Oppenheimer, was cruelly lacking in chairs"5.

LCHA; Int, PM, interview Fclix-Paul Mcrccrcau. op. tit. 114 KCHA, J. G., dossier n. 9, “ Visit by the presidents of the three Communities to the United States". June 1959 (chapter IV, "Weekend at Princeton") ,l? Ibid, “ Visit by the presidents of the three Communities...", t>p. at.

77 f

CO Torrini Fotogiornalismo, Florence).

^8 4 l

Finally, the Interim Committee Report planned for the setting up of six “departments”, a number which could grow according to possibilities and experience. The emphasis went to disciplines of major importance in the European construction. The three first departments would be law, economics, and the social and political sciences. The fourth department would concern history and the development of civilizations, the fifth pure mathematics, while the sixth would deal with theoretical physics, thus meeting Euratom’s specific objectives. One must en passant stress one remarkable innovation: the abandonment of the traditional subdivision into "faculties”. Apart from the fact that this word is liable to lead to misunderstandings since its denotation varies from one country to another, the Committee hoped to avoid an over-rigid structure and ensure interdisciplinarity. The departments would group together disciplines linked among themselves by object and method. In this sense, the university would be called on to play a pilot role, which would be one of its original features, and ipso facto guarantee its success. But even more than working methods, it was the experience of living together that ought to stamp the future university1'6. As Etienne Hirsch observed at the colloquium held by the University Bureau of the European Movement in Bruges from 4 to 7 April 1960, while the Interim Committee was completing its considerations, it is a specious argument that all universities arc European (as especially the German academics claimed). Just be- cause a café is called “the Universal Café, that does not make it universal""1. The important thing was to ensure that professors and students from a variety of countries could live and work together: there would be neither hosts nor guests, u'ith everyone on an equal footing learning from each other what could be garnered from the sharing of cultures, traditions, and differing, perhaps complementary, mentalities. According to the chairman of the In- terim Committee, the precedents of the European School in Luxembourg and the College in Bruges were evidence, howbeit on

m ECU A; Interim Committee Report, op. cit., p. 12-35. 1,7 ARC-COM; BDT 056/79, n. 1. Reports of the Bruges seminar on the European University, doc. 3, speech by Etienne Hirsch. 4 April 1960,

79 a relatively modest scale, of the riches the undertaking offered. Once given flesh through a campus where teacher and student would live together, a new mode of the teaching relationship would establish itself, as the examples of Oxford and Cambridge augured. Just as a university does not arise ex nihilo, it cannot continue and grow in isolation. It is therefore not surprising that the Com- mittee also considered the scientific environment for the future university.

2) The “European Institutes ” o f higher education and research The idea had been developed by Gaston Berger. Initially pre- sented as a counterproposal to the project for a European Univer- sity, it became an additional provision that received unanimous support from academics. The point was to give this qualification to institutes or scien- tific bodies in member countries (the Institute of Nutritional Chemistry in Dijon or the Centre of Mediaeval Studies in Poitiers, for instance) which from their nature and quality, and the importance of their academic output, ought to be seen as entitled to a sort of European “label”. Material assistance sup- plied by the Communities should enable these institutes’ growth possibilities to be enriched. A “ European Higher Education Council”, as provided for in the Report, would have the task of both awarding the qualification of “European Institute” to insti- tutions undertaking to conclude agreements to that end, and encouraging the creation of such institutes where the need was felt, as well as promoting all initiatives aimed at coordinating the action of the various institutions118. The title “ European Institute” would however be awarded, with financial support, only to institutions taking in at least one third of foreign residents among their students and teachers, with programmes meeting objectives laid down by the Council. The scheme sketched out assumed a framework of an academic net- work providing essential support to the work of the university, and

n* Etienne Hirsch, Ainsi va la vie, op. vit., p. 164; ECHA, Intérim Commiücc Report, p. 36-37. so planned, in order to perfect the undertaking, to create advanced research centres to fill manifest gaps in the areas of the greatest interest for the Europe of the Six119. The overall project presented to the ministers of the six coun- tries was thus close on most points to the views of the French delegates120 121. However, when they proposed both the project for European institutes and the creation of a European University consisting of very specialized institutes open to graduate students, the German and Italian delegates gave this a very cool reception. As Gaetano Martino stated, that meant ruining all hope of an institution of a truly European spirit, able to exercise real influence over the intellectual elites of the six countries. The German repre- sentative, having asked in the meantime for instructions from Bonn, stated he was unable to accept a solution based on access limited to postgraduate students. Roger Seydoux notes that the Germans and Italians were supported by Etienne Hirsch, “who would like these institutes to he specialized so as not to compete in any way with the future European UniversityM ,21. These ideas, according to the Director-General for Cultural and Technical Affairs, corresponded, on the interpretation some German and Italian delegates wished to give them, with their own sincere desire to have the European spirit permeate the intellec- tual elite of the six countries, for general political purposes; but on the French side to a negative attitude to any European cul- tural project, since the proposal for “ Europeanized” institutes was, in the view of the strongest supporters of the university, nothing but a ruse aimed at preventing and delaying creation of this institution. Seydoux and Berger had, however, an easy game to play, since it emerged clearly at a meeting of WEU Education Ministers held at The Hague during the Interim Committee session that the posi- tion expressed jointly at Brussels by German and Italian delegates

1,9 Cf. David Thcrond, L 'Université européenne: vicissitudes et perspectives, op. dt., p. 92. 120 MAEF; QIE, vol 176. Note from Directorate-General for Cultural and Technical Affairs on projects for European University cooperation, to the Europe Directorate, 22 April I960. 121 Ibid, QIE, vol 175. Note of 6 November 1959 from Seydoux. 81 J 2 “

or Community officials {Hallstein, Ophucls, Müllcr-Armack, Mar- tino, Cattani) was quite out of line with the attitude of these countries’ academics, especially in Germany. According to Seydoux, “ the whole thing gave the meeting the rather curious im- pression of a clerical r e v o lt Thus for Germany, Professor Tibur- tius, chair of the conference of Education Ministers of the Federal Republic, opposed any intervention by the Bonn Government in matters of teaching and research l22 *. Länder cultural sovereignty would be endangered if cultural institutions were set up at Euro- pean level that could not be established by the Federation on national territory because of the Basic Law. The German rectors were so opposed to any project for a European University that some of them were able to state at The Hague that they would “sabotage” its implementation if need be, by refusing, as university autonomy entitled them to, any equivalence between “ European” degrees and those of traditional universities. They feared that fi- nancial support for a European University might ultimately be at the expense of Federal Government subsidies within Germany, and hence to the detriment of national universities. More, the Bonn Government itself (as the Director for Cultural Affairs of the Auswärtiges Amt indicated to his French colleague) was far from following the Brussels Germans in their maximalist suggestions ,2J. Bonn was too well aware how hard it was to win over the resis- tance of rectors, professors and Länder Education Departments on this point124. In fact when the Interim Committee sessions opened,

MARK; QIE, vol 175. Note from Directorate-General for Cultural and Technical Affairs "on the conference of Education Ministers held in The Hague on 12 and 13 November 1959’’, 16 November 1959. This opposition is strong in Referats 602 and 604, dealing with political and academic aspects of the University (Vogt, Von Rahm, Liidcns) in PA/AA; 604 Band 806, note A.A., 7 May I960. 1:4 There was no possibility in the federal cabinet of coordinating opinions on cul- tural matters, as is the case in other Community countries. Thus, the Bonn Government can pay subsidies to a university outside Germany; however, terms of study and examinations taken at a foreign university may not be recognized by the Lander Education Ministers, or by the universities or faculties. ECHA; BAC 118/1986, n. 2200. Interim Committee Secre- tariat - group A; Statement by Government of the German Federal Republic on the European University, 23 February 1960. At a talk between Roger Seydoux and Von Brentano on the occasion of the reception in honour of Chancellor Adenauer offered by the French head of Slate, Von Brentano declared that the German rectors were “ imbeciles".

82 4 k

the German delegation consisted of Ophucls and Miillcr-Armack only: no German academic agreed, despite the Bonn Government’s pressure, to go to Brussels125. The French delegation by contrast included, alongside representatives of the ministerial departments concerned, the rectors of Paris, Dijon and Lille, and the dean of the Sorbonne literature faculty. The French delegation was thus able to get its point of view across: to keep the European institutes within their national framework and limit the mission of the Euro- pean Education and Research Council. It is important to note in this connection that other delega- tions had somewhat different stances. The Belgian delegation had expressed doubt as to the possibility for the Council to choose the institutions it would award the status of European Institute to. It would have preferred the stress to be on the establishment of joint $ research and teaching programmes for this or that discipline, and on concerted action by the various specialized institutes in the various countries. Similarly, the joint memorandum by the West German rectors and the Deutsche Forschimgsgemeinschaft of 24 February 1960 indicated that the task of the European Research Council should be to set up joint institutes, or bring together already existing research institutes126. Roger Scydoux attributed the French success to the fact that the delegation — both adminis- tration and university — had been in group B (European insti- tutes), the position hitherto held by its Italian and German part- ners: it had put forward constructive projects, which the reservation or at any rate indecision of a single delegation (Ger- many) had prevented following up. The Belgians and Dutch had quite naturally supported the French views, wrhich they had always more or less openly hoped to see triumph. As for the Italian delegates, anxious to secure at least the establishment of one insti- I tution on their national territory, they could oppose it all the less

“stubborn mules”, but would after all end up understanding the need for a European University, which they were mainly "jealous” of. MAKE; Q1E, vol. 175. Note from Direc- torate-General for Cultural and Technical Affairs to Europe Directorate, 4 December 1959. !’5 PA/AA; ref, 604, Hand 806, Muller-Rorsehach (Directorate of European Affairs) to Von Rahm, 24 November 1959. '-A AN-EN; 7705(18/130. Note from Gaston Berger to principal private secretary of Education Minister, 9 March 1960.

83 because the reservations by their own academics had been growing for some time. At the Hague congress, the Italian Secretary of State for Education, Scaglia, had stated that while his country had scored a success he considered important since Florence had been chosen as the headquarters for the projected university, all aca- demics in Italy were against its creation. The same had been true for Belgium, whose representative in The Hague had not hesitated to openly contradict his country’s official position on the m atter,27. In particular, because it had kept the Länder and universities outside the project too long, the Auswärtiges Amt found itself in late 1959 paralysed in the Brussels negotiations,2X. Ophuels de- scribes the position with the European University project from the German side thus: “the project cannot be rejected without clashing with foreign policy, nor accepted without difficulties for domestic policy Despite Hirsch’s intervening with the Rektorenkonfe- renz and then Adenauer himself, whom he asked to bring his influence in favour of the most ambitious university project to bear on the universities and the Lander, it seemed to be believed in Bonn that even the Chancellor would be powerless to overcome the latters’ resistance. The Federal Government, having brought about a suspension of discussion in committee for two months to allow internal consultations, ended with no other way out than to let itself be won over to the French views, which seemed the only ones capable of securing the German academics’ support without completely calling the projects under study in question again127 *130.

127 MAEF; QIE, vol 175. Note from Directorate-General for Cultural and Technical Affairs op. ciu, 16 November 1959. ,2X PA/AA; referat. 604-Band 502/1. Minutes of meeting of 19 and 24 February 1958 at the Auswärtiges Amt. Throughout the negotiations, the Lander Education Ministers and the rectors had complained of being insufficiently informed by the Bonn offices and of being faced with fails accomplis. The answers given by Carstens (AA Political Directorate) and Von Triilzschler (Directorate for Cultural Affairs) were unable to reassure them: when Braun (Westdeutsche Rektorvnkon/eren: ) asked Von Tmtzschler about the European University's raison d'etre, he confined himself to replying that it is a "political fact” (politische Tatsache). He added that Article 9 offered room for manoeuvre to create an Anstalt (university institution), which increased his interlocutor's suspicions as to the degree of real autonomy it might have. PA/AA; ref. 606-Band 806, Telegram n. 4271 from Ophuels to Auswärtiges Amt, 21 November 1959. Cf. AN-EN 770508/130. Project for a European Research Centre by Professor Gerhard Hess, 14 January 1960. Working group A, joint memorandum of the ständige

84 After February 1960, Committee meetings were marked by the stea- dily growing part played in each delegation by university representa- tives. Martino, Mcdi and Ophuels came up against almost unani- mous objections by the German and even Italian academics to the project to set up a great university in Florence. All the academics saw it as a future rival that risked outshining their national universi- ties and being likely to attract the best professors and divert some of the meagre funds they were allotted. Moreover, they understood better than the diplomats the technical difficulties militating against setting up a new university at high academic level. Thus, under the pressure of the German academics it was accepted that the Higher Education Council would not be confined to giving the European label to existing national institutes, but could also set up new European ones elsewhere than in Florence, which would be a first step towards dispersion of the European University. This trend was also marked by the orientation in favour of an institute reserved to postgraduates m , and the refusal to plan the teaching of experimental science in Florence, so as to avoid any expenditure on laboratories. The exclamation by a Belgian del- egate, ‘nothing but blackboards and chalk’ was taken up in vari- ous versions by the academics of most delegations* 132. Finally, in a third section, the Interim Committee concerned itself with the relations among traditional universities.

3) The expansion of university exchanges The Committee report pointed out four sectors deserving sus- tained effort: the search for equivalence of degrees, harmonization of study programmes, multiplication of exchanges of persons, and the setting up of a reciprocal information system.

Kultusministerkonferenz, Westdeutsche Rektorenkonferenz, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst and Hochschulverband, 24 February 1960, ECHA; BAC 118/1986, n. 2200. Interim Committee Secretariat, group A: Declaration by Govern- ment of German Federal Republic on the European University, 23 February 1963. 111 The German academics' preference was for creating Europeanized national centres of advanced studies. PA/AA; ref. 604, Band 802-11, minutes of meeting of 8 December 1958. li: MAEF; QIE, vol. 176. Note from Scydoux to Europe Directorate, 29 February 1960. 85 It was proposed that the European Higher Education and Research Council be invited to take initiatives on the point of the mutual recognition of degree certificates; with an eye to this, work- ing groups consisting of representatives of the Six might be set up. In this connection, account would of course be taken of the work already done by the European organizations, especially the dis- cussions around Article 57 of the Rome Treaty. The setting up of systematic equivalence machinery would be associated with a minimum of harmonization of programmes that would have to be arrived at. The outcome of these arrangements would lead to very clear growth in exchanges of students and professors within Europe. A great step in this direction would have been taken if belter information on exchange possibilities could be established. For this reason, the committee proposed setting up a guidance and documentation centre under the auspices of the Higher Education and Research Council. In the first place, the centre would have the task of establishing a “student passport”, a document each sheet of which would give an account of the holder's academic life. In the second place, however, the centre would publish, and especially update, a “ European students’ guide”, an essential basis for mobility in practice. It would also create a card index of teaching posts to be filled and a register of equivalences already accepted l33. Finally, in general terms, the endeavour would be made to collect and publish all documentation concerning higher education and research, enabling duplication of European efforts in this area to be avoided. From this viewpoint, the Committee’s proposals implied the setting-up of a genuine agency for coordination and stimulation in the area of university policy134. This concern to endow university Europe with the institutional infrastructure that it lacked can be found again in the last chapter of the report, on institutional questions.

133 ECHA; Interim Committee Report.... op. cit., chapter III, "University exchanges”, p. 23-29. IM /hid, p. 27-28.

86 4) The University’s institutional infrastructure The University of Europe would be headed by a Council of Ministers composed of representatives of the Governments. It seemed desirable for it to operate in the context of the Community Councils, on rules “ identical with the provisions o f the Rome Treaties, or similar for those it would be essential to convert” 13S. This body would have decisional power and some essential financial powers in areas defined by the Committee. The European Higher Education and Research Council would consist of 20 mem- bers appointed by the States and the Community institutions; it would meet at least three times per year, in different compositions according to whether it was considering matters regarding the university in the strictest sense or other problems in its province. The Council would have the task of implementing directives from the Council of Ministers, drawing up a preliminary draft budget and following up its implementation, establishing any useful link among international institutions pursuing similar goals, and so on. It would, then, be the decisive technical agency in Europe for university integration. At the level of the university itself, three authorities would be involved. The Rector, appointed unanimously by the Council of Ministers on proposal of the professorial senate for a period of three years, would have functions of administration and manage- ment, and chair the Administrative Board and Professorial Sen- ate. He would be assisted by an administrator appointed for five years on the same terms. The Administrative Board would be so constructed as to include at least one national of each of the States parties to the Statutes. On it would be the Rector, the administrator, and nine people appointed by the Council of Min- isters, one third renewable every three years; three of these mem- bers would be part of the professorial staff. In practical terms, the Administrative Board would hold the most important powers for the University’s functioning. It would, in accord with the Profes- sorial Senate, draw up the institution’s internal regulations and 115

115 Ibid., p. 32-33. 87 lay down the provisions regarding the award of degrees; it would decide on the creation of chairs and appoint professors, assistants and staff136. On the institutional aspects, the management bodies were the object of speedy consensus. Delegations very quickly agreed (in part under pressure from academics) on giving the European University a maximum of autonomy. In consequence, it was to have bodies responsible in academic and management terms for ensuring the smooth functioning of the university in their respect- ive spheres. The Committee took inspiration from the practices of certain European universities (such as Delft) and of American universities, by entrusting the former function to an academic council made up of professors, and the other to an extra-university Administrative Board comparable with a transatlantic Board of Trustees *37. By contrast, the question of the legal form to give the foun- ding act of the “first European University institution”, namely Council decision, convention or some other form of agreement concluded by Member States, aroused vigorous controversy. At meetings in Brussels held in March and April 1960, in group A bis, dealing with legal questions, deep differences of opinion emerged on this point. Very briefly, it may be said that after French ob- struction and German hesitation, it was now Dutch formalism that was again calling in question the general organization of European university cooperation. The Community representatives (Hirsch, Hallstein, Coppc) maintained that the university ought to be set up by decision of the Council of Ministers, based on Articles 9 and 203 of the Euratom Treaty and Article 235 of the EEC Treaty. The latter were worded as follows: “I f action by the Community should prove necessary to attain one o f the objectives o f the Community and this Treaty has not provided the necessary powers, the Council shall, acting unanimously

m ECU A; Interim Committee Report, op. at., chapter IV, “ Legal and institutional provisions”, p. 31-39. 1,7 ECHA; BAC 118/1986, n. 2197. Memorandum containing the initial responses by Interim Committee members to their remit in connection with the first European university- level institution.

88 on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the Assem- bly, take the appropriate measures" m . The Auswärtiges Amt stated clearly that the institutional frame- work of the Six ought to be retained as far as possible. The Eur- atom Treaty, broadly interpreted, ought to be the legal basis for creating the university. Von Brentano, Müllcr-Armack and Ophucls were in fact hoping that in these circumstances the Lander would regard themselves as committed and not refuse their assent139. The solution of the “intergovernmental convention or agree- ment” was upheld by the Dutch. On 14 March, the Hague delega- tion (Reinink) tabled major reservations on any solution leading to a European University in the institutional framework of the Six. It stressed that in its eyes the future European University could not be confined to the Six, and that its organization ought to allow associ- ation at any time, with equal rights, of other European countries wishing to take part. The Dutch thus considered that the future European Higher Education Council ought not in any way to de- pend on Euratom or the Common Market, and should come under a Council of Ministers distinct from the Councils provided for those bodies. Though the Dutch proposal was imprecise on this point, this would seem to mean a Council of Education Ministers that could at any moment be joined by the Minister from a new European na- tion 140. According to the French representative in Brussels, Gorce, this very marked intervention by the Dutch delegation had to be connected with the British approach at the same time, aimed at introducing a British observer into the preparatory meetings for the European University141. The Hague was once again acting as the

liR MAEF; QIE, vol. 176. Telegram from George Gorce (French representalive at the Communities) to Couvc dc Murville, 9 March 1960. IW PA/AA; ref. 604-Band 806. Note from Auswärtiges Amt of 7 May I960; Article 9 ought to be “broadly interpreted" in order not to run the risk of seeing the university restricted to a mere nuclear research centre. 140 OKW-HO; 251-V. Minute of a talk between Hirsch and Cals, 8 March 1960. 141 This is confirmed by the Dutch archives: OKW-HO; 252-VH. Ruttcn (Dutch delegation in Brussels) in his telex 181 of 2 May 1960 mentions great interest on the British, Swiss and Swedish sides. Heigh of Cultural Relations at the Foreign Office and Suncr of European Economic Organizations at the Foreign Office admitted the political interest in association. British ambassador Tandy mentioned the possibility of an observer’s attending the Committee meetings, 4 May I960.

89 i J

Trojan horse for British sabotage machinations142. In fact, the Dutch intervention puzzled some other delegations 14\ Italian ambassador Cattani, in the chair, stressed that it was important to reach a concrete outcome quickly, and that any calling in question of the general organization for European university cooperation again would mean troublesome delaysl44. The Germans, anxious not to bring the document founding the university itself before their Bundesrat, opposed the notion of the convention as the form. If one were to move towards an intergovern- mental agreement, departing even only slightly from the Euratom Treaty, the Auswärtiges Amt could only sign it under reservation, since it would be necessary to have the Länder brought into the new Treaty 145*. The French delegation took an intermediate position, opposing both the German and the Dutch positions. On the one hand it sought to fortify itself against arguments that might be drawn from Treaty Articles 235 and 203: “their use,'" wrote Gorcc, “is hard to reconcile with our position that the European University should he set up in the margin of the Treaties'"’H(\ These Articles in fact risked giving the Communities considerable powers, and recourse to these provisions for the European University would create a redoubtable precedent, setting going a process it would be hard to stop. But Paris was also anxious about the Dutch positions that seemed to contemplate creating new European institutions of a Community character. The university ought at least at the outset to remain within the framework of the Six, which for France represented a major cultural trump147.

142 fhici., Gorcc (Brussels) to Roger Scydoux, Directorate-General for Cultural and Technical Affairs, 18 March 1960. 143 PA/AA; ref. 604, Band 806. Ophuels speaks of “ vigorous, unanimous rejection", 18 March 1960. 144 ¡bid. Telegram from Gorcc to Couve de Murville. 9 March I960; and MAPI; telegram n. 10684, I960, vol. I, Italrap (Cattani) to the Directorate for Economic and Cultural Relations, 6 April 1960. 145 MAEF; QIE. vol, 176. Telegram from Roger Scydoux (French ambassador in Bonn) to Directorate for Cultural and Technical Affairs, 10 March 1960 and PA/AA; ref. 604-Band-806. note Saltier, 9 May 1960. I4<’ MAEF; QIE, vol. 176. Georges Gorcc to Maurice Couve de Murville, "European University, legal group", 9 March 1960. 147 MAEF; QIE. vol. 176. Note from legal service of Directorate-General for Cultural and Technical Affairs, 8 April I960.

90 The French delegation finally came down in favour of a mini- sterial body made up of representatives of the European Commu- nity Member States, meeting in the framework of the EEC and EAEC Councils. The rules governing its operation ought however to be laid down in the University’s statutes and conventions ac- cording to the model of the Rome Treaty provisions, but without explicit reference to those Treaties,4X. Finally, at the last meetings held in Florence, the Interim Committee did not deal with the matter, confining itself to noting the three positions. The report provided that the ministerial body to create the university and monitor its functioning would be a Council of Ministers sitting as “ representatives of the Commu- nity Member States”, and therefore distinct from the Councils provided for these bodies. The founding act of the university would among other recitals refer to Article 9 of the Euratom Treaty, but the new institution would not legally constitute an extension of the existing Treaties, and the various creations planned would be covered by classical Conventions among the six States148 149. France seemed able to accept these projects since they largely took account of French concerns in political, cultural, and legal terms. For (a) there was no simple extension of the European Trea- ties; (b) the creation of new European policy institutions of a pol- itical nature was avoided; and (c) the university would at least at the outset remain within the framework of the Six, which offered very favourable ground for the French language. This was at any rate the opinion formulated by the Directorate-General for Cul- tural and Technical Affairs of the Quai d’Orsay150. By contrast the Bonn Government went back on the agreement given by its experts on the institutional and legal provisions, with the Minister of the Interior and the representative of the Lander Culture Ministers

148 MAEF; QIE, vol. 176. Secretarial of the Interim Committee for the European University (Duchalcau): “ Plan for an institutional framework for implementing the mandate for the European University”, Brussels, 20 April I960. I4l> Ibid., Note from legal service for Director-General for Cultural and Technical Affairs, 8 April 1960, and MAEI; telegram 1960, vol III, n. 12793. Italrap (Cattani) to divisions for Economics and Cultural Relations, 22 April 1960. 150 MAEF; QIE vol.176. Note from Directorate-General for Cultural and Technical Affairs to Europe Directorate, 3 May I960.

91 -4 j

categorically rejecting the formula of a university in the margin of the European TreatiesIS1. Another problem not regulated by the Interim Committee was funding for the university. The Committee had of course estimated the total expenditure to budget for all activities provided; on the basis of assumptions on the number of students and the construc- tion of the buildings, it arrived at 18 million European units of account over five years152. Three problems presented themselves at this point: - the margin of budget autonomy to give the university in the framework of all the European university cooperation institu- tions. The French position was that the authority drawing up the budget should be the European Higher Education and Research Council, so that the university’s budget would only be a part of the Council’s; - where the monies were to come from: the Germans, Ita- lians, Belgians and Luxcmbourgers and the European Commissions felt that funding should be, if not totally ensured by the Communi- ties, at least shared between them and the Member States. The French position was to reserve funding to the States alone; - the third problem was whether the European Parliament ought to take part in the budget procedures. It had indicated that it was following the studies in hand very closely, and the Euratom Commission had not concealed its desire to treat what had been said in the Assembly on funding as a stimulus to the development of European cultural institutions. For his part, Italian representative Cattani showed concern to take account of at least some of Parlia- ment’s wishes. He felt that the normal way would be annual consi- deration of the budget by the Assembly153. His German and Belgian

151 Ibid. Telegram n. 2877, French embassy in Bonn to Roger Scydoux, 30 May 1960. ,S1 MAEB; file on the “ European University" Note from Van der Mculcn (Perma- nent Representative of Belgium to the European Communities) to Pierre Wigny (Minister for Foreign Affairs) on the work of the “ Budget Group”, 7 April I960. I5i MAEI; Telegram 1960, vol. II, n. 20442, Italrap (Cattani) to Economics Division, 14 June 1960. MAEF; Q1E, vol. 177. Gorce to François-Poncet (European organizations- Europe Directorate), 14 June 1960.

92 colleagues were in agreement, whereas the Dutchman Linthorst- Homan was more reserved. From the French viewpoint, while it was accepted that the Assembly would consider these points in general terms — it would, for instance, be normal for the university's annual report to be submitted to it — it was by contrast felt inappropriate to give it any budget powers whatever in this area154. In response to the wishes of Etienne Hirsch, who wrantcd to hurry things along, the report stated that the university should open its doors in Autumn 1961. It will be noted that the work of the Interim Committee would have allowed this, since it had al- ready settled so many details and difficulties. In parallel with the university, the bases for a structured, guided European cooperation had also been laid, in the attempt to solve the problems on a multi- national scale. All Committee members had taken part in the work with passionate interest and in a constructive spirit. Etienne Hirsch says in his Memoirs (Ainsi va la vie) that he had in particular "■appreciated the attitude of Roger Seydoux, who, aware o f the susceptibilities of his Minister Couve de Murville and anxious not to be disavowed, did not hesitate to phone him to ask him about word- ing that might raise problems" 155. One must in fact admire the ingenuity of a system that was able to put small cogs together while ensuring they would all intermesh. However, the institutional and financial questions were the object of alternative proposals by the experts. These were the most important problems that the Council of Ministers would be called on to decide at their meetings in Junc-July 1960.

C) Adjournment of the Interim Committee Project at the EEC and EAEC Councils (June - July 1960)

The meetings of these Councils on 20-21 June and 19 July marked a pause in the supranational orientation of the European

li4 MAEE; QIE, vol. 177. Note from Roger Seydoux to Maurice Couve de Murvillç, 9 J une 1960. ,5S Etienne Hirsch, .-Hu m va la vie. op. vit., p. 164.

93 j r

University. Everything began well, however, with the Ministers approving, in general terms, the Committee report presented by Etienne Hirsch. Things went bad during the discussion, because of three reservations raised by the French Government. These reser- vations even questioned the very title of the European University, as well as its funding and the institutional framework of the planned enterprise156. Couve de Murville started by questioning the title of the fu- ture “ university-level institution”. Given the features of the pro- posed institution the title “ European University” seemed to him mistaken, as not in line with reality, and inappropriate, as suggest- ing overambitious prospects. The term ‘European Higher Educa- tion Institute1 seemed to him more appropriate, especially since it took over the terms of reference from the Councils to the Interim Committee: “ initial European university teaching establishment”. Despite speeches by the German, Belgian and Italian Ministers, Van Scherpenberg, Wigny and Russo, who asserted that it was appropriate to keep the name “European University” so as not to diminish the importance of the planned creation nor give the impres- sion that it was a second-order institution (Etienne Hirsch noted that using the term “ Institute” instead of “University” would cause confusion between the European University and the specialized teaching and research institutes provided for in the Interim Commit- tee’s title II)157, the French Minister confirmed his stance. Also disputed was the suggestion of funding through Commu- nity channels. Couve de Murville expressed his opinion that only contributions by Member States should be provided for. The Com- munities themselves were funded by the Member States, and he felt it inappropriate to provide for contributions to cultural activities to be paid through Brussels. Reasons of a pragmatic nature, how- ever, brought him to suggest recourse to the ECSC, a Community

1!* F.CHA; BAC 118/198, n. 2208, Euratom spokesman: Information note on the European University, 24 June I960. MAEB; file on the European University, Director- ate-General P. to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, 3 March 1964. ,î? ECHA; BAC 79/1989, n. 236. Extract from draft minutes (item 10: consideration of report by Interim Committee for the European University) of the meeting of the EF,C and EAEC Councils in Brussels on 20 and 21 June 1960.

94 r L

95 which had its own resources to facilitate, at least at the start, the accomplishment of the planned enterprise158. A third reservation, finally, related to the institutional frame- work, which the French delegation wanted to be distinct from the Community one. Couvc de Murville felt that the work of cultural cooperation was completely foreign to the matters dealt with in the Community framework. This cooperation could accordingly not fit into the activities of these Communities. However, in this case, his position seemed to be dictated more by practical considerations, and the French Minister did not formally rule out the possibility for the European University to be brought under the Community framework l59 *. The German representative indicated that the Federal Government was not able to state its position on the matter, pending a decision by the Länder Culture Ministers. While five Governments were prepared to accept the Interim Committee’s proposals, even if the Dutch delegation (Cals) stressed the need to alter the Community formula should third countries join 16°, the sixth questioned the very principle of the enterprise, thus going back on the position of its representatives Gaston Ber- ger and Roger Seydoux stated in Committee. It was thus learnt at the end of the meeting on 19 July that “since no formula o f agreement had been found during the work, the Councils agreed to continue study of these proposals in the framework o f the Committee o f Representatives, in close liaison with Air Hirsch, chair o f the Interim Committee, and to resume discussion at their next meeting”. This referral back to Committee meant in fact discarding the April 1960 proposal. It should further be noted that failure of the Florence projects brought with it that of the two other aspects contained in the report, since the three objects pursued were re- garded as tied together. The fact may be deplored that since that date university Europe has tended for long to be confused in the mind of politicians, but also the public, with the European Univer- sity as such. It is true that at the meeting the French Government

l5* ¡hid.. Extract from draft minutes of Councils..., op. cit., p. 8 and 32. 159 ¡bid., p. 26. ECHA; BAC 118/198, n. 2208, Euratom spokesman: Information note on the European University, 28 June 1960. Iw) Ibid., Extract from draft minutes of Councils, p. 30 and 31.

96 had asked for the problem of university exchanges to be discussed, without awaiting the setting up of the bodies provided for in the Interim Committee report, particularly the European Education and Research Council, and for them to be studied by an ad hoc working groupul. This alternative, however, seemed in many re- spects to be a move meant to bring the discussion outside the Community area. From the viewpoint of the diplomatic lessons to be drawn from the adjournment of the 1960 proposals, it should first be noted that here the Council, not much concerned with the logic of Community institutions, had not acted as the deciding body of a pre-federal agency, but rather presented the image of a tradi- tional diplomatic conference. While the majority rule was required by the text of Article 9, it preferred in the absence of unanimity to postpone sine die projects accepted by five Governments, and into the bargain unanimously approved by the European Parliamentu>2. That as Italian representative Cattani notes this was “opposi- tion in principle and a political decision” there can be no doubt K,\ It is clear that this decision is directly bound up with rejection of integration policy, for which at this point in time Paris was hoping to substitute a policy of intergovernmental cooperation. The key to the French attitude in the Council, and accordingly to the failure in July 1960, is in fact undoubtedly to be found in the text of General dc Gaulle’s press conference on 5 September of the same year: ”... But what are the realities o f Europe? What are the pillars ue can build on (...)? in fact, they are the States [...] imagining anything effective for action can be built or approved by the peoples over and above the States is a chimera. It is quite natural for the States o f Europe to have at their disposal specialized agencies for problems common to them, to prepare and where necessary follow up their decisions, but these decisions belong to them [...] Assuring regular cooperation o f the States o f Western Europe is something *162

,6( ibid., p. 15-16. 162 Daniel Thérond. L'l-ninrsité Furopéenne: vicissitudes et perspectives, op. cit., p. 111. 165 MAEI; telegram n. 25561, 1960, vol. I, Italrap (Cattani) to the Directorates for the Economy and for Cultural Relations, 20 July 1960.

97

4 France regards as desirable, possible and practical in the political, economic, cultural and defence spheres. What does that entail? It entails organized, regular concertation of the Governments respon- sible, and then the work of specialized agencies in each o f these common areas, subordinated to the Governments These notions were to be translated in diplomatic terms by the French side into the sketch for the planned political organization of the Europe of the Six known as the “ Fouchct Plan”, one aspect of which, on cultural cooperation, would lose little time in incor- porating the “Florence project”.

98 PART THREE THE EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY PROJECT IN THE CONTEXT OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION (1961-69)

I - T h e U niversity in Fl o r e n c e

The decision on 20 June docs however have a positive side: it was the day when the EEC and Euratom Councils provisionally set the site for the European University as Florence164. The Euratom president was asked to do all the preparatory studies — without committing expenditure — to enable the European University to open its doors in autumn 1961. The study of these preparatory measures was to be done before the next meeting of the Councils on 18 July 1960, thus avoiding a year’s delay in installation work. It was accordingly necessary for the Italian authorities, with which the Interim Committee chairman immediately began negotiations, to make specific proposals. The need was above all for an outline plan for utilization of the proposed establishment: teaching rooms, library, administrative offices, accommodation and associated ser- vices (canteen), recreation and sports grounds, as available at the end of the five-year transition period (with between five hundred and seven hundred and fifty students)165. There are certainly things one might ask. Given the turn of events, was France not just “playing to the gallery” pending prep- aration of an intergovernmental cultural cooperation plan166? The Italian government nonetheless regarded the choice of Florence as the happy close to two years of efforts.

A) The background to the headquarters question: Luxembourg or Florence?

Initially, the question of the university had been discussed more in relation with the dispute among Member States on the allocation of the scats of the common institutions than by itself.

164 ECU A; BAC 118/1986, n. 2208. Extract from note on restricted meeting of Foreign Ministers in Brussels, 20 June I960 (site of European University), 16 July 1960. 165 Ibid. Euratom Commission spokesman, 24 June 1960. 166 This was Hallstcin’s opinion - he regarded the Florence meetings and the decisions of the Strasbourg Parliament on the University as "public relation operations". For him. the important things were happening in the Fouchct Committee; in BA-HN-220, Bourgui- gnon (Hallslein's chef dc cabinet), to Narjcs. 13 April 1961.

101 The university was then regarded essentially as a bargaining point in the great diplomatic manoeuvres developing around the question in the second half of 1958. The affair started in spring 1958 in the run-up to the meeting of Ministers of the Six to choose the head- quarters for the Community Institutions, scheduled for July. At the Quai d’Orsay’s Europe Directorate167 and at the Dutch Foreign Ministry168, the initial finding was that the Germans wanted the university for essentially political reasons. Regarding the site for it, it was noted that the Germans and Belgians were really keen on seeing it set up in Luxembourg. Perhaps they had in mind, speculated Paris and The Hague, the need to unblock the Luxem- bourg situation by offering the Grand Duchy reasonable compen- sation, so that it would agree to give up the ECSC, “ which could in Mr Hallstein's view then be set up in Brussels alongside the other two Communities"169 170*. It would, noted Carbonnel, further be necessary for “ the planned university, to satisfy Mr Bech. to be on a European scale " l7°; which might explain the enormous size of the German project. The Auswärtiges Amt archives confirm this point of view, with some qualifications. One might start by asking one obvious ques- tion: ought not the European University of which the Germans were the strongest supporters naturally to be in Germany? How is one to explain the fact that the Bonn Government chose to locate it abroad? The German universities, very decentralized and falling under Länder powers exclusively, certainly took a very dim view of locat- ing alongside them a university that would depend much more closely on the national authorities (an Anstalt). That was why the Federal Government thought of Luxembourg. There was a pretext: Hallstein had been presented in March 1958 with a project by Albert van Houtte, representative of the Board of Governors of

167 MAEF; QIE, vol. 175. European Policy Directorate: note for president Maurice Faure, 16 May 1958 “ European University Project" m OK.W-HO; 251-1, Luns to Cals, 23 May 1958. ,f>9 MAEF; QIE, vol, 175, Note from Europe Directorate to president Maurice Faure, op. cit., 16 May 1958. 170 Ibid., vol. 174. Carbonnel to Europe Directorate, 14 June 1958. Bech was then Foreign Minister of the Grand Duchy.

102 the European Schools and clerk of the Court of Justice of the Communities171. This project was a natural extension of the good experience with the European Schools, born of private initiative in Luxembourg, when primary and then secondary education had to be organized for children of ECSC officials172 *174. Given official status on 12 April 1957, the school in Luxembourg, which was to be joined by those in Brussels, Mol and Varese (set up on the initia- tive of Etienne Hirsch), had had its success confirmed with the successful introduction of a “European baccalaureate” recognized not just by Community Member States but by third countries too. According to van Houtte’s proposals, the university, designed as the crown of the structure, would open its doors in 1959 once the first European baccalaureate certificates had been awarded; its status would emerge from negotiations conducted, under the res- ponsibility of the Ministers, by the directors for Higher Education and Cultural Relations of the Six. It was best to ensure first and foremost the setting up of faculties with a “ European connection” : philology and literature, political economy, economics, compara- tive law and diplomatic science, atomic science etc., but it was important to arrive eventually at the inclusion of all the classical faculties. In April 1958 Hallstein supported this proposal, which advocated that the university should be set up in Luxembourg l7\ But the essential reason was a political one. The Government and the Federal Chancellor had indicated their preference for con- centrating the Community institutions in Brussels. Though Hall- stein had sought to disguise German and Belgian intentions, going so far as to advise von Triitzschlcr to ask for the Netherlands to take the initiative!74, it was clear that before any discussion on the “single seat”, the precedent of Luxembourg had to be removed (since unanimity was required for the seat, Luxembourg's veto was an insurmountable obstacle). The Belgians and Germans knew that

,7) BA*HN; (Hallstein Nachlaß) - 213 Memo from Albert van Houttc to Walter Hallstein, 26 March 1958. 177 On the European schools, cf Henri Magnin, Les Leoles Européennes, thesis. University of Nancy MI, I960. m PA/AA; ref. 604, Band 502/1. Hallstein to Albert van Houttc, 13 April 1958. 174 PA/AA; ref. 604, Band 502/1. Note from Müller Rosehach, 28 April 1958.

103 to get Bech to give up the ECSC, he had to be offered reasonable compensation175. Among the types of compensation envisaged were the foundation in Luxembourg of a European University. But Bech rejected the university as compensation, regarding it as more of a complement to the ECSC, “just like a butcher adding some bones to the meat he is weighing” l76. That is why he rejected the proposal made to him by Erhard in late June, a few hours before the Council was to discuss the headquarters question 177 *. Bcch’s tergiversations left the field open to the Italians, who then put forward the candidacy of Florence. It may be said that at the outset, the whole interest of the Rome Government in the European University lay in having it located in Italy. The Italians had not particularly responded to Hallstein’s proposal at Messina, and had been particularly reticent during the initial exchanges of views on the question at the Coun- cils in May 1958,78. Everything changed sharply after the conference on 1 and 2 July 1958, at which the Foreign Ministers of the Six had failed to reach agreement on the choice of a common seat for the institu- tions set up by the Treaties. Amintore Fanfani, Council president and Italian Foreign Minister, at that point clarified the Italian position: to aim at a definitive solution to the question by creating a European district. In the meantime, in order not to let the provisional position become definitive, with Brussels increasingly becoming dc facto capital, the main headquarters ought to be redistributed. Italy should receive the Joint Nuclear Research Centre and the European University: Rome would not oppose leaving the ECSC in Luxembourg for a number of years, and

,7i PA/AA; ref. 604, Band 502/1. Secretary of Stale for Foreign Affairs van Schcr- penberg to the German ambassador in Brussels, 28 February 1958. m Ibid., Spretti (German ambassador in Luxembourg) to Auswärtiges Amt, l March 1958. 177 MAEF; QIE, vol, 175. Guyot (French ambassador in the Grand Duchy) to Diplomatie, Paris, telegram of 24 June 1948. 17,1 ECHA; CM 1958, doc. 951. Extract from minutes of restricted session of EEC and ECSC Councils, Brussels, 20 May 1958. “ First exchanges of views on a European University Institution and a joint nuclear research centre".

104 stated it was in favour of setting up the Court of Justice in The Hague and the European Investment Bank in Parism .

B) The Italian diplomatic offensive and the choice of Florence

This strategy was pursued in consultation with Paris, on the occasion of an official trip there by Fanfani on 8 August 1958. In a note drafted for the occasion, the Economics Directorate of the Ministero degli Esteri noted that “there is at least immediate tactical convergence between us and the French: we do not want the position of Brussels as single capital to crystallize in the long term. It is therefore legitimate to think that the French too are convinced o f the appropriateness o f an initiative aimed at unblocking the position and distributing the existing institutions better (...). I f the French Government were rightly guided, it ought not to oppose transfer of Euratom to Milan, or at least the installation in Italy o f the European University, the Bank and the Joint Nuclear Research Centre179 180 In Paris, Fanfani had talks with Couve de Murville. The dialogue on the headquarters deserves quotation in full, since it is so explicit: “ Fanfani considers that if one wishes to emphasize the provisional nature o f the installation of the European Communities in Brussels, there is great interest at present in redistributing the main headquarters among other various countries, so that Brussels cannot subsequently claim to become the capital o f Europe. In this light, one might leave Strasbourg and Luxembourg with the institutions already there; leave the Economic Community in Brussels, and split the rest between France and Italy, that is, the European Investment Bank, Euratom, the University and the Nuclear Research Centre. - Fanfani: would the French be prepared to waive installing Euratom in France?

179 Giuseppe Vedovalo, "Ancora sull'Università Europea di Firenze”, in Rivista iti studi patitici internazionali, n. 4, Oelobcr-Decembcr 1962, in accordance with an instruction from Fanfani to the ambassadors to Member States of the European Communities, 5-6 September 1958. IN() MAPI; Gabinetto, Segreteria, Pacchetto 130, Direzione generale degli Affari eco- nomici: "Viaggio di S. E. F'anfani a Parigi, questioni eoncomiehc”, August 1958.

105 - Couve de Murville: in any case we cannot give up retaining the parliamentary assembly in Strasbourg. Fanfani would welcome the European Bank in Paris and poss- ibly the Nuclear Research Centre. Why should the University not go to Florence?”m . It was finally decided that “the best, thing would he to consider through diplomatic channels between the French and Italian Govern- ments the questions raised at this meeting, and once agreement has been reached, to accept its being discussed in Brussels''’ m . These consultations, held during October, had a favourable out- come. On the French side, the installation of the European University in Luxembourg aroused the gravest reservations, both at the Commis- sariat a l’Energie Atomique and in university circles181 *183. With tacit agreement secured from Paris, Rome embarked on diplomatic action to have the seat of the European University assigned to Florence. A working group was set up for the purpose, chaired by Gaetano Martino (Minister and Professor of Medicine at the University of Messina). He drew up the Italian memorandum, which was approved by Germany and Luxembourg184 (see previous chapter). This project was, as we have seen, inspired by two basic principles: 1) It should not be a postgraduate training institute but a full university that should be set up; 2) The European University ought to be an intellectual, academic and technical centre able to respond to Europe’s great cultural traditions185. Especially, however, the Italians got their co-signatories to agree that the question of the site be regarded as “open”, since at that point Luxembourg still had a lead over its Tuscan rival.

181 MAEF; Q1E, vot. 174. Minute of the talk between Mr Fanfani and Mr Couve de Murville in Paris, 8 August 1958. ,8’ MAEF; QIE, vol. 174. Telegram from Palcwski (French ambassador in Rome) to Couve de Murville. The approach was made on 9 October. Palcwski then indicated that the Italian Government was preparing to propose that the European University be sited in Florence. Palazzo Chigi was interested in hearing France's feelings. MAEF; QIE, vol. 174. Carbonnel to Europe Directorate, 14 June 1958. 184 PA/AA; ref. 604, Band 502^2. Ophucls to Muller-Armack “ The possibilities of an Italo-Gcrman proposal”, 10 October 1958. 185 Guiscppe Vedovato, “Ancora suH'Universita.,.”, op. cit., p. 9.

106 With the ground well prepared, Fanfani drove home his ad- vantage, first by officially presenting the candidacy of Florence in a speech in Milan (December 1958), then by making the setting up of the University in Florence a prior condition in the Community negotiations’86. Italy’s representatives in Member States were asked to indicate to the five partners that Italy would give up the univer- sity only if the European Institutions were no longer concentrated only in northern Europe187. The strongest opposition came from Benelux. The question was discussed at the Benelux Council in July 1959, and the three partners then agreed to reject installation of the University in Florence1Kii. In fact, when the EEC and EAEC Coun- cils tackled the question for the first time, the representatives of the three small countries made reservations. It was the Belgian Minis- ter, Wigny, who seemed the most opposed to the candidacy of the Tuscan capital. He hoped to link the choice of site for the Univer- sity with the general question of the single scat for the common institutions. The decision ought then to be postponed until “after fixing the scat for ail the in stitu tio n sWigny was weakly supported by Luns: the Netherlands had in fact for some time been studying the possibility of making Pettcn a candidate for the site of the nuclear research centreliW. But Gaetano Martino, chairing the meeting, found two weighty allies in the persons of von Brcntano and Couve de Murvillc, who were in agreement in thinking that the question of a single scat related only to institutions of a “ political” nature. Martino pushed his advantage by recalling that assurances (regarding Community presidencies) previously given his country had not been kept. In his view, a solution to the scat of the University would, by eliminating an clement of uncertainty, facili- tate decision on a single scat. He further noted that no other candidacy had been raised to oppose Florence’s. Wigny then ended by coming round to the idea of setting the scat of the European University in Italy on a provisional basis m . *

1K6 PA/AA; ref. 604, Band 806. German Embassy in Rome, "Kanfani's speech in Milan on 13 December 1958”, 19 December 1958. ,ft7 PA/AA; ref. 604, Band 806. Note from Van Hassclt (German ambassador in Brussels), 24 January 1959. ,S!t ARA; MR (17), Minutes of Council of Ministers, 27 February 1959. 1IW ARA; MR (17), Minutes of Council of Ministers, 31 July 1959. 107 Accordingly, at the restricted session of the EEC and EAEC Councils on 20 and 21 June 1960, the decision in principle was reached to locate the seat of the European University provisionally in the city of the Medici. Luxembourg’s determination gradually grew weaker. In late 1959 the Grand Duchy’s Foreign Minister lost faith. He was less prepared to commit the expenditure that the installation of a thou- sand students on the Grand Duchy’s territory would entail190 191. Keen to “convert the try” by making best use of the advantage given by this decision (paradoxical into the bargain, since it author- ized studies on an institution whose name, size and budget had not yet been decided), Etienne Hirsch immediately began pressing the Rome Government to encourage it quickly to secure the site where the University would be built, and present an estimate for the work to be done to enable the institution to open in autumn 1961. This would, he said, be “a decisive step towards making the project definitively a reality192". Etienne Hirsch advised immediately bringing the local authori- ties into preparation of the documentation. The Italian authorities responded with alacrity. By October 1960, as the EEC and Eur- atom Councils had asked on 20 and 21 June, the Florence city administration had drawn up a detailed programme for the ground utilization and the buildings to put up; the Italian Government and the city of Florence went on to buy the site needed to house the University l93. But the Florence project was to go through still further devel- opments, by moving as from October 1960 into a framework of intergovernmental cooperation.

190 AN-EN 77508/131 Extract from draft minutes of the conference of representatives of Member State Governments held in Brussels on 25 July 1959 (Item VII — Scat of the European University). 1,1 Ibid. ref. 604, Band 502/2. Bcch to Hallstein (in Bonn), 14 July 1958, Spretti to Auswärtiges Amt, 12 November 1958. 192 ECHA; BAC 118/1986. Letter from Etienne Hirsch to Amintore Fanfani, Italian Prime Minister, 2 August I960. Sec also MAEI; telegram n. 21679, I960, vol. II, Italrap (Cattani) to Economics Directorate, 22 July 1960, 191 Ibid. Memorandum on the project for a European University, 8 November 1960.

108 II - T h e “FLORENCE PROJECT” IN THE CONTEXT OF THE FOUCHET PLAN

Despite the efforts by the Interim Committee chairman and the goodwill shown by the Italian Government, in the Committee of Permanent Representatives on 22 October 1960 the European University project took a decidedly new tack. Gorce, the French representative, suggested "tackling the question of the University in the framework of a European cultural cooperation agency, if it were set up194 The question was henceforth treated by the French as a politi- cal one, so that it could not be tackled except at Foreign Minister level. The Interim Committee had been played into touch195 *.

A) The origins of the Fouchet Plan

For General de Gaulle, there was no question of letting supra- national tendencies grow. He sought to cut back the ECSC High Authority and the Euratom Commission 1%. As for the EEC Com- mission, he acknowledged its usefulness as a technical agency, but

194 MAF.F; Q1L, voi. 177. Telegram n. 734 from Gorce (Brussels) lo Lucei (Europe Directorate). 22 October I960. 1,5 Ibid. Telegram n. 688 from Lucci lo Gorce. 26 October I960. This is the impression (hat also prevailed among France’s partners: in an “Appunto riassun- tivo sull'Università Europea” of 13 December 1965, from the Directorate-General for Cultural AITairs at the “ Ministero degli Esteri” we read: "The disagreement of the Paris Government concerns the basic positions, even though manifested on points of detail {...] The negotiations can be pursued only at ministerial level”, ln MAE1; Affari Relazioni culturali, IU F., d. 83. François-Poncet, of the Europe Directorate, explains to Btankcnhorn that the European University is primarily a political question, and it would therefore be easier to resolve in the context of De Gaulle's proposals; in PA/A A; ref. 604, Band 907, telex n. 1092 from Blankcnhorn to Auswärtiges Amt, 9 November I960. Maillard, technical adviser to the General Secretariat of the President of the Republic, repeated to Duchatcau France's objections regarding the University. For him, the matter had become progressively detached from the Rome Treaties, and if it were to be located in the framework of European cooperation the prospects for it would only be more ambitious. One therefore had to “cut the umbilical cord” by considering the terms under which the Interim Committee should make its final statement. In ARC-COM; BDT 248/80, n. 62; Memorandum, talk with Mr Maillard (Duchàtcau), 9 March 1961. m ENSP; CM 7 (Couve de Murvillc archives), “ Note on European organization”, 26 July 1960.

109 i

felt that it could not constitute a political power. This power was something only States were capable of exercising197. It was on the basis of political cooperation among sovereign States that Europe ought to be organized. This cooperation at the highest possible level was needed for the very functioning of the Communities themselves, since any important economic and technical decision ultimately raised political issues for Member States. A first outline was proposed by de Gaulle in Rome on 26 June 1959, in the form of periodic meetings by the Foreign Ministers of France, Federal Germany and Italy. The Italians accepted, on condition that the meetings be of the Six. The Belgians and Dutch raised difficulties because of the absence of Britain, and because they feared a weakening of the EEC. Finally, agreement was reached in November 1959, and the meetings of the six Ministers began in January 1960. This was the timid starting point for political cooperation198. On 15 July 1960, de Gaulle chaired an interministerial meeting on European issues. The General indicated that France ought to take an initiative: “ The object of this initiative would be to make Europe progress towards unity through cooperation among States, not by the path of delegating powers to non-responsible agencies. One might thus set up a political secretariat and an economic secretariat, which would certainly be very close to what the Commissions are, but would constitute bodies made up o f officials preparing decisions o f Govern- ments 199”. This wording makes clear the desire for demarcation from the existing Communities (and perhaps for capping them with the economic secretariat). With these preparations, the decisive step came at Rambouillet on 29 and 30 July 1960, at a meeting with Adenauer. On the 30th,

197 Pierre Gerbet, La Construction de l'Europe, Paris, imprimerie nationale, 2èmc édition, 1994. p. 233. 198 Georges-Henri Soutou, "Le général de Gaulle et le plan Fouchct”, in De Gaulle en son siècle, tome V, L'Europe, Actes des Journées internationales tenues à ¡’Unesco, Paris, 19-24 November 1990, Plon, p. 126-143. 199 Cited in Soutou, art. cit. p, 128. 110 the General handed Adenauer a manuscript note which is the most authoritative expression by de Gaulle himself on the project for political union: as well as a reform of the Atlantic Alliance, which docs not concern our research, the document advocates recasting the existing European Communities. The General goes on to pro- pose regular meetings of Ministers and of heads of State or Govern- ment, prepared by four joint standing committees of officials in the areas of policy, economy, culture and defence. To advance his project, General de Gaulle convoked a mee- ting in Paris on 10 and 11 February 1961 of a “summit" between the French head of State and the heads of Government of the Five, accompanied by the Foreign Ministers. The evening before, de Gaulle and Adenauer came to agree- ment: they would propose to their partners “a start on political cooperation through quarterly meetings of heads of Government, and regular meetings of the Ministers o f Foreign Affairs, Education and Culture "20°. The Conference of the Six was accordingly held on 10 and 11 February. The Italians, Belgians and Luxembourgers were in agreement on the principle of political cooperation, on condition that neither NATO nor the existing Communities were touched. The Dutchman, Luns, was very negative: he suspected Franco-German collusion, and did not want to do anything with- out Britain. It was accordingly not possible to start the regular periodic meetings immediately. To avoid a complete failure, it was decided to set up a committee to draw up specific proposals at a forthcoming summit: this was the Fouchct Committee, officially called the Study Committee.

B) Cultural Cooperation and the Study Committee

In February 1961, France’s partners were called on to take a position on the “ Fouchet Plan”. It emerged that the issue of the European University was bound up with settling the political plan 200

200 pjcrrc Gcrbi't, La Construction

111 drawn up by the French Government. This plan, which on the whole consisted more of suggestions than worked-out details, had an important cultural aspect. It was basically a resumption of the project for scientific cooperation which the French delegation had i already sketched out during the work of the Interim Committee. , The stress was on university exchanges, and the equivalence of degrees; cultural questions were to be entrusted to periodic meet- ings of Education Ministers of the six countries201. The European University was now only one element in this overall programme. This development emerges all the more clearly in a note from the Directorate for Cultural Affairs at the Quai d ’Orsay in connec- tion with the University, which suggested on 7 February 1961 that “ the meeting of heads o f Government could give the Education Ministers, and for Germany the Lander representatives, the chance to reconsider the whole question, to endeavour to make it succeed in the framework no longer o f the Communities, hut of cultural coop- eration among the Six” 202. The Italian Government, faced with the negotiations about to start, contemplated the following alternatives: a) make an opening to the Fifteen: i.e. Fanfani would take the initiative of relaunching the University project in the frame- work of the Council of Europe countries, with Denmark and Brit- ain in particular displaying some interest in participating. Apart from the fact that the initiative would be rather poorly seen by the French Government, it is certain that in this case the European Communities would no longer be playing the driving role they had had hitherto. b) Build on the ‘cultural part’ of de Gaulle’s plan, by calling for the plan to be adjusted and making the European University

201 MAEF; QIE, vol. 177. Note from Directorate General for Cultural and Technical Affairs: “Cultural cooperation in the Europe of the Six”, 1 December 1960. In point 6 we read: “Possibly, continuous study for the project of a European University in Florence, but integrating it with the overall programme defined above, in particular by giving it precise tasks in the European scientific research plan”. 202 MAEF; scric Europe (n. 38), carton 1961. Note from Roger Seydoux to Couvc de Murville, 7 February 1961, and FNSP, CM7, “ Note on European organization”, 26 July 1960, p. 3.

112 a bargaining counter for Italian agreement on the political secre- tariat. On this scenario the Italian Government would stay firm on the points of “common defence” and “economic policy”. It would be prepared to give positive consideration to the points on “foreign policy” and “cultural policy” in the French project 201 *203. The Italian Government, noted the Western Europe Directo- rate on this question on the eve of the 10 February Paris Summit, “states that it is better disposed towards our plans than Bonn". It was favourable to regular political consultation, but also to the setting up of a permanent secretariat in Paris. While it was very anxious to secure creation of a European University and its loca- tion in Florence, it would not by contrast have any objection to detaching it from the Brussels Communities and bringing it under an intergovernmental commission 204 *. Some difficulties came, however, from the Germans. To be sure, the Bonn Government had to take account of the Franco-German rapprochement outlined in the Paris talks between the two ‘powers’ the Chancellor and the General represented, in order to compensate for a more afFirmative attitude by Adenauer on the political questions (retention in the NATO structures, integrity of the Brussels institutions, accession of Britain to the Common Market). Paris reckoned that “ the Germans will perhaps be more flexible on one point: cultural affairs205”. In a talk with Duchateau on 8 March, Haedrich (Auswdrtiges Amt) clarified Bonn’s posi- tion206. On the question of the University, the Federal Government had great difficulty about going outwith the Rome Treaty frame- work because of the federal constitutional structure 207. It could accept calling a meeting of national Education Ministers, even

201 ARC-COM; BDT 056/79 n. 43. “ Note on the evolution of the question of the European University” by Duchateau, 30 October 1960; MAEI; Direzione Affari culturali, IEU pacchetto 83, “ Documenti di base” : Appunto riassuntivo sull’Università Europea (periodo 1958-1963), 13 December 1965. p. 6. 204 MAF.F; serie Europe, carton 1961. Note from Western Europe sub-directorate on the Conference of 10 February 1961. 285 Ibid. m ARC-COM; BDT 248/80, n. 62. Memorandum from Pierre Duchateau (Etienne Hirsch’s cabinet), “Conversation with Dr Haedrich”, Brussels, 8 March 1961. 2117 PA/AA; ref. 604, Band 907. Note ref. 202 (M. Jansen) to Van Schcrpenbcrg re conference on 10 February 1961, 21 January 1961.

113 though the Bonn Republic had no federal organization for educa- tion and culture (there were ideas of entrusting German representa- tion to the Federal Foreign Minister assisted by the chairman of the conference of Ministers of Culture208). The Federal Government would take no cultural initiative because of the elections due in Germany. It would confine itself to not opposing the carrying out of a project if agreement emerged among the other partners. As re- gards the University Institution as such, it was regretted at the Auswärtiges Amt that Paris was opposed to giving it the name and status of a genuine university conferring degrees. For Vogt, principal assistant to Secretary of State Jansen, this was a downright “capitis ilim in u tio it was to be feared that students might stay away from such a platonic institution209. One might perhaps admit students to the European University only after passing a number of examin- ations at home, but in any case, the conferment of degrees seemed essential. There was little inclination in Bonn for setting up a mere forum at great trouble and expense. By contrast, while it is true that the Rectors1 Conference and the Education Ministers had until then been hostile to the European University as envisaged by Hallstein, consensus was tending to emerge within these bodies in favour of a university reserved to students seeking higher degrees210. The Dutch position remained unchanged, still seeking to: - find an intermediate formula consisting in political collabo- ration among the Six, closely associated with the Community insti- tutions; - avoid a cultural division in Europe as a follow-on from economic division. On the question of the university, The Hague reiterated the desire for a meeting of national Education Ministers who would invite their British colleague to sit round the same table to discuss the project.

^ MAEF; série Europe (n. 38). Telegram 1181 from François Scydoux (French ambassador in Bonn) to Western Europe directorate, 9 March 1961. 209 Ibid., as well as OKW-HO, 252-VIIJ. Telegram 148 from Van Vrcdcnburch (Dutch ambassador in Bonn) to Luns, 19 March 1961. 210 PA/A A; ref. 604, Band 907. Jahrreis to Landahl, chair of Konferenz der Kultur- minister, 7 June 1961.

114 \

As regards how far the creation of new bodies in the cultural sphere was justified, the Dutch Government felt that one had to know the intent behind advocating creation of these bodies. Ac- cepting a priori the creation of a new cultural organization inspired by Gaullist conceptions of European cooperation might suggest that The Hague approved these conceptions. This was why Luns warned against the danger that ultimately, should a supranational and an intergovernmental Europe coexist, the former might be sacrificed to the latter211. Things began to move faster before the Paris meeting. A talk between Dcbre and Fanfani held on the eve of the meeting of heads of State or Government on 10 February removed the French Government’s opposition in principle to setting up the University2'2. De Gaulle in person, at the second session of the summit, “recalled that the (Study) Committee would also have to consider the issue o f the higher education institution to be set up in Florence213”. The French head of State, however, added two con- ditions: - the word ‘University’ must be avoided since the body to be created was not to be one conferring degrees such as a doctorate; - it must be understood that the institute would be part of cooperation among the Six, and not fall under the auspices of Euratom, in the province of which it was not214. Since the meeting of heads of State or Government did not have time to give basic consideration to the method whereby the six Governments might ensure cooperation among themselves in cultural terms, the question was referred to the Study Committee, which set up a sub-committee chaired by Luxembourg jurist Pierre

2.1 ARC-COM, BDT 248/80, n. 62. Memorandum from Pierre Duchâlcau, “Conver- sation with Mr Bcndicn”, Brussels, 8 March 1961, as well as ARA-MR (17), note from Cals, 2 December I960. 2.2 MAEF; série Europe, carton 1961. Telegram 118 from Gorcc to Couve de Mur- ville, 16 February 1961. 2.3 Ibid Minutes of second session of the meeting of the six heads of State or Government, 10 February 1961. 2.4 Ibid carton 1963, telegram 112 of Carbonncl to Diplomatie-Paris, 16 February 1961.

115 Pescatore215 — previously an active member of the Interim Com- mittee — asked to make “ concrete proposals” on the matter for the next summit (Bonn). The Pescatore group benefited in this connection from the outcome of the work previously done by the Interim Committee, but interpreted it broadly to adjust it to the new approach imposed by Paris. Alongside measures concerning cultural cooperation bodies, the expansion of exchange among universities and scientific institutions, and the assignment of a European mission to existing institutions in the participating countries, it planned “creation of a European University institution [called European UniversityJ which would have the task o f contributing to higher education in the human sciences and exact sciences, giving priority to disciplines of particular interest for the work o f European unification.... Operating with the assistance o f national universities, this institution would supply them with a particularly favourable meeting place where they could compare their methods and draw mutual enrichment from their experiences. It would bring together professors from the participating countries or other countries, and students already with a solid univer- sity training, for advanced study and joint research. The administra- tion o f the institution would ensure respect for traditional university autonomy, through an administrative board and a professorial senate, in accordance with statutes laid down by the Governments. The Florence Institute would award a doctorate on terms that would take into account the requirements for conferment o f this degree in the participating countries. Equivalence between this degree and national degrees would be a matter for national legislation in each State. The creation o f the university institution could be brought about by autumn 1962 [...] this plan requires adequate financial resources. The responsibility o f providing for it will be incumbent on the Governments o f the participating countries, without prejudice to any other resources there may 6e216”.

21 s Pcscatore was appointed at the request of the Italian Government; Etienne Hirsch had strongly recommended him, ARC-COM; BDT 248/80, n. 62. Memorandum Duchatcau: “Lunch with Mr Pcscatore”. Brussels, 7 March 1961. 216 MAEF; scric Europe, n. 38, carton 1961 (not inventoried), “ Report from Study Committee to heads of State or Government”, 7 June 1961.

116 The Pescatore working group’s report thus attempted a com- promise formula consisting in opting for the principle of intcr- govcrnmentality as far as cultural cooperation went, while enabling the Communities to participate in the management and funding of the European university institution217.

C) The Bonn Declaration of 18 July 1961: The “Italianization” of the Florence Institute

But the scope of this document, already a step back from the previous projects, was to be further cut back at the meeting of heads of State or Government in Bonn on 18 July 1961. The declaration published at the end of this meeting was a turning point in the history of the University. It provided for the setting up of a Council of Ministers responsible for Education and Inter- national Cultural Relations, which was to meet periodically, and for the negotiation of one or several conventions on the following points: - “cooperation and exchanges among universities in member countries; - the European mission that could be assigned to national university institutes or research institutes; - the creation in Florence by Italy of a European University, to the intellectual life and funding of which the six Governments would contribute; - the possible creation of other European institutes devoted to university teaching or scientific research218”. The Study Committee would be asked to draw up the draft conventions and the acts intended to flesh out this cultural coop- eration plan.

2,7 OKW-IIO; 252, Vol. VIII. Preliminary draft of the cultural section of the Study Committee report, Pierre Pcscatore to Christian Fouchct, 14 April 1961. 2M MAtiF'; serie Europe, carton 1961 (not inventoried). Report by the Study Com- mittee to the heads of State or Government, 7 June 1961. 117 I

The text shows a big shift in Europe’s university policy: - stress went mainly to cooperation among national universities and to the “ European vocation” they might sec themselves given; - the European University would be created by Italy, with the other Community Member States intervening only through their “contribution” ; the creation of other university teaching or aca- demic research institutions was envisaged only “possibly” ; - finally and above all, no reference was made any longer to the Community bodies, which were not to be called on to play any part in setting up this entirely new programme219. The minutes of the meeting, conserved in the Quai d’Orsay archives220, allow us to understand how the heads of Government arrived at this decision. The European University was discussed while the place for the next “summit” was being set. Fanfani proposed Florence “given the forthcoming conclusion of our work on the European Univer- sity”. He came up against a refusal at the outset by Adenauer, who indicated his preference for Rome. The continuation of the dis- cussion is, we feel, worth reporting in full: - General de Gaulle: “ We have said that we were in agreement on setting up a body for higher studies empowered to confer degrees, with the equivalence of these degrees with national ones being re- served. But for that very reason we feel that this body ought to bear the title Institute of Higher Studies. We or our successors will see what that gives, and whether it is possible to change the title. Does Mr Fanfani think that if we agree on setting up this institute imme- diately, on authorizing it to confer degrees, including the doctorate, a great step will have been taken in intellectual cooperation, at the same time as justified homage will have been paid to Italy, more especially the city of Florence?”

219 MAEF; série Europe, QIE, carton 1961. Note from Directorate General for Political Affairs (Laloy): "Results of the Bonn conference, 18 July 1961” and ibid., "Min- utes of the meeting of the heads of State and Government”, Bonn, 18 July 1961. 220 MAEF; série Europe, QIE, carton 1961. Note from Directorate-General for Politi- cal Affairs (Laloy): “ Results of the Bonn conference, 18 July 1961” and ibid., “ Minutes of the meeting of the heads of State and Government”, Bonn, 18 July 1961.

118 \

- Chancellor Adenauer: “/ am in agreement on this point, hut it seems to me there is a need for further thought." This generous condescendence by the “ Big Two” made Fanfa- ni fly off the handle: - President Fanfani: “ There are universities in Italy. There is even one in Florence. Italy's prestige has nothing to do with the matter, and I am abstracting from it. The real question is knowing what the Europeans want to do. I cannot accept this issue being reduced to an Italian question. Does the word ‘University * automati- cally confer validity on the titles conferred by the body in question? We reserve the right to decide on their value bilaterally. On this point, therefore, the matter is settled. But [...] if we decide to create a mere institute o f higher studies, that would for us be a sort o f abdication. Do not draw back." - At this point in the discussion, Adenauer wished to “give a legal opinion ". "Each country has the power to declare whether an institution on its territory is a university or not. Here is an idea, then: Italy could create a State university for European studies. The Six would fund it and exercise strong influence over it. Could ne refer consideration o f these questions back to the (Study) Committee?’’ - Von Brentano (clarifying the Chancellor’s idea): “According to the German constitution, the Federal Government has no powers as regards education and culture. But the Länder Ministers o f Cul- ture have come out against a European University22*. Our only chance o f agreement lies in the Chancellor’s oblique proposal." - General de Gaulle: "A European University must be able to confer degrees that are automatically valid in the six States. But that is not possible at the present state o f things. The situation is, I feel, by contrast favourable if we have an institute giving diplomas. Could one not enhance its title by calling it ‘European Institute of Univer- sity Studies’?" - Chancellor Adenauer: ‘7 propose the matter be referred back to the Committee. A university can be created only by a State, but we are not a State. ” 221

221 This decision was made public in a memorandum from the Ministers of Culture dated 21 June 1961. 119 - President Spaak supported Fanfani’s proposal: “ where is the text that says that? It is the heads o f State and Government that are unable to arrive at a solution. We are in the presence of a clear solution that the experts have approved. There is no use referring these problems to the experts again, they have already had their say. It would be a great disappointment in European circles if after this meeting it is not possible to set up a European higher education institutionSpaak then sought to bring the positions closer together: “Does France have an objection to Italy’s setting up on its territory a university to be called European University? I f it does not, we could ask our experts to consider the details o f our contribution - Genera! de Gaulle: “ We have to study the terms on which the support o f the other Governments would be given. We can see no drawback to having Italy set up a university. The equivalence of diplomas would be settled the way it is usually. Once again, we cannot imagine it being possible to set up a university without di- plomas valid in the six countries” It thus emerged rather unexpectedly during the debates that the French reservations on the title of the institution to be set up, on the diplomas it would be empowered to confer and on Commu- nity participation in its administration were exceeded by the Federal Republic’s opposition to implementing the proposals contained in the Pescatore working group’s report. De Gaulle wished to avoid a university institution under Euro- pean law, and was concerned above all to preserve the French State’s prerogatives regarding the conferment of degrees: by contrast with the other Community countries where the doctorate has to do only with the university conferring it, in France there is alongside the university doctorate a State doctorate {doc tor at dEtai). But it was Adenauer (in agreement with the General) who proposed the solution that came to prevail. Since Florence had been preparing for months to welcome the European University, then in order to display courtesy towards the Italian Government while opting for an easy way out, it was decided to give Italy a mandate to carry out the project through a national law. This solution in fact allowed one reservation put forward by the Ger- man delegation to be overcome. For constitutional reasons, the

120 \

Federal Government could not encroach on matters within the exclusive province of the Lander, relating to education 22222.* The choice of appropriate ways and timings to set up the university in practice would therefore be an Italian one. It would be in order for the Rome government to apply the “ European label” to it; the other Governments would confine themselves to furnishing their intellectual and financial support 223. Even though Italy’s will to work on the creation of a Universi- ty with a European orientation was never denied, it is clearly apparent that the decision of 18 July 1961 had not been solicited by the Rome Government. A declaration by Attilio Cattani at the Brussels colloquium in connection with the European University (March 1962) removes all confusion on this point: “ ƒ must say frankly, if you w ill excuse the pun, that the Bonn decision has not been a “bonne ” decision. It w as not requested by Italy, and in no way constitutes an Italian proposal. The fact is that we have been loaded with a burden that hides a heap of well-known difficulties. These are far from having all been overcome. The Bonn decision has contributed more to a worse confusion o f ideas than to making things easier224 ” In fact the Bonn decision not only amounted to excluding the new university from an international framework, but left hanging a doubt as to the multilateral nature of its creation. Undoubtedly, a convention concluded with the five other States could have supple- mented the Italian law and clarified it as regards the arrangements for funding, recruitment, degrees conferred and languages to use. The alternative chosen nonetheless took much of the interest away from the operation, by its recourse to an ambiguous procedure.

2:2 OKW-HO; 253-1. According to tiic Netherlands ambassador in Paris, the project was placed in the hands of the Italians in order to get the Federal Government out of the corner it had been painted into by the negative decision of the conference of Länder Ministers of Culture in June that year; note from G raaf Van Bylandt to Luns, 24 November 1961. 22i “Towards a European University". Information note on the current status of the European University project, presented to the Cultural Commission of the Council of Europe (doc. AS/Cult (19)), 9 January 1968. 224 Speech by Cattani at the colloquium on 22 and 23 March 1962 in Brussels, in L'Université européenne, édité par l'Institut de sociologie de l’université libre de Bruxelles, 1963, p. 51-52.

121 D) The reaction of the supranational bodies

While between 1959 and 1961 the university projects were undergoing the effects of a diplomatic game that did not help them take off, two Community institutions, the Euratom Commission and the European Parliament, did not cease asserting their wish to see both a European University in the strict sense and the broader projects for university cooperation made a reality. As regards the Florence project, their supranational ambitions led them to defend the integration of the new institute into the Community structure and to hope for broader academic missions for it than those tolerated by the Governments.

1) The Commission's determined, though qualified, involvement As the initiator of Community policy, the Commission con- tinued to be in the forefront of proposals connected with the university; as an agent for conciliation, it nonetheless endeavoured not to obstruct even limited approaches to their realization. Wc know the part the Euratom Commission had taken in the early projects and the work of the Interim Committee. After the 1961 Bonn summit, the Community executive intervened only in- directly in the negotiations, but did not fail to make its views known 225. The presidents of the three Community executives were associated with the work of the organizing committee for the Euro- pean University set up by the Italian Government, which hoped to surround itself with authoritative opinions so as to implement the mandate given to it. In institutional terms, Etienne Hirsch, Walter Hallstein and Albert Coppé favoured amending the Pescatorc project to allow effective participation by the Community bodies in managing and

2:5 ECHA; BAC 25/1975, n. 303 APE, committee on research and culture. Minutes of meeting of 10 April 1961 (speech by Etienne Hirsch, p. 8) “Mr Hindi stressed that as president o f the Euratom Commission he was no longer taking part officially in the work on setting up the European University. The Euratom Commission’s mandate had expired at the point when the EEC and Euratom Councils had dealt with the Interim Committee s report. Obviously, other contacts existed, particularly with the Pescatore committee hut were unofficial in nature”.

122 funding the University; in academic terms they hoped for the future institutes’ activities not to be restricted to humanist areas only, and insisted on the University’s right to be able to award the doctorate. However, in his speeches before Parliament members in Stras- bourg or in the organizing committee in Florence, Etienne Hirsch kept to moderate statements: he felt in particular that the name for the future University was negotiable, and that the Bonn decision offered “a starter solution” 226. Parliament members, less subject to pressures from local particu- larisms or to institutional limitations, adopted a bolder altitude.

2) The consistency o f the European Parliament's interventions in favour of the Florence project The Bonn decisions brought sharp disappointment at the European Parliament. This was all the more so since the Stras- bourg parliament had since 1959 expressed favourable views on the Florence project. Between 1959 and 1962 five reports drawn up by Hugo Geiger and Charles Janssens gave rise to animated debates, particularly in the Committee on Research and Culture. The resolutions that emerged were marked by two constant approaches. a) The EP’s attachment to the Community legal framework for a European University. The EP had already closed its May 1959 session by unanimous- ly voting for a resolution explicitly linking creation of a European University to Euratom Treaty Article 9 (2 ) 227. Successive declar- ations on the issue repeated this position: Parliament, for instance, regretted after the Bonn summit on 18 July 1961 that “ this deci- sion ignores the proposals developed by the Euratom Commission, *121

226 Daniel Thcrond. I-'Université eurapt'eme..., op. r/A, p. 140-141. For Etienne Hirsch’s speeches cf. ARC-CONS; CM2. 1961, n. 1842, “ Information note on the parlia- mentary proceedings". Committee on Research and Culture. Brussels, 10 April 1961. F.CHA; BAC 25/175, n. 303. "Summary minutes of meeting of Parliamentary Committee on Research and Culture", 26 October 1961, Brussels. 121 Official Journal of the European Communities (hereinafter OJ), No C 36, 8 June 1959, p. 679/79. Giorgio La Pira, Mayor of Florence, in convcrsalion with Hugo Geiger. President af the Research and Culture Committee of the European Parliament, during i meeting of the Organizing Committee of the European University, October 1961. (0 Torrini Fotogiomalismo, Florence).

124 the Interim Committee and especially the EP22S”. The fourth Geiger report noted the paradox of conferring on a single State the creation of the European University, while proclaiming the desire to develop collaboration by all the States in the areas of culture and research* 229. b) The appropriate extent o f the European University’s aca- demic mission In a second stage, when considering the report submitted by the Interim Committee (EP resolution of 1 July I960)230 and then following the Bonn decision (the fourth report on the European University, 11 December 1961)231, Parliament took a stance on the University’s structure. In its resolution of 1 July 1960, it concluded that the Interim Committee’s proposal that the University ought not to be a ‘com- plete university’ could be acceptable only for the transitional period of setting it up. The objective to be aimed towards was for all disciplines ultimately to be represented, and for students whose training was not completed in their countries of origin to be able to continue their studies there. In its 19 December 1961 resolution the EP hoped that the Italian Government’s initiative would take into account the wishes of the assembly and its relevant committee regarding the universal- ity of the future university, its autonomy and its right to award the title of doctor. It asked for the draft convention on the University to be submitted to it before its entry into force 232. Parliament, despite ups and downs, and successive adjourn- ments, thus returned several times to the Florence project and emphasized its importance. In October 1961, in response to the initiative by the Italian authorities, the EP designated the rappor-

22fl OJ No C 3, 17 January 1962, p. 63. EP Resolution adopted 21 December 1961. 229 ECHA; CEAB 2, n. 2496. EP Committee on Research and Culture, “ Draft fourth interim report on the question of creating a European University" by Hugo Geiger, Novem- ber 1961. Cf. resolution: OJ No C 49, 27 July 1960, p. 1067-1068. 2:" Cf. resolution in ECHA; BAC 79/1982, n. 236 as well as OJ No C 3, 17 January 1962, p. 63. 232 Ibid

125 tcur (Hugo Geiger) and vice-chairman (Corniglion-Molinicr) of its Committee on Research and Culture to take part as ‘observers’ in the meeting of the organizing committee for the European Univer- sity that the Rome Government was setting up in order to imple- ment the mandate just conferred on it.

Ill - T h e a c t i o n c a r r i e d o n b y i t a l y (i% i-5)

In autumn 1961 the Italian Government, a consistent suppor- ter of a complete European University, found itself with the re- sponsibility of relaunching an effort it was deeply attached to, but on terms not in line with its ideas. The Bonn declaration on cultural cooperation in fact defined a rather ambiguous notion of the future university. It was to have two faces: Italian from its founding act, and European from the international contribution 233. Specifically, in order to implement the mandate conferred on it, the Italian Government was to engage in a two-fold action: - internally, by adopting in 1963 a draft Italian law on the setting up of a European University in Florence; - externally, by intensifying negotiations to flesh out the directives given at the Bonn meeting. On its initiative, several meetings or intergovernmental con- ferences on the issue were held between 1961 and 1964.

A) Italy’s action domestically

The position was not totally unfavourable to Italy. Once it had accepted the prestige loss of not having the University in Florence based on six States, plus its own higher financial burden than the five others, the Italian Government in fact found itself with its hands free to organize the European University as it saw fit. Things were however more complicated than they seemed, since in order to attain its ends the Rome Government had two

Which was to be the object of a “convention” negotiated among the six Govern- ments.

126 sets of problems to solve. Internationally, it had to plan an institu- tion with sufficiently flexible structures and vague missions not to put off the States parties to the future conventions, offering them enough room to fit in, while avoiding the risk of setting up the institution it was asked to organize only to sec the five other Community members then refuse to take part, intellectually or financially214. Domestically, it had to take the requisite initial steps to make the University a reality, in terms of buildings or of organ- izing relevant services. On the latter point, a first important step was taken in May 1961 by Florence municipality (Giorgio La Pira), by purchasing at Marignollc, on the banks of the Arno two kilometres upstream from Palazzo Vecchio, the Villa Tolomci building complex, in thirty hectares of ground215.

1) The organizing commit lee fo r the European University To secure authorized opinions on which to base implementa- tion of the mandate conferred on it, the Italian Government pro- ceeded to set up a "committee to organize the European Univer- sity”, on which representatives of the six Governments, the three Communities (in particular Etienne Hirsch) and the European Par- liament (Hugo Geiger) were invited to take part. This shows Rome’s keenness on making the committee’s mem- bership and proceedings European from the outset216. The partici- pation by representatives of the common institutions of the Six, invited as observers, signalled the Italian Government’s intentions. The Committee’s mission was in fact to be “ to take ttp the project already developed in the Community f ramework (Hirsch project), by

Bottai Archives, “schema di lavoro per t'Vniversiia euro pat", 3 October 1961. indicating on page 2 that “ a good outcome depends upon carefully balancing these two aspects"; on the Italian Government's attitude overall, cf. MAEI, uff III, lUF.rti3 documcnti di base, “ Appunto riassuntivo suH’Universitd Europe a", 13 December 1965, and the excellent analysis by M. Pianla in the proceedings of the Italian Assembly, Vtft legislature. “ Foreign Affairs Committee report on the draft law authorizing ratification of the Convention setting up a European University Institute", session of 24 May 1973, p. 13-14. 2?i La Pira Foundation, Giorgio La Pira Archives, file on European Elnivcrsity. “Speech by Florence mayor Prof. Giorgio La Pira, to mark the signing of the purchase contract for the Marignollc buildings”, 15 May 1961 (doc. 2). 2,(1 Bottai Archives: “Scheme of work for the European University", op. cit., p. 1 and 2.

127 TfriVi i iVi i TfriVi

Visit of the Organizing Committee of the European University to Villa Tolomci, Florence 1961. (© Torrini Fotogiomalismo, Florence).

128 making the adjustments, particularly in organizational and financial terms, that might seem necessary in connection with the new frame- work in which the University is to be set up”1*1. The Italians pro- posed to retain as far as possible, while adjusting them to the new circumstances, the links originally planned between the University and the Community institutions. The European University was thus to start as an institute for advanced and completion studies and to have original features in relation to traditional universities (departments rather than facul- ties). The Hirsch project had the advantage of authorizing further developments, making it likely that some courses could in a second stage develop into a complete sequence 237 238. The organization committee met for the first (and only) time on 11 and 12 October 1961 in Florence, chaired by A. Corrias, former Italian ambassador in Lisbon. It led to a number of posi- tive conclusions: a) As regards the founding act for the University, the Italian Government would communicate to the other Governments, before the Committee’s next meeting scheduled for 15 November 1961: - a draft law for information, to be supplemented, once voted by the Italian Parliament, by a decree on the University’s statutes; - a draft convention defining the intellectual and financial participation of the six countries in the European University. It was ageed that Pierre Pescatorc, chair of the Fouchet com- mittee’s working group on culture, in liaison with the Italian del- egation, would endeavour to draw up a first draft of the Treaty. b) As regards teaching programmes and the priority disci- plines, the exchange of views could not be taken very far in Florence for lack of sufficiently qualified specialists in the disci- plines contemplated. For this purpose it was suggested that the Italian Government set up an “academic working group” consist- ing of a few eminent academics from the six countries. This group

237 ìbid., “Appurilo", Segreterìa generale del Ministero degli Affari esteri, 10 Octobcr 1962, p. 2. 238 ¡bici., p, 2. 129 locting of the Organizing Committee for the European University in the Salonc ci Gigli, Florence, 11 October 1961. The Mayor of Florence. Giorgio La Pira, rccting the representatives of the Six. D Torrini Fotogiomalismo, Florence).

30 would be asked to lay down priorities in the progressive creation of departments and teaching chairs. A “technical group” would have the task of coordinating the University’s construction with the progressive determination of teaching sectors. c) The committee made an on-the-spot visit and gave its approval in principle to a summary construction project to be completed by autumn 1962 on the Marignolle site (at an estimated cost of eight hundred million lire) 239. Plans were for the question of allocation of expenditure to be discussed at the next meeting. But France immediately went out on a limb by indicating that the University’s construction costs should be paid by Italy, considering the special responsibilities it was assuming in the m atter240 241. In fact the French delegation to the Florence meeting had in- structions to “stress the Italian nature of the University at the expense of the European aspects" m . It achieved this in the sense that Italian initiative and responsibility were marked at all stages. For Paris, this was a tactical as much as a financial decision. The argumentation of the Quai d’Orsay’s Europe directorate was simple: “It is quite clear that to the extent the Italian character of the enterprise is stressed, we take away our responsibility for it, but also reduce the means available to us to control and limit its development242 ”. To prevent the future “ University” from becoming a real university in the full sense, the French Government in fact had

2V> ECHA, Etienne Hirsch papers (hereinafter EH); "Memorandum on the first meet- ing of the committee on the organization of the European University, Florence, 11-12 October 1961, PA/AA; ref. 604, Band 907. Note by Dr Vogt (ref. 202), 16 October 1961. Bottai Archives, “ Appunto" (Ambassador Corrías), op. cit., 14 October 1961, p. 1-2; MAEF, serie Europe, QIE, carton 1963, note from Directorate-General for Technical and Cultural Affairs to secretary-general, 17 October 1961, 240 ¡bid., “ Appunto" (Corrías), p. 2. 241 MAEF; serie Europe, QIE, carton 1963. Note from Directorate-General on Tech- nical and Cultural affairs to de Saint-Légcr, general secretariat, 3 November 1961, p. 2. Ibid. Note for Mr Rebcyrol (Consul-General of France in Florence), delegate to the organ- ization committee meeting, 7 October 1961, 242 Ibid, p. 2.

131 d i

Meeting in Florence of the Organizing Committee for the European University. From left to right: Heynig, Chairman of the Secretariat, Jacques van Hclmont, Director of the EEC Commission, Etienne Hirsch, President of Euralom, and Italian Minister of Foreign AfTairs Gaetano Martino, Head of the Italian delega- tion. Salone del Ducccnto, Palazzo Vccchio, Florence, II October 1961. CQ Torrini Fologiornalismo, Florence).

132 only financial pressure available. That was why it was already planning to strictly limit its financial participation, and hence the University’s overall budget. France announced at Florence that it would take no part at all in the investments, and would not accept the Brussels scale of contributions for the operating budget243. France asked for the Communities, particularly Euratom, no longer to be represented at the preparatory meetings for the Uni- versity. This demand could not be made at the meeting of the Florence committee, the membership of which was freely set by Italy, but was the object of an approach to the Italians at a meet- ing of the Fouchct committee244. Despite the rather encouraging results all round achieved by the organizing committee, the planned programme was not to lead to anything. The committee’s work was suspended without expla- nation (the second meeting, planned for November 1961, never took place), and throughout 1962 and 1963 the European Univer- sity project did not advance. The Italian Government’s inaction led to criticism or a wait-and-see attitude from the other participating Governments, and to disappointment in pro-European circles. It has to be said that from the outset the other five partners did not rate Italy's chances of one day accomplishing the “ Florence pro- ject” very highly: the financial discussions had shown surprising unpreparedness on the Italian side, which created uncertainty among the delegations. On 3 November 1961 a note from the Quai d'Orsay’s Directorate for Cultural and Technical Affairs predicted: “It is truly hard to imagine the European University in Florence having a great future before it, and the enterprise is beginning to look more useless than dangerous. The beginnings will in any case be

^ ¡hid. Note from Directorate-General for Cultural Affairs to secretary-general on the Florence meeting for the European University, 17 October 1961. Ibid. Note for Mr Rcbcyrol: “ You will not agree to allocation of the various national contributions to the operating costs on a scale similar to that for the Brussels institutions. This would be a parallelism contrary to our perception of the nature and status o f the Florence University”, 7 October 1961, p. 2. 244 MAF.E, serie Europe, QIE, Note from Directorate-General for Technical and Cultural Affairs to secretary-general, 17 October 1961. In the minutes of the meeting we read: “It is certain that Mr Hirsch's presence alongside the Italian chairman, replacing him and often de facto guiding the discussions in his place, did not always facilitate the French delegation's task’", p. 1.

133 Electing of the Organizing Committee for the creation of the European University it Florence, 11 October 1961. ~rom left to right: Hugo Geiger, President of the Committee for Research and Culture of the European Parliament, the Mayor of Florence, Giorgio La Pira, and he President of the Euratom Commission, Etienne Hirsch. © Torrini Fologiornalismo, Florence).

134 very modest, and even the site set aside hv the city o f Florence will not allow any real expansion by the institution. There are very great possibilities that the European University will never deserve its name and he more a setting for meetings, caUoquia and congresses than a place o f teaching and research 245." In The Hague, satisfaction at seeing the project scuttled because of the Italian Government's problems and the tbird-worldist initiatives of Florence mayor Gior- gio La Pira was unconcealed;4(’. The period of stasis that the Florence project went through is, however, also to be explained by the tw'o conceptions that separ- ated the Italian Ministries. The Farncsina (Attiho Cattani, Bruno Bottai, Gaetano Martino) defended the project outlined at the Florence meeting on II October 1961. The diplomats interpreted the Bonn declaration as follows: the heads of Government had mandated Italy to give the impetus in setting up a very specific institution already well defined it its essential features, at least for the experimental phase. On this basis, the European University ought to be in line with the Hirsch project, and thus start as an institute for advanced and further studies, with new features by comparison with traditional universities (for instance, departments instead of faculties). The Education Ministry by contrast insisted on converting the institution into a full-scale university, which in order to satisfy Giorgio La Pira was to be open to students from the underdevel- oped countries of Africa and South America. Arbitration by Prime Minister Aminlorc Fanfani was called for. But the new Government, marked by the opening to the left the Christian Democrats were then toying with, was tempted by the La Pira project, which fitted in rather well with the new Italian policy of advances towards third-world countries. On 9 November 1961 at an interministerial meeting at the highest level attended by the Mayor of Florence, Fanfani decided to mandate Education Minister Boseo to draft the statutes for the European University.

24' MAFF, serie Furopc. QIK, carton 1963. Note from Dirccloratc-Gcneral for Cul- tural and Technical Affairs to secretary-general (Jean-Marie Soutou). 3 November 1963. ^ OKW-HO; 253-1, telegram 186 from van Vredenbureh (Rome) to Luns, 24 No- vember 1963,

135 Organizing Committee of the European University, guided tour of Villa Tolomci by the Mayor of Florence, Giorgio La Pira, 1961. (£) Studio Press Photo, Florence).

136 Hosco, considering ihc transfer of responsibility implied by the ’Italiani/atimf of the Florence Institute, regarded himself as free to review the criteria collectively adopted at the preparatory stage. Having secured the suspension of the organizing committee's work, the Education Minister drew up his own plan, aimed at organizing a full-scale university in terms of both study courses and disciplines taught. The Italian administration, which had secured support from the banks for the initial work, was thinking of a fund to which Italian industrialists would contribute, to fill out the operat- ing budget. Hut this plan quickly proved unfeasible. The financial problem was an insurmountable obstacle, both because ol the cost, much higher than the Hirsch project’s (thirty-five thousand million lire as against eight for the first live years) and because of the foreseeable refusal by the five other Governments and the Commu- nities to contribute to it247. The Italian Government's delays were taken advantage of by the opponents of the European University, which then exercised heavy pressure on their Governments to get them to call the pro- ject in question again. The German rectors were the most active. At the Brussels colloquium (March 1962), Hermann Jahrreis, spokesman for the German universities, confirmed their negative stance :J\ They feared it might amount to favouring a sort of common market in ideas and culture. The Germans would accept the creation of a very high-level university institute that would no longer be a cre- ation of the Six but of a larger number of European Stales, there- by avoiding any political interference: this institute, which might be called the “ Galileo international institute for research and teaching on issues related to Europe", should deal primarily with

^ On this whole affair see Bottai Archives, “ Note (C'attani) to secretary general” (undated, probably July 1962). MAFK, série Hu rope. QIH. carton 1963. Telegram ( ju s ton Rale w ski (Rome) to Couve de Murvillc. 24 November and 5 February 1962. MAHI. utT. Ill, IUH.S3, basic documents: "Summary note on the Furopean University ( 1958-63 period)”. 13 December 1965. p. 9-K). :4N Hermann Jahrreis, chairman ol' Westdeutsche Rektorenkonlcrenz. “Objections in connection with the Furopean University project”, in l.'Uniwrsitc curofurtuh’, colloque des 22 et 23 mars 1962 cd. de F Institut de sociologie de l'Université libre de Bruxelles, p, 69-77.

137 Presentation of the ground plan of Villa Tolomci to the members of the Organiz- ing Committee of the European University, October 1961. U0 Torrini Fotogiornalismo, Florence). the study of poorly known aspects of Europe in the areas of both the human and the exact sciences :J,\ The unease brought by the silence surrounding the Italian Government's intentions enabled alternative projects to show up. At the same colloquium, Hendrik Brugmans, rector of the Bruges College, slated that the university in Florence ought not to have the monopoly over the "European doctorate". This doctorate, prepared both in existing European institutions and in the Euro- pean University, should be conferred by an international examin- ing board2'0. In June the same year, an alumni meeting voted a resolution calling lor a similar legal status for the College of Europe as was planned for the European University in Florence. According to the resolution, student numbers at the Belgian insti- tute should be raised, and a second year of study introduced so as to enable the College to award a “European doctorate" that would be recognized in all the Common Market countries. The Bruges College was thus clearly asserting its ambition to become the "European University of the N orth"2'1. In Italy itself, the hesitations displayed by the Italian Govern- ment reflected the struggle over the European University by lib- eral or non-catholic circles in Parliament (Martino, Saragat, Malagodi) and the Earnesina (Caltani) on the one hand, and left Christian Democrats like Eanfani, La Pira or Vedovato on the other2'2. The former were worried at the blockage of the European University project as amended in Bonn, and combated the ideas being put forward by the Mayor of Florence. They were afraid that Fanfani, Boseo and La Pira might be intending to drop the project and set up a free university administered by a specially* 252

-‘w PA /A A; ref. 604. Band 007. Jahrreis to Hermann I.andahl [chair of Conference of Ministers of Culture), 7 June 196). Hendrik Brugmans, “Technical aspects of the setting up of a Furopcan Univer- sity" in l.'Vninrsilc curopa-nih-. op. at., p. 147-152. -5I Cornin' dilltt Sm i, 14 June 1962. 252 Interview with ambassador Bruno Boltai by the author. Rome. 24 April 1996. Boltai Archives to Ftienne Hirsch. 70 July 1962. MAFK; political affairs. F.uropc directorate, carton 1963. telegram from Armand Berard (Rome) to directorate of cultural and technical affairs, 2 August 1962.

139 From left to right: Gaetano Martino, Italian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Giuseppe Vedovato, Italian Member of Parliament, and Etienne Ilirsch, President of Euratom, during the negotiations for the creation of a Euratom University, 1961. (C) Torrini Fotogiornalismo, Florence).

140 created consortium This university, with a world rather than Huropean vocation, would be planned as the Western countermodel to the “ Friendship University” in Moscow. Giuseppe Vedovalo. chair of the organizing committee for the university, shared Gaetano Martino's concern, Hut as Florence deputy for the Christian Demo- crats, he found it hard to oppose the third-worldist dreams of Florence's “S u u lu c o Thus, while hoping for application of the decisions taken in Bonn, he supported the idea of admitting African and Asian students to the Huropean University:

2^' This iikM was in pari In lake shape in late 1962. On 29 November on a visit to Dakar. Giorgio I.a f’ira indicated svmpatliy lor the idea put forward by lioldrini, president of the INI oil and industrial group, of setting up in I lorenec a University Institute for technical sciences. The institute, which would he called the "Isliluto Mattei" would be open to students from all Europe and the recently independent African countries. Funded by the Mattei Foundation, it could replace the European University. Cf. FCHA; I'll. Note from Antonio Tatti to Flienne llirsch: “ Development of the question of a Furopcan University". 6 December 1962. AN-FN: 770508 131. Sirinelli to National Fducalion Minister, copy of a letter from Christian d'Halloy (consul general in Florence) to Armand Berard (French ambassador in Rome). 28 December 1962. 2,4 La Nazionc, 5 April 1962. “ An end to the hesitations”. In Nazbno is a liberal- oriented Florence daily. MAI E: scrie E-'uropc, Q1F, carton 1963. Christian d'Halloy to Gaston Palcwski (ambassador in Rome), 21 March 1962. In a telegram from Brussels. Hacdrich alludes to the fact that Fanfani allegedly got La Pira to change his mind by reminding him that the project's origin was to create a Furopcan University for Furopeans. in PA/AA; RFF. 604, BAND 1447. telegram from Hacdrich. 15 March 1963. 2Vi ECU A; BAG 25/1975. n. 303, summary minutes of European Parliament Commit- tee on Research and Culture. 20 and 21 May. Venice, (Brussels, 28 May 1963). 256 FCHA; EH, letter from Audio Cattani to Etienne Hirsch, 18 February 1963, This tells us that Archi. until then opposed to the project, had been strongly influenced in favour of the European University at a colloquium organized in Montpellier in December 1962 on the initiative of Professor Dupront.

141 other partners on its creation. He had accordingly felt it necessary to call the colloquium to sound out Italian and foreign university circles on the issue257. During the summer, the Italian Government took stock of the indications gathered, and on 11 September 1963 the Council of Ministers approved a draft law, proposed by the Minister of Education, to set up the European University with its seat in Florence 258.

2) The Italian draft law setting up a European University in Florence Though largely inspired by the Interim Committee report, the draft law was nonetheless marked by the difficulties and ambiguities the Italian Government had been facing since the Bonn decision: it was a compromise between Italy’s desire to have the upper hand over the University’s course, and its hope to see its European value recognized by having its funding assured at Community level. The first tendency is reflected in the rector’s powers (Ar- ticles 4 and 6), and in his initial nomination by the Italian Government after “consultation” of the Convention's Member States (Article 13); in the make-up of the Academic Council that would assist him (Article 8) and the role of the administrator appointed by the Italian Government (Article 11); and finally in the appointment for the initial period (the importance of which needs no emphasis) of a special committee of Italian notables that would have all the powers of the future inter-Community administrative board. Its Community nature was by contrast stressed in Article 1, affirming the University’s mission for European unification. The faclties were modestly termed “ departments”, devoted to various disciplines still to be defined. But the University would award the degree of Doctor. The administrative board was to be appointed

257 ARC-COM; BDT 056/79, n. 3. Note to Euratom Commission members (Medi): minutes of colloquium on questions of the European University, statement by Minister Gui (annex), July 1963. ECHA; EH, Atti Jet Convegno per / ’Università Europea, Firenze, 4-6 luglio ¡963, cd. Univer- sità degli studi, Florence, 1964, p. 21-23. 2W ECHA; EH, minute headed “ European University — meeting in Rome, late 1963” (intervention by Attilio Cattani).

1 4 2 by the Italian Government (Article 9), but States parties to the Convention would be represented on it, and it would have fairly extensive powers. The project did not however specify the propor- tions of Italians and foreigners on it, nor the majority for adopt- ing decisions other than those on regulations. The principle of unanimity for the admission of Community representatives was not taken over. Above all. the funding question (Article 16) was left vague (the executives of the three Communities could be invited to participate). Only initial funding was set: the Italian Government would pay the initial running costs, up to three thousand seven hundred million lire. This draft was in fact inevi- tably a summary one, since it could not be finalized before the Convention provided for in the Bonn declaration had been drawn up. Accordingly, the Italian Government's efforts bore chiefly on preparing the texts for this Convention :v\

B) Italy's action internationally

At the same lime as it was drafting the law, the Italian Gover- nment drew up a draft convention by the Six, organizing the intellectual participation and financial contribution by the live States to the Italian creation, An intergovernmental conference was held at the Farncsina on 22 and 22 November 1962 and then 22 and 22 May 1964, chaired by Attilio Cattani, secretary-general of the Italian Foreign Minis- try, to consider the two textsThe Italian diplomat guided the

ECU A ; KH, Dise^no di ■ presvnta!» dal Afinistero della Pubhliea htruzione (G ui); ¡Miluzione dell'Vnivcrsifa <7iropea eon sede in Firenze. 4 novembre 1963. M A lii; D ire/ionc afl'ari cultur.di. l it’. Ill, II:I■ S3, documenti di haw, “ rela/ioni illustrativa dello schema di disegno di legge conccrnanle I'istiUi/ione delEUniversila euro pea". ARC-HP; European Parliament, working documents. 30 April 1964. doc. 19, “ filth interim report (Janssens)", on behalf of the Committee on Research and Culture, on the question of setting up a European University. 2M> ECU A; EH. Minutes: “ European University - Rome meeting, end 1963"; ARC-COM; BDT 05679. n. 39, memo (Pierre Duchateau). "Meeting on the European University in Rome, 22 November 1963”. 2 December 1963. EiCHA: CEAB2, n. 3976, note to Albert Coppc, vice-president of the High Authority, minutes (Jean Dinjeard) of the meeting held in Rome on 22 November 1963 on creation of the European University in Florence, Luxembourg, 27 November 1963. The Italian negotiators in Florence, 1961. In the left foreground, Gaetano Martino, Italian Minister of Foreign Affairs, and directly behind him Bruno Bottai, second Secretary of the Permanent Diplomatic Mission to the European Community. Brussels, and Ambassador Attilio Cattani. ('0 Studio Press Photo, Florence).

144 X

debates very ably, bringing out the most minor details so as to make agreement seem possible. The Italian Government invoked the fact that it wished to begin constructing the buildings that summer. It accordingly urged the other countries to bring things to a head and decide-61. In the face of such insistence the conference decided to set up two expert groups: - one, chaired by Luxcmbourgcr Pierre Pescatore, was to draw up the draft convention; - the other, led by Sattlcr of the German Foreign Ministry, was to propose a specific programme of activities for the Univer- sity’s first years, so that the proposals produced by this group could allow the first budget estimates to be established 261 262.

1) The position o f the States parties at the outset o f negotiations It was the end of October when the Governments of the Five sat down to discuss the Italian draft law and draft convention. The latter provided in particular for the University to be a teaching as well as research institution, which would confer a doctoral degree the Six would mutually recognize within two years, with running costs to be split among participants according to the Brussels scale: Germany, France and Italy: 28% each; Belgium and Netherlands: 7.9% each; Luxembourg: 0.2% 263. This Italian conception departed largely from the French conception that the University should a) be devoted to study and research, without doing teaching; b) confer an original title, but not a doctoral degree that would be mutually recognized; c) be

261 MAEB; GcofTrey d'Asprcmont Lynden (Belgian Ambassador to Italy) to Paul-Hcnri Spaak (Foreign Minister), 26 May 1964. AN-EN 770508/131. Note for the Minister re European University project in Florence, 25 May 1964. 262 ARC-COM; BDT 056/79, n. 39, minutes (Duchalcau) of the meeting of the intergovernmental conference on the European University on 22 and 23 May 1964, addressed to Euratom vice-president Mcdi, 28 May 1964. 2W ARC-COM; BDT 248/80, n. 61, supplement to ECSC and EEC/Euratom bull- etins, 9 December 1963. “ Preparation of an intergovernmental convention on the setting up of a European University”.

145 i 6 funded by Italy, with the other countries’ contribution consisting in seconding professors and sending grantholders, paid by them 264. A new feature was that during the discussions the German delegation supported positions very close to the French delegation’s. The archives confirm that the French and Germans had consulted. Exchanges of views between the cultural affairs directorates of both Foreign Ministries (Basdevant-Sattler) enabled a joint posture by the two delegations to be defined before the intergovernmental conference265. The Belgian delegation presented a few additional observa- tions. It insisted on the need not to compete with certain European studies institutes already in being (like the Bruges College) and hoped to secure guarantees both against too much autonomy for the Italian Government in relation to the University and against excessive independence of the latter’s organs266. The Dutch delegation joined with some of the observations presented by the other delegations, especially in relation to the question of mutual recognition of the title, and the university’s postgraduate nature. The Belgians and Dutch insisted on all expen- diture being paid through subventions from each State267. Only the Luxembourg delegation had no special observations268.

2) The activity of the Pescatore working group It was to be both important and scattered with obstacles, since the committee was to draw up no less than four draft conventions between its first meetings in spring 1964 and the dead end to its work in spring 1965. There is no point in a detailed analysis of

264 Cf. MAEF; série Europe, Italie, d. 21 (1961-1965), note on “ European University in Florence” drawn up for visit to Paris by President of the Italian Republic Scgni (19-22 February 1964), 5 February 1964. 265 AN-EN 770508/131, minutes o f meeting between Mr Sattler and Mr Basdevant, 29 October 1963. 266 MAEB; European University file. Note from director general P. for Minister of Foreign Affairs, 3 March 1964. 267 OKW-HO; 253-11, Pickaar to Bot, 30 June 1964. 268 ARC-COM; BDT 056/79, n. 39; memorandum (Duchâteau), "Meeting on the European University in Rome, 22 November 1963”, 2 December 1963.

146 texts that are of purely legal interest, but it seems useful to specify the points of agreement and emphasize the difficulties met by the Pcscatorc group as well as the divergences that prevented the work's successful conclusion. Points of agreement: - An intergovernmental commission made up of representa- tives of States parties to the convention was to monitor its applica- tion. The draft conventions specify that it should take its decisions unanimously or by two-thirds majority. - The University was a postgraduate institution (whose activi- ties would be similar to those of the Princeton Institute of Ad- vanced Studies), taking in only students who had already followed at least three years of study. Provisions were made for the number of students and teachers of a given nationality not to exceed one quarter of the total2i’9. - The problem of the University’s linguistic arrangements would be settled by its own regulations. Difficulties and divergences: - The administrative board was made up of members proposed by Member States, and possibly European Community representa- tives. Differences emerged over the allocation of scats and the board’s powers. - The financial contribution from States parties raised con- siderable difficulties. Agreement could not even be reached on the very principle of a scale of contributions, still less on the figures 271\ - One apparently secondary point remained a matter for disagreement till the end: whether those accepted to attend courses *22

m I b i t i Minutes (Duchâtcau), meeting of intergovernmental conference... in Rome. 22 and 23 May 19(>4. The proposal had been the object of a prior understanding between the French and German Foreign Ministers. Cf. AN-FN 770508/131, "Talk between Mr Basdcvant and Mr Sattler. 29 October 1963" (copy). 31 October 1963. 27u The French Government in particular assented only to providing the University with a "contribution in kind” that would consist in the secondment of professors and the provision of grants to the students it would send to Florence. AN-F.N 770508.131, "Instruc- tions to the French delegation for the Rome meeting on 22 and 23 November 1963 on the F.uropean University in Florence”. 15 November 1963,

147 would be termed “students” or “young researchers”, and whether they would be able to take the degree of doctor at the University271, - The final point of disagreement was on the possibility of opening the convention to States outside the European Com- munities 272. Failure lay just below the surface. It came on 12 March 1965. A final group meeting ended in general confusion and did not succeed in reaching agreement on the ten articles of the Italian draft convention.

3) The activity of the Sattler group A broad consensus by contrast emerged at the second working group, on programmes 273. - The University ought first and foremost to be a forum, where teaching would be given in the form of “seminars”, with the interdisciplinarity of work accentuated by the presence of profes- sors and researchers from various nationalities and the diversity of national phenomena that would be the object of research. It was undoubtedly to mark the need for this method of working that scientific subjects, which lend themselves less to it, did not at the start appear in the University’s programmes. - The University was to remain on a human scale. Teachers and pupils ought to live on campus. The small number of stu- dents274 would allow the formation of small-sized research teams. - It would not be desirable for the European University to be regarded as an institution where one could pursue a real university

271 The French delegation proposed that the work lead not to a “doctorate” but a mere certificate of studies done (a sort of master's degree). Cf. AN-EN 770508/131. “ Instructions to the French delegation...”, op. cir., p. 4. Ibid note to Minister on "European University project”, 23 May 1964. 212 This proposal was upheld only by the French delegation, which hoped to put the Florence project outside the Community framework. 277 PA/A A; ref. 604, Band 1448. Saltier to Cattani, 29 July 1964. According to Sattler, three major issues remained unsolved: funding volume, the doctorate to be conferred by the university, and how to distinguish professors and researchers. 274 According to the Sattler group, the total number of students ought not to be less than 200, while the upper limit, harder to set, might be at 750 or 800, or between 1,200 and 2,000.

148 From left to right: Amintorc Fanfani, Italian President of the Council of Minis- ters, Michel Debré, Prime Minister of France. Antonio Segni, Italian Minister for Foreign Affairs, and Maurice Couve de Murville, French Minister for Foreign Affairs. 1960. (T) Archives du ministère des Affaires étrangères, Paris. career. On the contrary, it would be appropriate for a multiplicity of exchanges to be possible between national universities and the European University.

C) The disappointing epilogue to the Bonn declaration

The documents drawn up by the Pescatorc and Saltier groups were supposed to be adopted at the conference of heads of State and Government at Venice in March 1965. But differences of views that arose between Couvc de Murville and Fanfani did not allow it to meet. As Etienne Hirsch wrote at the time to Cattani, “rescheduling has its costs”. Through its confusion, the Italian Government let its chance slip. After summer 1962, the failure of the Fouchct Plan strengthened French reluctance, aggravated by Fanfani's refusal on 25 July to organize a last-chance conference on political union in Rome. De Gaulle then felt that the Study Committee ought no longer to meet 275. The stage now beginning was the run-up to the Elysce Treaty of January 1963, which favoured Franco-German cooperation, in the cultural sphere too. The crisis that then arose between Paris and Brussels on the question of own resources, causing the “empty-chair” ploy in sum- mer 1965, relegated the Florence project to backstage in the con- cert of Europe. Following the crisis in summer 1965, talks re- sumed, but work in the Six continued to be troubled until 1969. The interruption of working and thinking on the European Univer- sity was to last two years, and the idea seems to have ceased to be part of the concerns of many European leaders 276. The third period of the European University’s ‘prehistory’ had thus lasted over seven years, only to finish with no concrete out-

77î Georges-Henri Soutou, “ Le général dc Gaulle et le plan Fouchct", paper to the colloquium De Gaulle en son siècle, op. vit., p. 126-143. In a note for Maurice Couve de Murville on 20 April 1962 the General wrote: “ The political committee of the Six ought no longer to meet until the Governments have taken up some of the project for Union again. Do not create yet more confusion for the sake of the pleasure of sitting and talking”. 37(1 Interview with Max Kohnstamm by Richard Schrcurs. 29 April 1996 at Ciergnon (Belgium).

150 come. However disappointing this stage may seem, it would be wrong to regard it as entirely sterile: we have seen that the first project for the University, which was the most ambitious one, was also the least precise. Had it been implemented, it might not have survived the upheavals that shook Europe in the late sixties and early seventies. On the contrary, the major thinking done between 1961 and 1968 offered a good omen for the start of the European University Institute.

PART FOUR THE BIRTH OF THE EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE ( 1 9 6 9 - 7 6 )

J ____

After the failure of the negotiations, the project to create a European University stayed in hibernation until the meeting of heads of State or Government in Rome on 30 May 1967, which decided to relaunch the idea.

I - His t o r y o k i n k co n v k n t io n

A) The “ relaunching of the European University”

Italy's ardour did not Hag in the slightest throughout the crisis years. On 29 and 30 May 1967, the conference, or summit, of heads of State or Government of the Six was held in Rome, to celebrate the tenth anniversary of the signature of the EEC and Euratom Treaties. The final communiqué “confirmed the desire to resume study of the project already considered at the Bonn conference on IS July 1961 to create a European University in Florence, with a mission primarily related to technological cooperation"217. The starling point for the new negotiations was a memoran- dum presented by Rome on 23 September 1968. This new Italian proposal seems to have been to create a higher centre of techno- logical research :7\ In fact, the Italian Government felt the time had come to rethink the question of the University, taking up again from the conclusions on which agreement had been reached, namely to set up at least four departments: law, economics, political and social sciences, history and civilization. It put forward the further idea that rather than a sort of postgraduate academy, Florence might become an institution equivalent to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology or the Harvard School of Business; i.e. the objective would be to train business leaders on a European scale. On the Italian side it was regarded as reasonable to bring in Britain from the outset 279.

AN-HN 77050S 131. noie l'or director-gelierai re project lo creale a Furopean Univcrsity in Florence. K September 1967. -7K fhid Mémorandum on the Furopean Llniversity. 23 Decemher I96K.

155 I

I The second point to decide was the degree the university might confer. Thirdly, it was, still according to the Italian Government, essential to define the nature of the commitment the Governments would make: Italy advocated cooperation by the Governments involved. The institutional structure ought to take account of the new approaches that had emerged in the area of university struc- tures (autonomy and co-determination). In February 1969 the Italian Government gave Attilio Cattani an exploratory mission. The diplomat made a tour of the Euro- pean capitals (including London) to sound out reactions and seek to bring viewpoints closer together. The Italian ambassador was received very favourably in The Hague, Brussels, Bonn and Luxembourg, but in Paris could hope for no more than clarification of the French reservations280. However, the evolution of the social and political context was to unblock the situation.

1) Conditions for the relaunch General de Gaulle’s resignation on 27 April 1969 facilitated resumption of negotiations, with the French Government giving the impression of making its European position more flexible, particularly as regards enlargement of the Community to Britain, Denmark and Ireland, subject to the reservation of fully complet- ing the agricultural Community by 1 January 1970. On the other hand, almost everywhere in Europe universities went through upheavals in 1968 that called traditional structures in question. Those in charge of higher education were being faced with similar problems all across the borders. The university reforms un- der way in the majority of European countries, though inspired by national considerations, showed almost everywhere a desire for mu- tual opening in a European framework. This desire for international

2n MAEB; Letter from director-general P. to Lcvarlct, secretary-general at the Edu- cation Ministry, Brussels, 22 March 1969. 2*0 AN-EN 77508/131. Minute of talk between Cattani and Saint-MIcux (Europe directorate) at the Quai d’Orsay, 13 February 1969. MAEB, European University file, note from directorate-general P., for Minister of Foreign Affairs, 3 October 1969.

156 collaboration to assure higher education and research of the “cross-fertilization" required by the rapid progress of science and leading technologies was particularly present in the “loi d’orienta- tion sur rcnscignement superieur" promulgated by the French Gov- ernment on 12 November 1968. This framework law provides in Article 2 that "special links must be established with universities of Member States o f the European Economic Community" 2xl. The spirit in which Article 2 had come into being was explained by Education Minister Edgar Faure in his vigorous defence of it before the French parliament: “ Our higher education," declared Edgar Faurc, "cannot abstract from the construction of Europe, since the hulk o f our students will tomorrow become the managers o f the Europe being built today. IVc are today engaged on the road of European construction; nr have created a common market, an econ- omic Europe. The Rome Treaty provides for freedom of establishment between one country and another, which entails the institution of mutual recognition o f qualifications. Our neighbours have much the same difficulties to tackle as u r do. Has the time not come to attempt a great collaboration on a European scale to consider all o f these problems together?"2S2. All this university policy was influenced by the development of the European institutions. The regular contacts in the conferences of Education Ministers, the Conference of European Vice-Chancel- lors and Principals, various university committees of the Council of Europe, UNESCO and the OECD, and innumerable symposia and workshops facilitated the exchange of experience, ideas and models. The French guideline law of 1968 was influenced by the university reform proposals developed by the Westdeutsche Rekto- renkonferenz in 1967. The conception of the Gruppenuniversitiit initially invented and applied in federal Germany was spreading readily to the other countries These laws had a feature in common: they sought to make equality of opportunity a reality,

:HI On all these points, ct'. the exhaustive analysis done by SIPF (Service international de presse étudiante), first year, n" 17 “Search for a new conception of the Furopean University" (Antonio Tatli), 1 July 1969, :k: Declaration to National Assembly. 24 July 1968. Walter Riicgit, "Division et unité de 1‘Furope: le rôle des universités”, op. cil. in Relations internationales, n1’ 72, printemps 199,1, p. 27-42.

157 and to open higher education to as wide a proportion of the population as possible. But the continuous and increased growth of higher education at national and European level did not solve the problems the universities were finding in their task of training elites in a European perspective. One of the perverse effects of the de- mocratization of the universities was the decline of study abroad. In 1965-6, 5.5% of students in the Common Market had had a period of study in another member country. Ten years later the proportion was only 1%. This decline has to be attributed to democratization: most students came from families without aca- demic traditions and tended to study in a university near home, and not just for financial reasons; the university world was so foreign to them that they preferred to be in a family environment. Finally, all were now convinced that the scientific and techno- logical lag behind the US and the Soviet Union was the outcome of Europe’s educational backwardness2*4. Having noted that the problems of universities were arising similarly everywhere in Europe, thus calling for concerted responses, the political leaders began to formulate suggestions. This created a new climate from which the European University was to benefit.

2) The Hague summit; a false start At the Hague summit (1-2 December 1969) organized around the Community triad of “completion-deepening-widening”, the desire to reach a successful conclusion seemed real. All the Gov- ernments were interested in putting an end to the stagnation of the Communities, and made this desire clear. Georges Pompidou and Willy Brandt needed a European success domestically. By comparison with General de Gaulle, the change on the French

:!H', Inaugurating the proceedings of the sixth European conference of Fducation Minis- ters (Versailles, 20-22 May 1969), Edgar Faure came out in favour of a “ Hu rope of Educa- tion", stating that "the European countries, because of their sizes anti their present position in the industrial world, risk individually accumulating a lag behind a number of other countries bigger in extent, population and technological verve. It is our duty to catch up that lag", To this end, Edgar Faurc suggested a “ European University Community”, with three principal themes of action: mobility of teachers and students, creation of a European information bank and a European education office; extract from “Communauté euro- péenne”, June 1969.

158 side was clear in the style (realistic), but only partial as to the essence. The German Chancellor, freer to move, showed more flame and looked like the champion of Europe. The conference took a number of important decisions: - completion of the Common Market by 1 January 1970, i.c. commitment by the Six to adopt the final agricultural arrangements; - deepening, by producing a progressive plan to set up econ- omic and monetary union; - enlargement: the Five finally secured removal of the French veto on the opening of preparatory negotiations to accession by Britain, Denmark, Ireland and Norway, which were to start by 1 July 1970-«. The heads of Government noted that all the creative actions undertaken could be a real success only if European youth were associated with them: one has however to note that the reference to university problems seems brief. They contented themselves with reaffirming '“‘the interest in creating the European University"2™. The wording is as confused over the intensity of the political will expressed as over the extent of the area covered: did it mean only the Florence project, or the whole set of measures that ap- peared in the declaration of 18 July 1961? It is the latter impression that emerges from the work that preceded the first meeting of the Education Ministers. Following an intervention by Belgium and the Commission, an ad hoc committee of senior officials met in late October 1970 to prepare a conference, the first of its kind, of Education Ministers of the Six. The governments had some difficulties in arriving at the agenda, since each had its specific objective. All, however, made proposals aiming at better coordination in the areas of leaching and research. The Federal Republic proposed the most elaborate pro- gramme, tying mutual recognition of degree certificates and study periods in with establishment of postgraduate teaching in the

^ Pierre Gerbe!. L a Construction tie L Europe. op. dr., p. 352*3. ARC'-CONS; 1.851.41 "Kxtract from (he llruit communiqué of the Hague summit conference". 2 December 1969 (item 11). 159 framework of a European University, and generalized collabor- ation by universities to solve the reform problem they were facing. The Netherlands confined themselves to presenting a note on the state of Dutch work on recognition of degrees, while Belgium launched the idea of “transnational universities”: private-law bodies bringing together the nationals of two or three bordering countries which would confer “European” diplomas equivalent to national ones, and promote “the development of a truly European mentality”. The French delegation supported the idea of a “centre for educational development”, proposed in November 1969 by Educa- tion Minister Olivier Guichard. This body would have three missions: first, to gather and archive all information regarding educational programmes in the Community; second, to assist the mobility of teachers and students throughout Europe by implemen- ting a whole series of mechanisms such as elimination of adminis- trative barriers, awarding of grants, organization of student ex- changes etc. Finally, it would enhance university cooperation by avoiding duplication in terms of both teaching and management 287. As for Italy, originator of a memorandum drawn up in the meantime with the agreement of the Five and partly inspired by the 1965 purchase, it took up the content of the Florence project again, without of course discarding accomplishment of the other aspects of cooperation 288.

B) Agreement takes shape

1) Franco-Italian concertai ion Drawing a lesson from its previous rebuffs, the Rome Govern- ment this time sought to reach a prior Italo-Frcnch understanding. It was in any case perhaps to put pressure on Paris and induce it

On all these projects, see Daniel Thérond, L'Université européenne, op. cit., p, 132-3. On the Guichard plan: MAEB, telegram n° 756, Belgian embassy (Rothschild) to directorate in Paris, p. 17, November 1970. 2!

160 to compromise that it announced its intention to associate Britain with the work on creating the university2*9. It was a meeting between Foreign Ministers Maurice Schuman and Aldo Moro in May 1970 that really allowed the “ European University" file to open again. On 13 June Attilio Cattani and Pierre Laurent, director-general for cultural, scientific and technical relations at the Quai d'Orsay, finalized the agreement outlined at ministerial level. The Italian was conciliatory, manifestly feeling the need to gloss over the details in order to favour a successful outcome to the project. The Frenchman insisted on three points: the university would have to give real higher-level teaching (after the French troisieme cycle)', it would be reserved to small numbers and should have a stable teaching body but with a regular turn- over. However, he avoided going into the point of the contribution “in kind" and dropped the idea (dear to his predecessor Bas- devant) of attaching the European University Institute to the (Italian) University of Florence, hollowing the talk, an initiative by the Italian Government to relaunch the matter by calling an inter- governmental conference to turn the Italian project into a project of the Six was contemplated290.

2) The Florence and Rome intergovernmental conferences (1970-71) Under Italian Government auspices, two intergovernmental conferences dealt with the project, in Florence from 10 to 20 October 1970 and in Rome from 1 to 3 February 1971. All delegations arrived at a convergence of positions, reflected in the final text by: - a preamble referring to the Hague declaration and stressing the links the University Institute would maintain with the Commu- nities;

AN-EN; 770508/] 31. Minute of talk between Cattani ami Saint-Mieux, op. fir., 1.1 February 1969. MAFB, European University file, note from policy directorate-general, for Minister of Foreign Affairs. 3 October 1969. MA EF"; série Europe, Italic, d. 21 Directorate-General for Cultural. Scientific and Technical Relations. “ Diplomatic negotiations on the creation in Florence of a European University institution (meeting of 13 June 19701". 24 September 1970.

161 - the name of the institution, which would be called “ EURO- PEAN UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE”291; - the high level recruitment would be at (postgraduate); - the membership, detailed tasks, rules on appointment and voting for the Institute’s various management bodies, in particular the High Council, consisting of Member State representatives, and the Academic Council, consisting essentially of representatives of the teaching staff and students; - the programmes, which would be essentially in the areas of: law, political and social sciences, economics, history and civilization; - the title conferred, which would be a doctorate with aca- demic value; - an estimate of running costs 292. However, at the end of the work, two essential points of disagreement remained: - the choice of working languages. All delegations except the German delegation accepted the Belgian proposal to opt for French and English as the Institute’s working languages (Italy accepted Italian not being among them) and to specify these lan- guages not in the convention, but in the internal regulations unani- mously voted by the Institute’s High Council293; - the method of financing. The delegations were in agreement that the Institute’s funding should be assured by contributions from Member States until 1977,

291 The French delegation felt that an institution with between 250 and 600 people limited to recruitment at very high level and with no competence in the area of the exact sciences could hardly be called “ university”, and in Florence sought to push through the name “Institution or European Centre of Advanced University Studies”. 291 AN-EN 7910757/1 [General information notes on the “ European University Insti- tute", 1971.1972.1973.) Note from Pierre Laurent (Director-General for Cultural, Scientific and Technical Relations) for the Education Minister, 6 February 1971, on the Florence and Rome meetings. MAEB; European University file, Minutes of directorate-general for policy: “ Intergovernmental conference on the question of the European University, Florence", Brussels, 23 October 1970. 293 The German delegation felt that the Bundestag would not ratify the agreement if German were excluded from the working languages; it proposed that the choice of two working languages be made at the start of each seminar, according to the wishes of the professors and students.

162 and then be given renewed consideration. The French delegation did not raise the question of principle, and accepted that this new consideration would take account of the position at that date and the possibility of securing funding in other ways294. The Belgian and Dutch delegations, while stressing their very clear preference for a Community solution, stated they were willing to leave the door open to study of other methods of funding. The Italian representatives, keen to sec the Florence project succeed at last, finally came round to the French position, despite their preference for Community funding. But the German delegation declared that it could sign only a text making a formal commitment, if not immediately at least in the future, to Community funding. Despite the attempt to adopt the German suggestion on work- ing languages (with the French delegation calculating that accept- ing this proposal would in practice favour English and French) in exchange for acceptance by Germany of consideration in 1977 of other modes of funding than the Community’s own resources, the German delegation refused to shift its position. - The same divergences emerged in relation to the legal frame- work: the French delegation felt that the planned institution ought to be an autonomous creation of Member States, decided by an intergovernmental agreement. The German delegation hoped that it would have an organic link with the Communities.

3) The meeting o f national Education Ministers and the signature of the Convention The last disagreements were settled at the meeting of national Education Ministers of the Six in Brussels on 16 November 1971. Agreement was finally reached on the basis of twofold acceptance. France (Olivier Guichard) gave its pledge to realization of the Florence project, on the reservation that the principle of the “ Centre of Educational Development” be accepted, and Italy (Riccardo Misasi) accepted his partner’s proposals only in exchange for crea- tion of the European University in Florence.

2M France considered that funding from ihe Community's own resources would ipso facto entail an extension of the powers of the Community bodies, and hence de facto of the areas covered by the Treaty of Rome. 163 The Ministers entrusted a group of experts under the Commit- tee of Permanent Representatives to draft a convention without delay and bring it before the six Governments for signature295. A few odd questions still presented final problems. These were: - the conditions for accession to the convention not just by European Community Member States who had not signed it but by any European State asking for it (a position defended energeti- cally by the French Government), - the settlement of differences arising between States parties or between the Institute and its stall: should involvement of the Euro- pean Court of Justice be provided for, or else a special arbitration body (the latter position being defended by the French delegation)? - relations between the Florence Institute and other university institutes like the Bruges College: the Belgian delegation pressed for the creation of links allowing harmonization of study programmes between the two institutes296. On 5 April 1972 the expert group completed its work. Since elections were due in Italy, its Government wanted to hurry up the ceremony for signature of the Convention, which was held in Florence on 19 April 1972297. It must be acknowledged that this signature hardly raised mass enthusiasm, and that after so much controversy the Florence project had ended with a very limited outcome. As the European University slipped outside the Community orbit in institutional terms, its academic dimensions and cultural prospects shrank. Was the modesty of the outcome not in any case an image of the

395 AN-EN 910757/1. Note from head of mission (Pierre Garrigue), International Relations, to Education Minister, 17 April 1972. (“European University Institute in Florence”). ARC-CONS; 1,851.41 Note; “ Summary of Decisions taken by the Council and Conference of national Education Ministers", Brussels, 16 November 1971. 396 ARC-CONS; 1.851.41. Note “ Convention setting up the European University Institute”, COREPER Meeting on 28 January, 16 and 22 February and I March 1972, Brussels 3 March 1972. 397 The persons signing the Convention on 19 April 1972 were, for Belgium: Hurez, Minister of Education; FTancc: Duhamel, Minister for Cultural Affairs; Italy: Moro, Mini- ster for Foreign Affairs, Misasi, Minister of Education; Luxembourg: Dupong, Minister of Education; Netherlands: Wcstertcrp, State Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Federal Republic of Germany: Lahr, Ambassador.

164 1972, at Palazzo Vecchio, Florence. (<" Studio Press Photo, Florence).

165

7 progressive erosion of European momentum since the age of the grand illusions following the war? The other aspects of university cooperation remained, as we have seen, at the study stage.

II - Co n t e n t o f t h e co nv en tio n

The European University, an ambitious project the idea for which was born in the framework of the Community institutions of the Europe of the Six, was made a reality by the will of the six States in the form of a university institute with limited powers and a particularly complex administration. The old difficulties had been resolved in compromises.

A) Modest ambitions

I) The institutes tasks a) Its objectives From all the work done since 1958 in the various European bodies, it emerged that the university institution to be created should have as its main object, in differently conceived ways, higher education duties of providing training to individuals. A consideration of the text of the Convention setting up the European University Institute shows that this concern to create an institution providing higher education is no longer quite so clear. Article 2 of the Convention, for instance, states that the Insti- tute's mission “shall be to contribute, by its activities in the fields o f higher education and research, to the development o f the cultural and scientific heritage of Europe.... This aim shall be pursued through teaching and research at the highest university level” ™. Thus, teaching now appears as only one of the Institute’s activities, certainly an important and privileged one, but no longer responding to the concern of the initiators of the European Uni- versity project for providing specialized higher training above all.

m ELM; Convention setting up a European University Institute, p. I.

166 Various features of the wording or of vocabulary choices, moreover, particularly significantly reflect this new orientation. Thus, the European University Institute, which is not a uni- r versity, is directed by a Principal, who is not a rector. By Article 16 of the Convention, it takes in researchers, who arc not students of the Institute, but may be students in their country of origin. It should however be noted that there are professors and that they constitute a teaching staff249. » Independently of this after all rather formal aspect, it is nonethe- less the case that the institution created has strictly limited powers. h) Specialization [ Article 11 of the Convention provides that the Institute shall have four “departments”, in no way comparable with faculties. They arc to be devoted respectively to history and civilization, economics, law, and political and social sciences-™. The organiz- f ation of research — since it was to be a matter much more of research than of teaching — could be done in collaboration among several departments, so as to ensure interdisciplinarity. Without being definitive, this structure appears relatively “fixed”, since only , agreement by all the States parties to the Convention could allow the division to be changed, or create new departments. It is true that the four departments created appear more in- trinsic than others to research at a European level, and they arc perhaps more likely than scientific departments to train European 1 cadres useful to the Community institutions: for their need for scientific staff is less, and those can very well be trained in national university structures. But it should nonetheless be recalled that the starting point for the idea of the European University is in the Euratom Treaty. At the time, the priority went to creating an institution for scientific higher education, with other disciplines being more or less grafted on. The new structure of the European University Institute thus seems to deprive it of any legal link with the Community Treaties, a position to which we shall return.

w Ibid, p. 9. ,on Ibid, p. 7. 167 c) The researchers It is very hard to find estimates in figures of student numbers301, and the annex to Article 16 of the Convention provides for a range of between 250 and 600 research students, at least initially. Provisions regarding the origins of these researchers arc more interesting. The Institute is open only to persons holding qualifications from a national university (Article 16(1)). In the preliminary work the idea had been contemplated of admitting only students having already completed a university course of at least three years. The regulations applying this Article arc to be laid down by the High Council. It would seem that ideas went to access limited to those holding a degree of the level of the French maîtrise. Access to the Institute is in principle reserved to nationals of the Contracting States. However, the High Council may decide to admit research students from other countries to do work at the Institute. As far as possible, geographical balance is to be aimed at. So as to offer all necessary guarantees, admission to the Insti- tute is to be decided by an entrance board; to limit the effects of possible financial selection, Convention Article 17 provides for the creation of grants awarded by the States, the Communities or a special fund to be created 302.

cl) "Diplomas " The Institute is not to confer a diploma in the strict sense. Article 14 provides that it shall have the power to confer a doc- torate and attendance certificates on terms to be decided by the High Council. The annex to Article 14 provides that “ the problem of the comparative status of the Institute’s doctorate will be studied in a wider context as soon as possible ” 30\ The doctorate, and a fortiori the attendance certificate, can in fact be awarded only for personal research or work, but not mark the acquisition of knowledge through specialized teaching, a notion

1,11 What to call people pursuing study or research at the Institute was much dis- cussed. Finally, the rather neutral term “ researcher” (“chercheur”; the English convention text says “ research student”) seemed the most appropriate one. 102 EUI; Convention... op. cit., p. 10. m Ibid, p. 28. 168 that docs not appear in the Convention. Given the still great imprecision as to the Institute’s future activities, one may wonder about the real scope of Article 14.

2) The place o f the Institute among European institutions The text of the Convention very clearly sets the European University Institute outside the Community legal framework. No reference is made to it in the preamble, and the legal grounds arc particularly clear, stating that it had been decided “to realize the intentions expressed on the subject in the Declarations made by the Heads of Slate or of Government meeting at Bonn on 18 July 1961", and making no reference to the work over several years in the framework of the Community bodies. The single, though important, exception concerns the Insti- tute's funding: Article 19(2) hypothesizes “the alternative of finamcing by the Community" after a transitional periodm . The Convention is a matter of intergovernmental cooperation. It gives the main responsibilities for the Institute’s functioning to a High Council made up of representatives of the contracting Governments, and deciding unanimously in most eases or by a qualified majority. A quite negligible role goes to the Communities, with a repre- sentative attending the High Council meetings without vote; the President of the European Court of Justice is to designate the arbitration body to decide any conflicts. With a few reservations about financial provisions and the procedure for joining the Con- vention, to be considered below, that is all. The EC Commission has no power of suggestion or recom- mendation in relation to the Institute.

B) Complex structures

One need only read the Convention to be struck by the extreme detail of its drafting and its precision over rules of operation. One

-*14 ƒƒ)/

169 might ask whether the multiplication of provisions, some of which might seem rather minor, might not risk devoiding it of much of its effectiveness. The whole set of operating rules for the European University Institute risk bringing some administrative heaviness.

1) Numerous bodies, specific powers a) The collective bodies These are the High Council, which has more or less general powers over the Institute’s operation, and the Academic Council, with an academic and university mission. The powers of the High Council, consisting of two representa- tives from each Government, are defined in Convention Article 6. Reading it shows how important the body’s powers are305. There is no question of going over them in detail here; suffice it to state that most decisions must be taken unanimously, since the only ones by qualified majority are the appointment of the Principal and the Secretary (and not even the first incumbents, where unanimity is required), approval of the budget, verification of the accounts, approval of general teaching policy, and adoption of its rules of procedure. Most specific decisions to be taken to start the Institute up (service rules, internal regulations, creation of professorial posts, etc.) come under the unanimity rule. One might fear that agreement might take long to reach, and the functioning of the new Institute be hampered. The structures and rules of procedure of the Academic Coun- cil (the term “Academic Senate” originally contemplated had been rejected) are more flexible. It has general powers in teaching and research, and is made up essentially of all or some of the professors plus representatives of the other teachers and of re- search students. The exact membership of the Academic Council and the majority rules applying to it are to be specified by the internal rules of procedure determined by the High Council, which may also invite persons from the Contracting States with particular qualifications to take part in the Academic Council’s activities.

305 ¡hid., p. 2-4.

170 The Academie Council is to have the broadest powers in developing programmes, within the framework of the general lines approved by the High Council. It is to nominate the heads of department, the professors and other teachers, and the entrance board and thesis examining boards. It also has some administrative powers: it takes part in draw- ing up the budget and the financial estimates, and considers the draft activities report for submission by the Principal to the High Council. h) The individual authorities The Principal is chosen for three years by the High Council from a list of three names proposed by the Academic Council. He has general powers to represent and administer the Institute. He appoints the teachers nominated by the Academic Council, and members of the administrative staff. He draws up the draft budget and implements it once adopted by the High Council. The Secretary assists the Principal and cannot in principle have the same nationality. His tasks arc to be specified by the High Council. Two auditors of different nationalities arc to be appointed for three years by the High Council to ensure the soundness of finan- cial management.

2) Relative autonomy The combination of powers of various bodies that emerges from the Convention text puts the Institute's autonomy in a dif- ferent light according to the various aspects of its activities and functioning. Weak administrative autonomy: budget and financial powers, internal organization and administrative life depend almost exclus- ively on the High Council, an emanation of the Governments of the Contracting States to the Convention. The Institute has legal personality. It and its staff enjoy privileges and immunities laid down in a protocol signed in Florence at the same time as the Convention. This very specific document lays down the broad lines of the tax, customs and legal arrangements applying to the

171 Institute and its staff. The research students arc not mentioned except in Article 11, dealing with the social benefits to be adopted in the interna] regulations, and Article 10, which obliges Con- tracting States to facilitate their free movement. Rather greater academic autonomy: In this area, powers are shared between the High Council and Academic Council. It is the High Council that creates the teaching posts and the Aca- demic Council that nominates their holders, and also specifies the programmes whose general lines arc approved by the High Council. Finally, as is normal, it has full powers in relation to admission of research students and the award of degrees and certificates, The Academic Council’s autonomy was however weak at the time when the Institute’s bodies were set up: for the first eight teachers (the first eight members of the Academic Council) had to be chosen unanimously by a provisional committee of two repre- sentatives of each Contracting State (at least one an academic).

3) Further development hard to predict The very precision of the Convention’s provisions reflects the Contracting States’ concern to leave as much room as possible for the unexpected and for empirical practice. Additionally, a number of barriers arc set up, to make any changes more difficult. The Convention can be amended only by a very cumbersome procedure (Article 33): the initiative can come from a Govern- ment, the Principal or the Academic Council. The High Council must give a unanimously favourable opinion on the calling of a conference of Government representatives. This is then con- vened by the Government occupying the presidency of the High Council, and the decisions to take must be submitted to the normal procedure for ratifying international treaties. Given the precision of the Convention’s contents, one can sec that it is meant to be very hard to change either the Institute’s name, the content of its “ teaching” or the nature of the degrees it awards 306.

v* ¡hid., p. 15-16.

172 The only change contemplated in the Convention, following a special procedure, is the possible creation of new departments, which falls under the exclusive powers of the High Council deciding unanimously (Article II) 307. The third point on which the Convention was liable to evolve was accession by new States. The possibility is explicitly accepted in Article 32 for new Member States of the European Communi- ties. By contrast, the possibility of accession by non-EEC States is not contemplated before four years, when the High Council is to submit a report on the question to the Contracting States. The interest of Britain, Ireland and Denmark in the Institute was very real, and these countries had already indicated their intention to accede to the Convention immediately following ratifi- cation. In fact, the Governments of these three countries were associated with the preparatory work to set up the Institute. The Convention setting up the European University Institute thus looks like a rather rigid text. We can understand that the Member States did not want the compromises they had arrived at to be easily destroyed.

C) Compromises

We have seen how a number of differences and divergences on the Institute’s nature and tasks had been resolved — or not been — among them the status of the professors and “researchers". On other points, by contrast, it was essential to reach a compromise.

1) The language question The Institute’s official languages are the four languages of the Six signatory countries to the Convention, plus English. The com- promise was the outcome of the will of each of the signatories not to cause an incident or a breakdown on this point. The need, in any ease perfectly logical, for researchers and teachers to have an adequate knowledge of two of these five languages was recognized. •

•w Ibid, p. 7.

173 Practical details of language use are to be determined by the High Council deciding unanimously, a provision that well shows the interest that signatory States bore towards this matter.

2) Financial questions These problems had always been the hardest to solve, since more than others they saw the supporters of Community Europe up against those of State prerogatives. The Bonn conference had hoped to get round these difficulties by entrusting creation of the university to Italy, and having the other States participate in its financial life. The details of this participation were one of the causes of the failure of the various projects of the Pcscatore working group. The compromise finally reached has two aspects: - Initial expenditure: This is for the Italian Republic, which is to provide the Institute free of charge with a site and the necessary buildings for its activities (Article 25). It concerns only the initial equipment of buildings constructed or enlarged and made available to the University Institute. Satisfaction was thus given to those who did not want participation by the States in investment expenditure30ii. - Operating expenditure: Despite all the difficulties previously raised, the system of a scale of financial contributions by Contract- ing States was accepted. But it was also accepted that this was only a provisional solution and that a study would be made in 1977 of the changes to make to the Institute’s funding “ in the light of developments in the European Communities by that date and the alternative of financing by the Community” 309. This was the point where compromise had been hardest to reach, since the supporters of Community funding of the Institute’s operations were at least as keen on defending their system as its opponents. For completeness on financial questions, we must cite the provisions of Article 12(1) of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European University Institute. This Article pro- **

** Ibid., p. 13. ■1IW Ibid., Article 19(2), p. II.

174 üüa&ktaüttk.

vides that Institute administrative and teaching staff arc to be subject to a tax for its benefit on remuneration paid by it. This more or less “Community" resource would be small, but its sym- bolic value is not negligible.

Ill - St a r t -i p pro ble ms a nd pr o s pe c t s f o r gr owt h

At the outset the Institute had to work on two fronts, its physical equipment and its academic infrastructure. The Six in- tended to profit from the time between signature and ratification of the Convention to undertake all the preparatory work that could be done in the absence of the Institute’s definitive authorities. A Preparatory Committee was consequently set up, which in the terms of a declaration annexed to the Convention consists of repre- sentatives of the Governments and one Commission representative, and is mandated to do the work necessary to set up the Institute, in particular to draw up a Headquarters Agreement to govern relations, taking account of the indications given in the Conven- tion, between the Italian Government and the Institute, especially its installation in Florence.

A) The Institute's profile: programmes, teachers, researchers

The Preparatory Committee provided for the Institute to start with a team of some 20 teachers and 40 to 50 researchers, with cruising speed to be attained after five or six years. Some had doubts in this connection that it would be possible in such a short lapse of time to reach the figure of four to five hundred researchers, or wondered if one ought really to contemplate such a high figure. - The Institute’s programme of work, to be drawn up by the Academic Council, had very special importance since it gave a clear profile for the Institute’s activities. The majority of commit- tee members thought that the programme ought not to define the Institute’s work as such in order not to interfere with researchers’ specialization310: the Institute as a body was not to undertake any academic work. It was instead a programme of study and research done in the Institute, in respect for the freedom for research ex- plicitly recognized by the Convention. This programme was to be spread over several years. On the one hand, it had to ensure research students of activities ranging over at least two years, the minimum period to take the degree of doctor of the Institute. On the other, it had to make it possible to take the necessary steps to bring the requisite teaching staff to the Institute in good time, since their contracts were time-limited. However, the programme ought not to be rigid. It must be capable of continuity, and of being adjusted and amended when needed. The programme was needed not just for academic activ- ities, but also to calculate the budget appropriations. The Aca- demic Council’s obligation to draw up the programme should be compared with the Principal’s to draw up the triennial estimates, which he has, after consulting the Academic Council, to bring before the High Council for consideration and assessment. In implementing the programme, the Convention allows de- partments some autonomy, at the same time specifying, however, that the Institute would ensure that a major part of research be done on an interdisciplinary basis. Each seminar and working group should thus bring together types of teaching and research students with different and complementary backgrounds and spe- cialization, needed to do joint study. Finally, the Institute would not give taught courses, since the work was essentially to be research work. The question of languages remained one of the toughest ones to solve. Deciding on two languages sufficiently well known by

im £ xcCpt for the Dulch, for whom the Preparatory Committee ought to set up the structure covering the various parts of the Institute's creation and define its academic mission, the “ profile” that would in turn control the buildings to construct, the establish- ment of a realistic budget and the question of accommodation for students. In fact, the difficulty of reconciling this viewpoint with academic freedom, the principle that research ought to be researchcr-driven rather than laid down by the Institute, became apparent. AN-EN 910757/&; minutes of Preparatory Committee meeting, “ Institute Profile", 7 No- vember 1972. MAEN; 1964-75, Europcse Univcrsitcit V: “ Dutch contribution to academic profile”, 29 September 1972.

176 participants would avoid any need for simultaneous interpreta- tion. But the choice of these two languages would be hard in practice (after the accession of the three new Community Member Stales the Institute would have six official languages), and rule out the possibility, for some people, of taking part in a given piece of work. The arrangements adopted do not however seem to rule out a research student's presenting an individual work in his mother tongue. - To ensure the highest quality of work, the Institute is to have teachers with top qualifications and great authority in their disciplines. Moreover, they arc to be capable of directing and organizing the study and research work provided for in the pro- gramme. The choice of these teachers would be particularly deli- cate, since the qualities of the first team to come together in Florence would largely determine the Institute’s reputation. - As to the teaching staffs terms of recruitment, it seemed necessary on the one hand to ensure continuity in work done at the Institute. But it was equally essential to ensure a dynamic evol- ution of work, and especially to make it possible for centres of interest to evolve and even shift. Finally, it was clear from the outset that the numbers of teachers could not go over a certain threshold. The ideas finally ended with the conclusion that it was best to provide for full-time professors, part-time professors and assistant professors, and to offer them a contract for a maximum of three years, renewable. - This flexible formula had advantages and drawbacks. The advantage was a certain mobility, which allowed the research pro- gramme to be given new facets and to correct possibly injudicious choices without incurring too many costs. But the disadvantage was that teachers could not know from the start how long they would actually stay in Florence. This uncertainty was all the graver since accepting a full-time post in Florence was likely in some eases to mean losing a position acquired in the university of origin, with no guarantees for a continuing career once a teacher returned to the country of origin. - The first eight teachers w'ere to be chosen by a provisional academic committee made up of two representatives of each Con-

177 I

trading State, at least one an academic311. The influence of Govern- ments over the Institute’s initial team was thus to be very great. The preparatory committee took measures to start proceedings to gather candidacies. It was agreed that each Government would bring to the attention of university circles interested the possibilities offered by the Institute, and the applications would be submitted individually by those interested. Since initial consideration of applications proved disappointing, the Belgian, Dutch and British delegations asked for an extension of the recruitment period so as to be able to make calls to particular persons. France and Italy were against this bloc that was “ tending to dispossess the Academic Council of its powers by politicizing applications to the maximum'1'3I2. - The Institute was to choose its researchers among students, researchers or other persons holding national university degrees at- testing their capacity to undertake or pursue research. These would in particular be students at the stage of the French troisième cycle (postuniversity studies), researchers working in national or interna- tional research institutes, persons from firms, public administrations etc., able to be freed for a certain period to undertake research at the Institute. The Institute was open to nationals of Contracting States, but could take in people of other nationalities on terms and limits it would lay down. Admission was to be decided by one or more boards set up by the Academic Council. The rules for these boards would be decided in due course. The possibility to take the degree of doctor of the Institute in one of the four disciplines would be an additional attraction. It should however be noted that the Convention is silent on the question of recognition of the title in the j various Contracting States. The Institute had accordingly from the *315

111 The members of this “ provisional academic committee" were as follows: O’Laoghaire, Mastcrson (Ireland), Van Nuffel, Buchman (Belgium), Buss. Schneider (Ger- many), Andersen, Petersen (Denmark), Dupront, Aubry (France), Firpo, Cordero di Mon- tczcmolo (Italy), Margucs. Rcilcs (Luxembourg), Chloros, Hinslcy (Britain), 315 AN-EN 91757/3. Minutes of meeting of Preparatory Committee, 21 and 29 Jan- uary 1974. The eight professors chosen unanimously were, for each of the four sections, as follows: History and Civilization: Karl-Dictrich Bracher (Germany) Charles Wilson (Brit- ain); Economics: Louis Duquesnc dc la Vincllc (Belgium), Pierre Salmon (France); Law: Geoffrey Joseph Hand (Ireland), Christoph Sasse (Germany); Political and Social Sciences: Jacques George) (France), Giovanni Sartori (Italy).

178 outset to require a very high level in all work to which it would accord the doctorate. To enable the academic community to assess the quality of the work, the Convention requires publication follow- ing agreement by the Institute. - One problem that remained unresolved was the grants to the research students. The Institute budget could not provide for appropriations for these, but the Convention allows the creation of a studentship fund that might inter alia be fed from contributions by the States. No decision was planned regarding the setting up of this Fund, but the Preparatory Committee decided on a procedure that combined admission to the Institute with award of grants by Contracting Slates: the Institute was first to decide on admission, and the national authorities thereafter on the grant. The conse- quence of this procedure is obviously that the amounts of grant to various research students arc not identical. To avoid discrimina- tion, the committee sought to define a range that might lie between 144,000 and 110,000 Belgian francs313. The Institute would be the more attractive to both teachers and students if it could give access to major library holdings and documentation facilities. The preparatory w'ork showed that the Institute could use the important libraries existing in Florence, especially the Biblioteca Nazionalc, But the Preparatory Commit- tee also found that the Institute ought itself to set up a library and appropriate documentation centre with the most modern resources for collecting and coordinating information (computing being al- ready mentioned)314 *. The first estimates provided for substantial appropriations for these facilities. The delegations agreed on the need to associate heads of department with defining policy for purchasing works315. - Finally, as regards the Institute’s staffs, all delegations and the Commission were agreed that as favourable terms as possible

3,3 AN-EN 910757/1. Minutes (Garriguc) of meeting of Preparatory Committee on 7 March 1974, 18 March 1974. 314 The idea of creating a great European Documentation Centre at the Institute, proposed by the Trench delegate Prof. Dupront, was not adopted. 3,5 AN-EN 910757/1. Minutes of meeting of Preparatory Committee. 4 July 197.V

179 had to be offered them so as to render Institute posts attractive and secure worthwhile people. Inspiration should be drawn from provisions for international civil servants (Council of Europe, CERN, ESRO), not just at the European Communities. The com- mittee chairman and the Dutch delegation immediately stressed that “ while the preparatory work on creation of the Institute enjoyed the valuable hospitality and resources of the Communities [many preparatory committee meetings being held in Brussels] it must be understood that the Institute would not be an institution o f the Communities”*'*. Another question long at dispute concerned possible recourse for settling disputes to the Court of Justice, whose competence was rejected by the French delegation117.

B) Nomination of the Principal and Secretary

The Principal acts within the Institute as a pivot between aca- demic life and the High Council representing the Governments of Contracting States. He was in particular to ensure that the Institute could effectively enjoy the freedom of research and teaching that the Convention conferred on it, while attaining and maintaining a high level of academic work. He would also have to mobilize the good- will of Governments to secure operating conditions that would allow the Institute's reputation to spread in the university and academic world. The Principal's influence over the choice of teachers and of study and research programmes is more limited. The Principal cer- tainly chairs the Academic Council. But it is to take its decisions according to the majority rules laid down by the High Council. In these circumstances, the choice of Principal was a matter of capital importance for the Institute’s success. The appointment of such a figure internationally raises additional special problems concerning not just his own qualities and skills, but also the balance to be

Jl6 AN-EN 910757/1. Note (Garriguc) to Gad and (technical adviser to the Education Minister’s office) on the meetings of the EG I Preparatory Committee on 22-23 February and 22 November 1972 in Brussels, 6 March 1973. J17 ¡hid Note (Garrigue) to Gadaud, minutes of Preparatory Committee meeting. 21 and 29 January 1974. 180 established in allocating the other posts (professors and heads of department, the Secretary) among nationals of the various Contract- ing States. The Convention further states that the Principal and Secretary cannot be of the same nationality. The Principal was to be assisted in his organizational and administrative tasks by a Secretary. His duties and term of ap- pointment were not laid down in the Convention, but were to be fixed by the High Council as part of the Institute’s operational provisions. The importance of the choice of Principal led the Con- vention's negotiators to provide that the first Principal and first Secretary be appointed by the High Council acting unanimously. Even before its meeting (20 March 1975) that made the formal appointment31K, the question of the nomination of the Institute's Principal and Secretary had been tackled on several occasions dur- ing 1973 by the committee, ‘"restricted” to heads of delegation only. After some tricky bargaining, due essentially to the effects the Principal’s appointment would inevitably have on those to follow (Secretary, heads of department and professors). Max Kohnstamm was eventually appointed as first Principal. Former ECSC Secre- tary-General and Vice-chairman of the Monnet Committee, he rapidly secured the support of Commission representative Felix- Paul Mcrcercau and the assent of five Governments: Britain, Den- mark, Ireland, Luxembourg and Belgium (the latter joining fol- lowing withdrawal of Albert Coppe’s candidacy). Italy indicated it would officially favour Max Kohnstamm on condition that the

1”t The High Council is made up of represen la lives of the governments. Its initial membership was: Germany: Dr Fberhard Boning, Director at the Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Dr. Willy Becker, Director at the Ministry of Science and Re- search of Land North Rhinc-Wcstphalia; Belgium: Prof. Buchmanrt, University of Louvain: France: Dean Georges Vedel, Jean Laloy, Director for Cultural Relations al the Quai d'Orsay; Denmark: Rosenstand Hansen. Head of Division at the Foreign Ministry, Thor Bak, Director of Copenhagen University: Ireland: Dominic O’Laoghaire, Secretary, Depart- ment of Education, Prof. Patrick Masterson, member of the Higher Education Authority; Italy: Vittorio Cordero di Montczcmolo. Director-General for Cultural Cooperation at the Foreign Ministry. Prof. Lcopoldo Elia, chairman of the Board of Education; Luxembourg: Jean Wagner, Ambassador in Italy, Norbert Von Kunitski, member of the board of the International University Institute; Netherlands: Prof. H. G. Schermers: M. H. A. Bakcls; United Kingdom: Lord Boyle of Handsworth, former minister, Vice-Chanecllor of the University of Leeds. R. Toomey, Undersecretary of Slate at the Ministry of Education and Science. University Institute Nine would accept the choice of Marcello Buzzonetti as Secretary. The ex-director of the European Community Institute for Univer- sity Studies also secured an approach by Monnct and Hirsch in London that led to withdrawal of the two candidates Britain had initially put forward319. The Federal Republic’s candidate, Mr Bahro, supported only by France and the Netherlands, had finally to give way. In compensation, France and Germany would each be given two professorial posts 320 321. The choice of Max Kohnstamm to head the Institute would seem to have been a particularly fortunate one. As Emanucle Gazzo wrote in an editorial in Europe: “ He is someone with an academic background but not tied to academic preconceptions. lie was involved in European construction from the beginning, both as lobbyist (he was vice-chairman of Monnet's Action Committee for the United States of Europe) and in operational capacities. He has no ideological bias, and operates entirely at his ease not just [...] in Europe [...] but in the rest of the world too. Those who know him as ire do compare him more to those lay clerics avid for knowledge and communication who animated the first universities in the Middle Ages, which were univer- sal by being European, than to some “baron’* of a State university whose culture is all too often fettered, not to say compromised"m . According to Max Kohnstamm’s indications, the appointment of Marcello Buzzonetti as Secretary was motivated by a need for political balancing necessary at that time. The Principal, biased toward the centre-left, was to be flanked by a Secretary who leant toward the centre-right of the political sphere. It should be added that the newly nominated Secretary had previously acquired Com- munity experience firstly at Euratom and subsequently at the EEC

3W MAEN; Europa Alg. 990. Europcsc Univcrsilcit VI, memo Hantogh (2007), 8 March 1973. 320 MAEF; série Europe, Q1E, carton 1971-1976. Note from sccrclary-gcncral of SGCI for Council of the European Communities meeling on 5 and 6 November 1973, on the question of appointment of the authorities for the EUl. In Italy and Germany, it was doubted that Max Kohnstamm was really supported by the Dutch Government; cf. MAEN Europa Alg. 990. Europcsc Universiteit V, Van Walt (Dutch ambassador in Luxembourg), The Hague, 15 February 1973 and De Brus (ambassador in Bonn), The Hague, 23 February 1973. 321 Europe, 15-16 November 1976, “ L’Université de Florence: un pôle européen". 183 Marcello BuzzoncUi, First Secretary o f the European University Institute, Florence (1975-1995), ((', European University Institute).

184 Commission. Over and above political cleavages, understanding between the two men was immediate, and gave rise to unclouded collaboration322 *.

C) The buildings question: Villa Tolomei or Badia Fiesolana?

Italy had undertaken to make available free of charge to the Institute the premises it required -133. The negotiations in this connec- tion started with the prospect of definitively establishing the Institute on the site of the Villa Tolomei, a few kilometres from the centre of Florence. There were already several buildings on the site, some of them dating from the 13th century, which could at least in part be converted for the Institute’s needs. But the bulk of the buildings for the Institute would have to be built, respecting a number of con- straints imposed by the site and the need to conserve it. Despite the negative observations by some members of the relevant committees (ground needing consolidation, need for major restoration work, difficult access), the Italian authorities did not want to “overturn the working hypothesis we have been working on for so many years” 324. The Preparatory Committee thus felt that these constraints in no way prevented satisfactory buildings for the Institute’s needs (it was thinking in terms of a size of 16,000 m2, corresponding to the needs of 40 teachers and 400 to 500 researchers) 325. The buildings were to be constructed by the Italian Govern- ment, authorized by the ratification law, which also provided for

521 Interview with Max Kohnstamm by Richard Schreurs, 29 April 1996, Cicrgnon (Belgium). 333 MA El; IUE/83. Documenti di base, ietterà di Segni a Taviani, Ministero degli Esteri a Ministero delle Finanze: "acquisto immobile in via Marignolle, 14. Firenze per sede università europea ", 2 December 1960, annexed to telegram of 18 January 1971. 334 At one of the first visits to the site in the company of Etienne Kirsch in 1961, ambassador Bottai had already been struck by the narrowness and unsuitability of the Marignolle complex to accommodate the premises then planned for numbers of 800 stu- dents; Interview with ambassador Bruno Bottai by the author, op. cit. MAEI; IUE^S.1. Documenti di base "appunti per il direttore generale: vìsita deli Ambasciatore Casardi e de! professore Archi al complesso di Villa Tolomei”, 20 June 1972. 325 Ernest Hcynig, “ L’fnstitut Univcrsitairc dc Florence”, in Revue du Marche com- mun, n* 171, janvicr 1974, p. 19-27. Ernest Hcynig was German delegate on the Preparatory Committee.

185 ■

Construction work at the Badia Fiesolana, scat of the European University Insti- tute. {© Studio Press Photo, Florence).

186 major appropriations for funding. However, the design of the buildings and the accomplishment of the work was to be done in close contact with the Institute. Since building premises ex novo at Villa Tolomci inevitably implied long delays, it was decided that the Italian Government would rent part of the Badia Fiesolana monastery at San Domenico di Fiesolc, belonging to the Piarist Fathers (Scolopi), to house the Institute for the first five years. This solution did not fail to arouse criticism among some foreign delegations, who felt that the need to act fast would not allow the Institute to draw lessons from actual operations before the start of construction, so as to determine the course of future building. The timetable laid down by the Preparatory Committee, al- ready a year behind the wishes of the Fducation Ministers, was impossible to keep to. The work begun at the Badia was delayed in 1974-5 due to the difficulties with the Italian administration and the intentions of the monastery's owners, the Piarist f athers. In September 1974 the Italian Foreign Minister in fact indicated that the arrangements made for installing the Institute at the Badia Fiesolana would have to await approval by an Italian parliamentary committee of a draft amendment to the law (n*’ 920) of 23 December 1972, since this authorized expenditure only for renting the Badia and for building at Villa Tolomci. but not for the conversion work planned at the Badia. But since a government crisis broke out at that point in Italy, Parliament's discussions were delayed32i'. There remained the difTicully with the Piarist Fathers. When the Italian Government finally made the Badia available to the Institute {July 1975), Father Balducei, a great figure in the Florentine intelli- gentsia — who was later to maintain excellent relations with the Institute — had the further idea of converting the monastery so as to enlarge his study centre. The good oiTices of the Institute's Secretary, Marcello Buzzonctti, and the Ambassador to the Holy See, Gian- franco Pompei, managed to get the dispute settled amicably 327.

,:6 HIE; “ Note by Max Kohnstamni on the establishment of the European Univer- sity Institute in Elorcnee'’, addressed to the preparatory committee. 15 November 1074. 1:7 MAE1; 1UE/83. " Sedc". Note from Director for Cultural, Scientific and Technical Cooperation Montezemolo to Gianfranco Pompei (Italian ambassador to the Holy See). 21 April 1975.

187 Finally, Ihc Institute’s authorities were faced with the diffi- culty of evacuating the Technical Institute for Tourism from another part of the premises. The copious correspondence between the Institute’s newly appointed Prinicipal, Max Kohnstamm, and Edu- cation Minister Franco Maria Malfatti illustrates the efforts made by these two men to enable the Institute to open on the scheduled date in November 1976. In August 1978 the Italian authorities finally dropped the idea of using Villa Tolomci as the definitive scat of the Institute, because of “insurmountable difficulties of an environmental and town-planning nature” 12*. The preferences of an “aesthetic” nature displayed by the Insti- tute’s first Principal, Max Kohnstamm, following an on-the-spot inspection were no doubt not entirely extraneous to this decision129. After 20 years of debate, hope and disappointment, the Euro- pean University was finally officially born on 15 November 1976 in Florence. The opening ceremony chaired by Giovanni Leone was held in the presence of the Education Ministers of the Nine. The President of the Italian Republic hailed this "'first step towards a common European heritage"m . The event however remained a modest one, befitting this European University Institute that was embarking on life with only 70 students and some dozen professors. Max Kohnstamm, in his inaugural speech, mentioned the threefold crisis that young students entering the Institute would have to face: Europe’s, whose mechanisms were paralysed; the university's, with its poor adjustment to the requirements of the moral and material life of the time; and civilization’s, where modern man was isolated and solitary in a demystified, empty universe111.

3’x MAE1; MJE/83. Documenti di base, fase. Villa Ttdomei. eomnumieazione n" 4639 del Ministero degli Affari esteri, 20 luglio 197S a Ministero dei I.avari pubblici e Ministero della Pubblica istruzione. AN-EN 9105757/7, Minutes (Pierre Garriguc) of thè Prcparatory Committec meeting, 21 and 29 January 1974. 1-M' In an intcrvicw donc in Aprii 1996. Max Kohnslamm deseribcd thè cnvironment of thè Villa Tolomci as a “desolale spot". -1J0 International tterald Tribune. 26 November 1976: “ F.uropean University Instilute opens to uncertainty in Itaty". - *1 La Libre Belgique, 22 November 1976, “ Pour unc Europe de la Culture”, Emanuele Cazzo, Europe, 15 and 16 November 1976, “Inauguration de Flnstitut Univcr- silairc à Florence”.

188 CONCLUSION

The tangled history of university Europe can be seen as set in a sequence of political ambiguities. It is no small paradox that the debate on university projects took off in 1960, in the framework of the Europe of the Six. University issues raised on the scale of the “minor" Europe were soon to become a more or less neglected ancillary to a Community oriented towards economic development. The Florence project, long a victim of divergences among the Six, was ultimately to be the object of a classical diplomatic convention setting the new establishment in the margin of the Community institutions. As for the organization of University Europe, it was practically not to progress at all, blocked by interminable institutional debates. We can see the sources of this stagnation in the differences that emerged within the Six in connection with the possible attach- ment of the education sector to the European Community on the one hand, and in the opposition of university circles to the project on the other. - A review of the ups and downs of university projects since 1955 shows that France's five partners were, with sometimes im- portant qualifications as in the case of the Netherlands, ready in one way or another to include the education sphere in the area of application of the Rome Treaty, something the French Govern- ment most firmly rejected. The Rome Treaties actually dealt with education only in mar- ginal respects: recognition of the civil effect of degree certificates in relation to acceptance of the right of establishment and profes- sional training in relation to the EEC, or the promotion of re- search in relation to the EAEC. Given this situation, the small countries like Belgium and Luxembourg considered it would by progressive enlargement be possible to include the education sector in the Rome Treaty, interpreted extensively. This viewpoint was in fact mixed up with attachment to supra- national trends by those partners anxious to use solid Community power to balance any hegemonic tendencies by Federal Germany or France. 189 Germany would however, without too much hostility, have accepted university powers for the Brussels institutions. A Commu- nity solution would have been in line with the Federal Govern- ment’s European convictions, as well as giving it the necessary powers to act in one of the few essential sectors that still escaped it, since it fell within the province of the Länder. And more for financial reasons than from principle, Germany also opposed the creation of any new European organization. The three new EC members seem to have been most con- cerned with safeguarding the traditional autonomy of their univer- sity systems. France opposed a Community-type solution, regarding it as essential to keep strictly to the content of the Treaties for fear of seeing a proliferation of derogations from and twistings of the original Treaties, and because the special nature of education and culture (France was at the time the only country of the Six inspired by a truly national will, and with a national cultural policy) meant they ought not to be attached on a subordinate, additional basis to the “economic” aspect of European construction. The French Government thus proposed that an appropriate legal and political framework be defined by negotiating a separate intergovernmental agreement that could lead to the creation of a new organization. French diplomacy did not actually rule out the idea that edu- cational cooperation might form part of a broader transformation in relations among the Six, with the prospect of political union that the heads of State had set as their objective in Bonn in 1961. Such cooperation was the basis for the Fouchet Commission proposals (from the Pescatorc group), and the “Guichard” project for an educational development centre later was on the same lines of thought. One thing is certain: the Community mechanisms, which re- quire a transfer of powers to a supranational body and the exist- ence of regulatory powers applied directly on Member States’ terri- tories, are not equally serviceable from the integration viewpoint in all sectors of the Union, especially the education sector. To the extent that the Brussels institutions foreshadow a federal Europe, it should surely be recalled that federal States themselves leave the

190 bulk of university questions to the federated States. Whether tradi- tionally or newly autonomous, universities in the sixties were seek- ing to assert their independence against domestic threats to it, and still more against international institutions. - The reticence of University society was the second obstacle to the European University project. Be it in Germany (the Rectors’ Conference), or in the Italian, Belgian or French universities (the Berger project), a major current of thought sought, as we have noted, to give cooperation among existing institutions priority over creating a new one. Though the original projects were cut back as we know, they have not ceased since 1960 to be a subject of ongoing controversy. The university projected by the Interim Com- mittee in 1959 was to be an eminent institution, but integrated with a vast network of institutes. Yet it was seen as an excessively centralized undertaking. It was feared that as an artificial institu- tion it would not have adequate cultural roots to develop, and that students and professors would be intellectually ‘déracines\ In a phrase of Hendrik Brugmans’, “ Docs a diverse Europe need only one university institution?" There was felt to be a real threat of academic monopoly that would rob the other universities of their best substance in favour of an institution for polarizing elites. The risk of troublesome aca- demic competition touched the academics to the core. But looking at this argument, we can see it as based on false premises. Is there any need to recall that as from April 1960 the Community projects consisted of three facets, which laid the foun- dations for a sort of “ European University federation"? The Florence Institute, which was ultimately to receive only a tiny percentage of the totality of European students, would certainly have a leading role, but how could it conceivably replace the national universities? Moreover, while fear of possible competition for Europe’s universities just might be conceivable before 1960 when it was a rarity in any country to create a new university, the subsequent mushrooming of universities in a national framework takes away all basis for it. Some maintained that the Florence Institute presented an im- age of an Institute closed in on itself and limited to a club of

191 economically linked States. Yet the successive stages of the project and the European Parliament’s ideas always provided for ways for States outside the Economic Community to join. Another point raised was the political mission attributed to the Institute. It seems immediately obvious that the projected institution would in fact have the job of contributing to European construction through its suggestions and its research. A number of academics were worried that this might mean a tendency to politicize studies. The answer was made that this political area would certainly be an object of study at the new university, but would not thereby convert it into a field of battle. As to the Institute’s relationships with the political authorities, its progressive withdrawal from the Community framework between 1959 and 1972 would seem to ensure great independence for it from this viewpoint, even if the funding question leaves a few doubts in the air in this connection. What could be more natural than that the Institute should purvey a particular philosophy? Since the founding States shared a common conception of democracy and liberalism, it is hard to sec what other school of thought the university might support. While it is hardly surprising to find opponents of the Florence project including the rectors in Germany, Italy or France, who represent national university traditions and arc logically typified by a certain conservatism, it is more surprising that resistance came, into the bargain, from a recent, not very developed but highly active structure, namely the institutes of European studies. It is perhaps not irrelevant that the main objection lay in a fear of duplication of effort (cf. the response of the Bruges College) and that the main proposals related to the promotion of existing institutions or to collaboration among them. The debate on the Institute’s immediate missions continued throughout the period under consideration and even after. It must be admitted that the “founding fathers” were not very eloquent on this point. Was the Florence institution to train “Eurocrats” or researchers? The preparatory committees had done everything possible to organize the Institute’s start-up and to guide its development, but it w'as clear that many things would be seen clearly only in the light of experience. 192 The European University Institute has from the outset been hieing the question of its identity. How is it to find its place among higher-level academic institutions? To answer this question, the High Council asked a working group, at the end of the first academic year, to define the “ Institute's profile". By choosing to give priority to high-level research, the “profile group" risked see- ing the Institute wander off into a sort of academicism, to take its place alongside existing institutes of European studies, no more successful if no less distinguished ^ 2. Only a few years after the Institute's inauguration, the Italian Foreign Ministry and the international press were already wonder- ing whether the fact that European academics were together tack- ling research that could just as well be done somewhere else than sunny Florence was enough to ensure the new institution’s prestige and the spread of its reputation -w, especially since there was still uncertainty as to the worth of the doctorate it conferred H4. We shall conclude with two observations. The European University was ultimately to suffer from an overpolitical approach. Shuttled from crisis to relaunch through one of the longest negotiations in Community history, it summar- izes and concentrates all the problems that for twenty years tor- mented relations among the Six: the question of the scat, the opposition between a supranational Europe and an “ Europe dcs patries", the accession of third countries, etc. Often during the negotiations, reaching a university community was confused with the establishment of a political institution mandated to regulate the question of education. During this study, we have not hesitated to expose the difficul- ties and vicissitudes that marked the negotiations on the European university and conditioned its troubled beginnings. Though there

1,2 On this point cf. M A H . nil’. Ill, IUE/X3, dotum enri di base, (use. "P a rte gen- emit’ "; "Apptinto: Istituto unverdtario europeo: earatteristiehe dei fuluri indirizzi ”, 12 A p r il 1978; H Jl Principal Kohnslamm's activities report, A pril 19X0. m Ibid.. M AH . lift'. Ill, Il'E K E "A p p w ito , op. fit., p. 45. The note cites Professor Rosario Romeo's notion that if the Institute followed this approach il would end up "resembling a European Brook nips La S'azione: " u hat ought this university to do?", 3 E e h - ruary 1981. *'4 EUI, EUI Bulletin o'* 4. Special number, “ European doctorate", 17 June 1977.

193 were not many good fairies hovering over its cradle, the Florence Institute has nonetheless grown and prospered. Today the growth in exchanges of students and professors and the multiplication of doctoral networks are the sign of a renewed will for cooperation among the universities of a Europe whose limitations are steadily waning. As for the Institute itself, it has managed to clarify its mission and become an effective part of the cultural scene, recognized in Europe and beyond. The European University Institute in Florence, which will this year be celebrating its first twenty years of activity, is today ready and willing to offer its growing contribution of ideas and research to the ongoing debate on the process of European construction. One swallow does not make a summer, and the European University Institute in Florence does not by itself make the Euro- pean University. But it would be unfair on the part of political and university circles to remain indifferent to an institution whose results might well surprise them. The future of the Florence Institute is something like Pascal’s wager: all the more worth making because the expectation is so rich, and the drawbacks so small. Ultimately, the future of the Florence Institute blends into Europe's.

194 COLLANA STORIA L CULTURA

D ir v i to rc Mirella Poncompagni

Coordinamento editoriali’ Diana Agosti

I\i'(di:-azione grafica Ufficio grafico dell'Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato presso il Dipartimento per l'informazione e l'editoria

Stampa e diffusione Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato- P.V. (1996) k

t i ' j I f