journal of european integration history revue d'histoire de l ...

5
Towards a Supranational History?
Introduction
Johnny Laursen
As these lines are being written the European Convent has for some time been
engaged in a debate over what form the future European Union should take. In a
sense this discussion also involves a debate over the European past. How should we
understand the nature and future of the European nation states? What are the exact
nature and dynamics of the European integration process? What relationship
between the European community and the Europe beyond? Does there exist – from
Reykjavik to Diyarbakïr – a European polity with shared values and concepts?
While politicians are struggling with these questions in an effort to shape the future,
historians and social scientists are struggling with much the same questions in
an effort to shape the past. Past, present and future European integration is in many
ways equally elusive. Just as the present European order is up to discussion also the
history of European integration is hard to define.
First, the historians of the EU are studying a subject matter which has not yet
found its final shape. Hence, the transient, still changing nature and borders of the
EU and of the other European institutions can make it difficult to find a common
perspective and a shared set of research questions. This is much more so as the history
of European integration is not only pursued by historians, but also by other
disciplines such as political science, law etc.
Secondly, the field embraces a variety of methods and approaches in the way researchers
work on the history of European integration. The established tradition in
the field is that of the empirical, archive-based and severely footnoted ‘histoire
événementielle’, closely related to its near cousin the diplomatic history. However,
although the subject matter – history of European integration – is obligatory, the
methods and the academic backgrounds of the students of the field are far from exclusive.
Not only historians (of which there are many kinds already), but also political
scientists, sociologists, lawyers and many others apply themselves to this rich
field. It is an example of an enriching, interdisciplinary exchange between archive-based,
empirical history and more theory-oriented approaches. The variety of
methods and approaches is a source of scientific innovation and copiousness, although
this admittedly does little to narrow down what the study of the history of
European integration is really about.
Third, we are dealing with a subject which is not easy to define in terms of geography
and chronology. If we chose the easy and conventional way to define the
subject matter, that is to say that the history of European integration is the history
about the creation and development of the European Union, many questions remain
open. What place does the history of the coming new memberstates of the EU such
as the Czech Republic, Estonia or Malta take in such a framework? Is the historical
experience of these countries really only relevant from the point of view of mem-