Search

François Mitterrand had a leading role in directing the course for the European integration process. While he orchestrated the economic integration of Europe, he remained deeply opposed to further political integration within the Communities. This article researches Mitterrand’s rationale for his clear focus on economic affairs and develops his vision for the institutional setting of the European Union (EU). The focus of the article is allocated to four different perspectives that reflect the four pillars of Mitterrand’s European policy: the common currency, the establishment of a closely integrated and small Western European based EU, the development of the Social Europe and of a free trade area between Europe and Africa. It is argued that although EU institutions have been established based on Mitterrand’s design, today’s reality deviates from the conditions on which his plan was based. For Mitterrand, the ideal EU involved a deep-rooted Western Europe with France at its core and a loose association with Central and Eastern Europe. His perception resembles the current discussions of multi-speed Europe and the determination of France and Germany to proceed to the next stage of the integration process. Importantly, Mitterrand’s print can still be recognised in the EU’s social policy included in the treaties, yet still far from being implemented. Notably, like all of the French Presidents, Mitterrand developed a design for Africa in which an extensive free trade area between Europe and former French colonies were to be established. In this proposal, Germany was to be assigned the part of the economic engine behind the actualisation of the proposal, while France was to carry out the role of a required middle man of the transactions. To further assure France’s political predominance over the Communities, Mitterrand designed a common currency for a small number of homogenous Western-European states.

Almost a decade after Sweden first declared that it would follow a feminist foreign policy (FFP), a further eleven countries from across Europe, North and South America, and North and West Africa have adopted, or have signaled an interest in potentially adopting, an FFP in the future. These developments have been accompanied by a growing body of feminist scholarship. Although still in its infancy, this literature can generally be divided between more normative accounts and those that are empirically focused, with particular attention paid to the FFPs of Sweden and Canada. Yet, few studies compare FFPs' uptake across different countries and regions, examine its connections to longer histories of ideas around women and gender, or unpack the policy intersections FFP (tentatively) engages. Contributing to these different areas, Part I provides an overview of the history of FFP, interrogates FFP in the context of Foreign Policy Analysis, and explores what FFP can achieve in the current (liberal) global system. Part II turns to consider policy intersections in relation to the climate crisis, migration, militarism, and bodies. Thinking through its origins, policy intersections, and potential future(s), the contributors to this Forum explore FFP's multiple and contested future(s). Ultimately, the Forum takes stock of this feminist turn in foreign policy at a critical point in its development and considers what future possibilities it may hold. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]