Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: On major strategic and international questions today, Americans (...) and Europeans (...) agree on little and understand one another less and less (Robert Kagan). In my paper, I examine the sources of the transatlantic divide towards global challenges for which a position difference despite interest congruence can be observed for the US and Europe. A number of theory-informed explanations have been given for the transatlantic rift: differences in relative power distribution (Neorealism); different material conditions and cost-benefit analyses (Neoliberal Rationalism); differing values or other reference systems (Sociological Constructivism). While not neglecting certain merits of these explanatory models, evidence for each of these one-dimensional approaches is mixed at best. Differences between the US and Europe to a large extent derive from different domestic political systems that shape the interests and values of particular powerful actors. America's political system permits a very limited number of organized interests to exercise veto power over international agreements. European decision-makers can more easily overturn opposition forces, and, when unanimity is a necessity for political progress (e.g., in some EU institutions), they have learned to deal with these hindrances and thereby developed a culture of compromise. The interaction of the two national decision-making systems in the field of international policy formulation has hobbled global cooperation. Better understanding of each other's domestic politics and more careful institutional design of international policies may yet overcome these obstacles. Special attention is given to the issue area of climate change. Beyond the better-known constitutional differences (e.g., the ratification powers of the parliaments) and their potential consequences (governmental gridlock), a wider array of hindrances below the institutional surface (political campaign finance, scientific hearings and media organization, etc.) is explored.