Origins of the History of European construction1

1We can find the roots of the history of European integration as an autonomous discipline in the period between the late 1970s and the early 1980s2. A number of important reasons can explain the emergence of this new historical approach. First of all, the growing economic, social and political relevance of European integration – and its increasing impact on European public opinion – led more scholars to be interested in dealing with this phenomenon from an academic perspective. Another reason was the ‘political’ choice by some parts of the European Commission to give a boost to European Studies. Such a decision would favour, on one hand, the creation of a growing group of experts (economists, jurists, political scientists) on whose advice the EC could rely. It would also lead, through the European university system, to an influential number of scholars and intellectuals committed to the singling out of a “European identity”, which could be explained mainly on the basis of historical analyses. In this same period, a group of European diplomatic and international economic historians became interested in developing a new field of study which could compete with the powerful sector of “Cold War history”; such an approach would concur in interpreting some important dynamics and events of post-war Europe that could not be dealt with as mere by-products of conflict between East and West. The period was also characterized by a favourable political phase in European construction (especially since the early/mid-1980s, with the Spinelli project, a renewed French-German rapprochement, and the appointment of the Delors Commission, which would become the forerunners of the Single European Act and the Maastricht Treaty). Last but not least, first-hand archival sources were increasingly available both at a national and a European level (e.g. the British National Archives, the French Foreign Ministry Archives, the European Community Historical Archives, later on the European Union Historical Archives etc.)3.

2In this context, the European Commission launched a number of relevant scholarly projects which relied on significant financial support (Erasmus programme, Jean Monnet action, a series of ‘ad hoc’ projects). Such support favoured the setting up of European research networks, chairs in European integration history, MA courses in European studies, the creation of Ph.D. programs in the history of European integration, etc.4 An interesting example of such a development has been the creation and activities of the liaison committee of historians of contemporary Europe at the European Commission. We can find the origins of the liaison committee in a conference held in Luxembourg between high officials from the European Commission and well-known European historians. On this occasion René Girault, at that time one of the leading scholars of the French histoire des relations internationales historical school, put forward a proposal for the creation of a liaison committee that could favour studies on European integration; he also pointed out the importance of opening EC archives. The reaction of the European Commission was positive, and the initiative led to the creation of the liaison committee in 1982. Its early activities focused on the organization of large-scale international conferences and on exerting pressure in order to open both the Community and national archives5. In an early stage the membership of the committee was based on a sort of Community “approach” (two members for the major EC countries and one member from the other member states); members were mainly established scholars of international history or international economic history such as René Girault, Raymond Poidevin, Alan Milward, etc. The strong support of the Commission lasted till the late 1990s, when the Committee decided to maintain its complete autonomy and pursue its activities as a fully independent body. In the same period the liaison committee decided to set up a scholarly publication. In 1995, the Journal of European Integration History was launched. Published by the German Nomos publishing house, it appears twice a year and its main goal is to offer the opportunity of publication for the increasing number of first-hand historical research studies on the integration process, as well as a forum for debate on topics related to this new field of historical research6.

3The liaison committee and its members exerted significant influence on the early characters of the history of European integration, partly as a result of the major international conferences organized by the committee and the role played by some of its members in their own universities (René Girault at the Sorbonne, Alan Milward at the European University Institute and at the LSE, Raymond Poidevin at Strasbourg, etc.)7. Till the late 1990s, two major approaches to the study of European construction may be singled out: a) a political and diplomatic history approach; in this context the role played by the French school of histoire de relations internationales has been of paramount relevance through publications by scholars such as René Girault, Robert Frank, Gérard Bossuat, and also Raymond Poidevin, Marie-Thérèse Bitsch, Maurice Vaïsse, Georges-Henri Soutou. This group was strengthened by the presence of some British, German, Belgian, Dutch and Italian diplomatic historians such as Anne Deighton, Piers Ludlow, Wilfied Loth, Klaus Schwabe, Michel Dumoulin, Jan van der Harst, etc., not to forget Gilbert Trausch, a historian from Luxembourg, who taught at a Belgian University; b) a second historical school was international economic history, represented in particular by Alan Milward and a group of younger LSE and EUI scholars including Ruggiero Ranieri, Federico Romero, Fernando Guirao, Johnny Laursen. etc. Both schools had close links with the western European scholars who were developing a European approach to ‘Cold War History’, as most historians who were focusing on the issue of European construction had begun their university career as ‘Cold War’ historians and maintained some interest in this topic8.

4Owing to their scholarly and methodological backgrounds, as well as the newly available archival sources, the studies of these two schools were characterized by a prevailing interest in the following issues: a) the European policies of the various nation states (France, West Germany, Britain, Italy, Belgium, the Low Countries, etc.), espe-cially between the late 1940s and the 1960s9; b) the political and dip-lomatic decision-making process in the field of European construction, especially on the occasion of some fundamental episodes such as the Schuman Plan and the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), the Pleven Plan and the failure of the European Defence Community (EDC), the re-launching of Europe of the mid-1950s (EEC and EURATOM), the crises and achievements of the de Gaulle era, Britain’s attempts at joining the European Community10, c) the role played by some leading personalities such as Jean Monnet, Robert Schuman, Konrad Adenauer11.

5In any case most studies and approaches pointed out the central role played by the single states, the interaction between the European choice and the wider international context, especially the influence exerted by the Cold War and the role played by the United States, but the process of decolonization and the traditional French-German conflict were not forgotten, while the historians’ attention focused also on the adaptation by the European powers to a new international system and the quest for a leading international role in a new Western European system12.

6Another important character of the history of European integration till the late 1990s was the influence exerted by the regular opening of the archives on a yearly basis. Some of the international conferences organized by the liaison committee since the mid-1980s were based on a sort of chronological approach shaped by the availability of new archival sources (e.g. the second half of the 1940s, the Schuman Plan, the EDC, the ‘relaunching of Europe’, etc.). This approach was similar to the one that characterized the research and publications by most ‘Cold War’ historians, and in numerous cases there was an overlapping between the two approaches and the same scholars went on focusing on the two topics, which were often regarded as closely interlocked13.

The development of the late 1990s in the History of European integration

7The late 1990s and the beginning of the new century were characterized by an important development in the approach to the history of European integration, also owing to the end of the ‘Cold War’ and hope in a new European balance which appeared to strengthen the role of the integration process through the implementation of the European Union (EU) and the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU). In this context, I would like to point out both the role played by some Italian historians and the emergence of a new generation of historians of European integration. As far as the Italian historians were concerned, they were frustrated by the lack of archival material on Italy’s European policy for the period after the second half of the 1950s and were forced to rely on foreign archives in order to study Italy’s European policy, so they began to look for new alternative approaches14. The new generation of scholars dealing with the history of European construction were no longer content with studies that focused their attention on the single European states in a traditional diplomatic history approach. Both groups increasingly felt the history of European integration had to focus its attention on Europe, i.e., the European Community and its institutions, European policies, and European economic, social and political actors. In such a new perspective, an obvious influence was exerted by the emergence of new historiographical trends, especially ‘transnational history’, that pointed out the relevant role played by non-state actors. In this connection I would like to point out the contribution of the Florence, and later on the Padua group of historians, which led to the publication of studies on the European Economic and Social Committee (ECOSOC), CEDEFOP (one of the first agencies of the European Community), European social policy, regional policy, etc.15 Not to neglect contributions by scholars who worked with Ariane Landuyt from the University of Siena on some European policies (equal opportunity, environment, etc.)16, as well as studies by Daniela Preda and Daniele Pasquinucci on the European movements, European Parliament, etc.17 Of particular relevance, and further evidence of this new approach to the history of European construction were the studies promoted by Michel Dumoulin, Eric Bussière and Sylvain Schirmann on the European economic milieu18; by Wilfried Loth and Marie-Thérèse Bitisch on European institutions19, by Wolfram Kaiser on European political parties, in particular die Christian Democrats20; by Piers Ludlow and Katja Seidel on European civil service21, by Ann-Christina Knudsen and Klaus Kiran Patel on die CAP22.

8Such a new trend was strengthened by die European Commission’s launching of large-scale research projects on die history of this European institution, which involved not only senior scholars, but also a significant group of younger researchers. In this connection two volumes, on the periods 1958-1972 and 1973-1986, have already been published and the third volume dealing with the period 1986-2000 will appear in May 201923.

9This trend, which favoured the ‘transnational’ approach and was influenced by a dialogue with political scientists, was not the only relevant change in the history of European integration. In these same years we had another important development, which was to a certain extent the by-product of what was happening in the field of ‘Cold War’ history. The end of the East-West conflict led to a reassessment of the interpretations of the international system during the second half of the twentieth century: if the cold war was a dynamic which was of fundamental relevance in order to understand half a century of world history, it became evident that there had been other dynamics, and that the Cold War years were largely influenced by another turning point – the 1970s – which was regarded as the watershed between a long post-war period and the birth of the contemporary world, which would also go far beyond the end of the Cold War. Such an interpretation led to the idea following which also in European integration the importance of the continuities in such a process could be superseded by the phenomenon of discontinuities: European construction of the post-1970s was significantly different from that of the previous twenty years. So among historians of European integration there was a growing interest in the change in European societies that shaped the 1970s, the connection between the international system (not only the Cold War, but also the North/South conflict, etc.) and European construction24. In this context, it is important to point out the emergence of relevant contributions by a group of younger scholars, who focused their attention on this decade, such as Daniel Moeckli, Emmanuel Mourlon Druol, Angela Romano, Giuliano Garavini, Aurelie Gfeller, and Laurent Warlouzet25.

10Their works contested the usual interpretation of the 1970s as a period of Eurosclerosis’, and pointed out the fundamental relevance of this decade in the appearance of a ‘different’ integration process, which would lead to important achievements in the 1980s.

The present-day situation

11In recent years, the scenario of the history of European integration appears to be even more complex, and has some grey areas, but also includes positive trends.

12As far as the `dark spots’ are concerned, I would list the following: a) prevailing cultural trends in both French and German universities appear to privilege cultural and social history approaches, and so lead to a minor interest in the political and economic aspects of the history of European integration, b) radical change in the Jean Monnet program and in policies pursued by the European Commission and the ERC with regard to research and university policies have favoured other scholarly approaches (especially the juridical dimension and studies of political science) with greater attention to the practical implications of the integration process; moreover there has been a sort of ‘politicization’ of studies on European construction; for example, numerous studies on Europe’s memories have been financially supported, to the detriment of more traditional international history approaches. It is of some interest to note that in ERC definitions, ‘international history’ has been replaced by vaguer terms such as ‘world history’, ’transnational history’, ‘global history’ and ‘entangled histories’ (sic!); c) the recent crisis of the integration process has obviously negatively influenced the interest of young scholars and Ph.D. students in the study of this phenomenon; d) the weakening of some once strong national schools of international history, especially in France and Germany, had a negative impact on the launching of new research projects and the elaboration of new interpretative frameworks.

13Thus the current scenario offered by the history of European integration, like the EU, is fragmented and difficult to read. It seems there is no clear mainstream interpretation or leading historical school. Nevertheless some remarks of a general nature may be added, although I am fully aware of the limits of such statements.

14First of all, there is continuing interest in the history of European institutions, as well as in the approach which points out the relevance of biographical studies of actors in the integration process. Take, for example, studies by Morten Rassmussen and a group of young schol-ars on the European Court of Justice, who have taken an approach that gives much relevance to juridical aspects and their impact on the process of European integration26. To there I would add the work of Mauve Carbonnel on the members of the High Authority of the Coal and Steel Community27, the recent volume by Piers Ludlow on Roy Jenkins and the Commission during the British politician’s chairmanship28; and last but not least the stimulating study on the Schengen agreement by Simone Paoli29.

15Another significant trend is reflected in “Making Europe”, the extensive research project led by Johan Schot and Wolfram Kaiser, which pointed out the role of ‘experts’ and ‘epistemic communities’ in the creation of a ‘European environnent’30. Such a trend is representative of the “transnational history” approach and growing interest in the dialogue between historians of European integration and political scientists.

16A quick analysis of some international series dealing with the history of European integration seems to confirm this fragmented scenario, which has no clear-cut main interpretative trend. Taking into consideration the Euroclio Series of the Peter Lang publishing house between 2010 and 2016, for example, there are 45 new titles, of which 35 are miscellaneous volumes, the outcome of conferences or research projects, etc. As far as the 10 single monographs and the nationalities of the authors, there are 3 Spaniards, 3 persons from Luxembourg, 2 Italians, 2 Germans and a Romanian, but at least 4 have a scholarly background that is French31. The Plagrave/Macmillan publishing house, where there is no ‘European history’ series, has three recent volumes on European integration: the aforementioned volume by Piers Ludlow on Roy Jenkins, Eirini Karamouzi’s book on the enlargement to Greece, Benedetto Zaccaria’s volume on relations between the European Community and Yugoslavia32. All there volumes deal with the 1970s and are based on a traditional political diplomatic history approach. As far as Routledge is concerned, the series called ‘European History’ offers about ten volumes which have been published in recent years and are mostly a mix of politics and history (e.g. European identity and European Culture, relations between the EU and Japan, the EU and the occupied Palestinian territories, etc.). Such a tendency to neglect history in favour of a political science approach is evident when one enters any big English-language bookstore and examines the books on the shelves dealing with the EU33.

17I also examined the ten years of the Journal of European Integration History between 2006 and 2016. This series includes 155 articles or so on different issues such as: 1) the USSR and the EEC, 2) the first enlargement, 3) scientific and technological cooperation, 4) the Communist Parties and Europe, 5) the historiographical trend, 6) the role played by the European Court of Justice, 7) Southern Europe in the 1970s, 8) Thatcher Britain and the EC, 9) the Common Agricultural Policy, 10) the European Parliament 11) relations between China and the EC, 12) the Maastricht Treaty, 13) the role played by Alan Milward, 14) The EEC and the Mediterranean in the 1980s. Of 155 articles, 15 were in German, 31 in French, 109 in English34.

18The latest works edited by the liaison committee include two volumes on the 1970s (J. Laursen and Claudia Hiepel as editors), two volumes on east-central Europe (N. Paun, W. Loth, and S. Schirmann) and a volume on the issue of emigration (E. Calandri and S. Paoli)35.

19Large-scale research projects include: a) a project financed by the ERC and developed at the European University on relations between the EC and the Communist bloc between the 1960s and the 1980s, b) the HISTCOM3 project for the third volume of the history of the European Commission between 1986 and 2000. Moreover, the RICHIE HEIRS network, which is formed by younger scholars, is still active and has promoted two graduate conferences held at the EUI.

20In conclusion, the following points may be argued: 1) in spite of the weakening of some national historical schools of the history of international relations, and diminished support from European institutions, the roots of the history of European integration appear to still be strong; 2) the EUI and the Historical Archives of the EU are striving to become a centre of development and diffusion of projects dealing with the history of European integration, but other universities in Europe are characterized by a group of scholars interested in the history of the integration process; 3) interest in the history of European construction has a multi-faceted character with no leading approach or interpretative framework; 4) we still have studies based on a traditional international history approach (e.g. European policies by the various member states, the role of political leaders, analyses of specific events) but there are also new approaches mainly focusing on European actors and policies or based on relationships between European construction and other international dynamics (Cold War, North-South relations); 5) we still lack comprehensive histories of European integration on the model of Cold War histories (although we may point out the recent contributions by Wilfried Loth and Mark Gilbert)36. Above all we still lack historiographical debate, which could single out new interpretations of the integration process in the wider context of the second half of the twentieth century and the beginning of the new century, especially in light of phenomena such as globalization and the recent crises of the EU. Much work must still be done to understand one of the more significant processes in recent European history, as well as the complex and sometimes contradictory present situation of the EU.