Research and teaching on Europe and on the European Union (EU) have grown exponentially in recent years, both within Europe and throughout the world. There has been increased breadth and depth of conceptual development and theorising. This article considers some challenges related to teaching and researching about the EU. It attempts to elaborate some agendas for scholars, in examining possible future directions for the study of Europe, both internationally and within Australia. The article examines the development of study of the EU and discusses the development of European Studies in Australia. It argues that the study of the EU and of Europe is increasingly dynamic, drawing on a variety of disciplines and sub-disciplines, within Australia and throughout the world.
The following survey of the current state of European Union Studies in the Asia-Pacific is in two parts. First, a region-wide perspective is offered that explores the various Networks and Centres that can be found dealing with the EU. This analysis builds on the publication The Future of European Studies in Asia. 2 The second part provides a more focused comparative assessment of EU Studies in New Zealand and the development of the EU Centres Network since 2006.
Learning about Europe in Australia at the higher education level requires lecturers and tutors to ground their teaching in students’ pre-existing understanding of Australia’s links with Europe. This link needs to be made to students in the classroom and to university management as a case for embedding European Studies within university administrative structures. I will also argue that whilst students display a keen interest in contemporary Europe, European Studies itself is best seen as a sub-or cross-discipline, particularly of politics, history and international relations underpinned by the study of languages and it is here that ‘Europe’ has much to teach Australian university students.
The emergence of new theory to account for the sui generis phenomenon of European integration has produced a myriad of responses, challenging traditional approaches and creating new debates. This essay analyses just one of these responses, that is Zielonka’s model of Europe as a polycentric neo-medieval empire. He argues that Europe is developing into a body with soft border zones, multiple identities, divided loyalties and sovereignties with a multiplicity of overlapping institutions. Although the suggestion of a flexible and pluralistic Europe is not a new one, the way in which Zielonka presents this concept as an original and inventive model for European governance is worthy of further research and debate.
This essay argues that the public discourse surrounding Muslim Asian immigrants in Europe frequently presents them as enemies to stability, democracy and human rights in Europe. Beginning with early-modern descriptions of Muslims by Alexis de Tocqueville, and his perception of Muslims as “deadly”, this essay argues that although his language may seem antiquated today, his principle idea retains acceptance in discussions on Islam in Europe today. In particular, the public reactions to the 7 July 2005 London bombings, the 2004 assassination of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh, the Jyllands-Posten cartoons scandal and the potential ascension of Turkey to the EU have spurred political speeches, voting patterns and newspaper reporting expressing the notion that Islam and Muslims were dangerous to Europe. This essay concludes that not only do these events undermine European senses of security, the also subject Muslims to continuing suspicion and prejudice in Europe.
This essay aims to highlight the virtue in both supranationalism and intergovernmentalism when recounting the history of European integration. It is argued that one should not wholly subscribe to one line of thought, and each are deserving of an equal application. However, this essay also aims to prove that the application of either concept is limited, and argues for a more holistic approach to integration theory.