In this essay I have sought to discern whether Manners’ assertion that the EU is a normative power is agreeable, by considering its norms in relation to aspects of its foreign policy. I have demonstrated that it is difficult to agree with Manners that the EU is a normative power, due to discrepancies between what it says and what it does, the so-called capabilities-expectations gap. If the EU is not a normative power then it must be something else, and I have argued that the more pragmatic approach of English School between normative power and realism presents a more accurate depiction of the EU as an international actor. Manners’ own admittance that the EU’s prioritising of military over civilian operations illustrates this point (2006: 190). In addition, the EU appears to have realised the shortcomings of being a normative power and has taken steps away from the notion with the development of ESDP, although not as far as a realist power concerned with security maximisation. I have also argued that being a normative power is perhaps unattainable if the interests of its member states cannot be detached from EU foreign policy, and if the coordination of 27 separate member states is necessary. As this is the case, as demonstrated by Iraq, the EU is not acting as a normative power that is changing expectations of norms away from state-centricity; any assertion that it does is tied up in idealism. Hedley Bull, a key figure in the paradigm of the English School, asserted that states should attempt to strengthen the normative principles of international society (Wheeler and Dunne 1996: 94). However, the EU, by using non-normative means to diffuse norms and by not being able to detach itself from state self-interest, has regressed from being a normative power as Manners argues. This repositioning places the EU on a middle ground between ‘normative’ power and political realism. Therefore, I do not agree with Manners’ assertion that the EU is a normative power.
bullet Adult DNA cloning (. cell nuclear replacement): This involves removing the DNA from an embryo and replacing it with the DNA from a cell removed from an individual. Then, the embryo would be implanted in a woman’s womb and be allowed to develop in to a new human whose DNA is identical to that of the original individual. This method has been used to clone a sheep. The initial steps of the procedure were tried using human DNA in 1998-DEC. Adult DNA cloning cannot ethically be used to produce a human clone, because experiments on animals have sometimes produced defective specimens.
bullet Therapeutic cloning: (. Somatic cell nuclear transfer or research cloning): This starts with the same procedure as is used in adult DNA cloning. The resultant embryo would be allowed to grow for perhaps 14 days. It’s stem cells would then be extracted and encouraged to grow into a piece of human tissue or a complete human organ for transplant. The end result would not be a human being; it would be a replacement organ, or piece of nerve tissue, or quantity of skin. The first successful therapeutic cloning was accomplished in 2001-NOV by Advanced Ce
ll Technology, a biotech company in Worcester, MA.
General overviews of the history of diplomacy, not surprisingly, tend to be historically oriented, although a number of studies especially recommend themselves to students of international relations. Undergraduates and graduate students, as well as veteran scholars, will find a wealth of ideas, insights, and possible research topics in these surveys. De Souza and France 2008 is an excellent starting point for new students in ancient and medieval diplomacy. Eleven well-written, wide-ranging, and accessible essays provide a solid grounding in the period, while also highlighting the many parallels and divergences between ancient and modern diplomacy. Designed primarily for undergraduates, Anderson 1993 is an excellent chronological and thematic introduction to early modern and modern diplomacy. Hamilton and Langhorne 1995 takes a similar approach, outlining the evolution of modern diplomatic practice from the ancient period to the modern, primarily for an undergraduate audience. Berridge, et al. 2001 adopts a similar chronology, but focuses instead on the major diplomatic theorists from Machiavelli to Kissinger. For an introduction to 19th- and 20th-century diplomacy, Kissinger 1994 is a lucid place to begin, combining a solid grasp of history with the author’s own personal experiences. Keylor 2005 is another excellent overview of 20th-century international relations that expertly introduces the student to every important diplomatic event of the period. Those seeking a more theoretical approach to the subject will find Lauren 1979 and Barston 2006 easily accessible, expansive, and stimulating introductory readers.