TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE: AN EU MASTERPIECE AT THE OLYMPICS
1. Mapping the road
a. What happened so far
b. Analyzing present and potential future challenges for the EU
c. Together we stand, divided we fall: Expounding the necessity of a mutually acknowledged EU-identity
d. The EU White Paper on Sport
2. The European Union and its prospective identity
a. One multifaceted EU-identity
i. The nature of an EU-identity
1. Territory: Border lines and exclusion
2. Language : The confusion of tongues
3. Legal framework and politics
4. History: Experience and roots
5. Community: Legitimacy and control
6. Values: The dynamic key benchmark
7. Common symbols
ii. Transnational Identity
b. The seven pieces of a blueprint for an EU-identity
c. Advantageous pluralism and demanding necessities
3. The European Union Sports Badge: One simple, smart and sustainable project
a. Popular sports - literally favorable
i. Professional sports in any spotlight
ii. A dwarfed section
b. The project: EUSB: Compilation and objectives
c. Testing the EU-identity blueprint
iii. Legal framework
vii. Common symbols
d. Side effects
e. Institutionalizing Europeanization
CONCLUSION: THE BARE NECESSITIES OF LIFE WILL COME TO YOU
Preface: An EU masterpiece at the Olympics
“Look, mommy, this French lady runs the same way we do.French people do have the same sports as we do, don’t they?”
(Willem, 4 years old)
My son shared me this remarkably recondite observation while watching a women’s sprint heat at the Olympics 2012 in London unsheathing the universally uniting quality of sport, a characteristic recognizable even to a small child. Its profound impact on politics, society and economy can hardly be grasped.
In the Olympic Games the world has a peaceful, representative and global event which celebrates the multitude of sports around the world and espouses the spirit of competitionthrough a well-mannered rivalry for medals between the nations. The European Union didnot only host these marvelous competitions but its athletes’ performances have been asource of pride for all people of the Union. Thus, the members of the European Unionachieved an incredible feat this past Olympics by winning more medals than the UnitedStates of America and China combined.1 Although the European Union is not officially evaluated, the perception of the European Union as an athletic social and political entity raises thediscussion on a mutually acknowledged EU-identity to a new level.2 Why has the EU traditionally been perceived in such a way under these favorable circumstances that people werecheering for us, the Europeans?
The European Union is a vivid and globally unique sample of successful and distinctive supranational integration3. It is a safe, wealthy, appealing and powerful business location4 whose success has forged the foundation of a potential identity of its own. Moreover, the EUcan rely on “societies that are  based on the European political and cultural tradition”5 allover the world and thus, a projective identity would not differ substantially from existing nation-state identities and thence not cause discrepancy. Europe has succeeded in sharingsovereignty and envisaging commonly approved solutions for modern problems.6 Its politicalunion “is one manifestation of that European identity”7. It cannot be said that a common EUidentity has been generated yet to the extent that it might be compared to nation-state identities; though hitherto integration has led to profound socialization.8
This thesis aims at responding to the question, to what extent popular sport can make a contribution to the genesis, the implementation, and the fostering of a mutually acknowledgedand experienced EU-identity. With sport being the major social movement in Europe9 unique in its efficiency in bringing people together, being a drive for integration, bridging anykind of borders and its nonpareil ubiquity - its implementation on a European level targetingthe European Union people through popular sports will sustainably and remarkably promotethe idea of an EU-identity. As an example for a small but utterly profound project, the idea ofa European Sports Badge (EUSB) is presented as a transnationally implementable proposal,involving and addressing EU-citizens of all nations, sexes and ages. It should be noted,though, that sports are certainly not a panacea.10 Measures in the domain of sport can contribute to the establishment of an EU-identity, but they cannot stand alone and demand supporting actions grounded in other domains.
To describe the idea on which this project is grounded, a short historical review will introducethe topic and briefly outline actions already undertaken by the lay European Union. Secondly,present and potential future challenges will be analyzed and thus, thirdly, lead to the explanatory statement why an EU-identity is necessary. As an entitative document, this thesisrefers to the EU White Paper on Sport. In a second step, the blueprint of a prospective EUidentity will be developed, carving out and analyzing seven components and accounting forEU-pluralism. It filters the most important components that are needed to construct a resistant EU-identity. Initially, its manifoldness and its nature will be explored. Each of the seven components shall be derived from pertinent literature. In order to not lose the essentialpoint, the examination will be narrowed down to the EU-identity, without trying to explain anyoutside factors.
Subsequently, the EUSB project will be introduced. Therefore, a differentiation between thetwo main spheres of sport, professional sports and popular sports, shows that the official anddocumented emphasis of the EU on the professional sphere hitherto led to negligence and amisconceiving attitude towards mass sports so far. The EUSB targets a large audiencethrough popular sports. The aforementioned identity blueprint will be tested by applying it tothe EUSB. Moreover, favorable side effects of the implementation of the EUSB impacting onother domains will be presented. In a concluding step, the bare necessities of action will beexpounded, taking the results of the thesis into consideration. The sustainability and range of
small projects within the scope of identity policy has to be recognized and must lead to an increased willingness to act on the part of the EU.
1. Mapping the road
This first section is dedicated to outlining the way the European Union has covered so far, the analysis of potential obstacles that might appear on the way ahead and the presentation of the White Book on Sport as an official interpretative document.
While the idea of a European society can be traced back into the 19th century11, it was onlyafter World War II that the European journey truly accelerated and the institutionalization ofthe idea of a European entity started taking shape. Doing so, the traditional idea of nationalism has been overcome to the benefit of “regional cooperation”12 on a European level; simultaneously fostering integration.13 Two major positions sprouted: On the one hand, federalistsheld the view that the idea of nation states would be neutralized as the result of a dynamicintegration, on the other hand, traditionalists were convinced that the compromises would notgo beyond the economic domain.14 As we know today, the traditionalists’ position has beendevitalized. At the same time, the federalists’ view has not reached its true potential either.
After the end of World War II and the subsequent re-organization of the European continent,the end of the Cold War is the decisive marker on the road. The end of the bipolar worldruled off the old benchmarks and heralded a new era.15 Not only did the European Community have to re-define its position in the new world order, it also had to find a way to justify itsrole. The resultant globalization process forced scholars in the domain of International Relations to shift the perspective from a nation-state dominated one16, since the European Unionis “a political experiment in taking the civilizing process beyond the nation state”17. The political unification of Europe is being performed on a rational level - since lasting peace can onlybe realized by finding answers to blazing political conflicts18 - and leads to the dissolution ofseparating structures.19 However, there has never been a concrete plan or “some eternalcore idea”20 on which the concept of Europe is based21, no guiding roadmap. The one inten- tion that was obvious was the political unification22. In order to make this vision come true, institutions like the progressive implementation of an economic union, a monetary union and a common market were of utmost importance.23
Although the European Union and its political leaders have “not yet succeeded in crafting a common European sense of ‘who we are’”24 in defining an EU-identity for the people in the European Union member states, it is by far not too late. As stated before, the project of the European Union is a one-of-a-kind experiment; there is no existing comparable transnational structure. John F. Kennedy, a non-European, phrased it as follows: “Those who dare to fail miserably can achieve greatly.“ No one knows what lies ahead, but one has to dare, one has to have the courage to act and to foster movement. The development of the European Union could be regarded as moving at a snail’s pace25, but yet it is important to acknowledge that despite its pace, it is moving constantly forward.
a. What happened so far
This brief discussion of the road the European Union has taken so far will predominantly focus on main events after the end of World War II. Nonetheless it is important to note that European civil societies of the 19th century already aligned themselves to the elements of peace, the rule of law and democracy and openly spoke their mind.26 Revolutions in many European countries, aiming at establishing a constitution, demanding the right to participate, and asking for civil rights to be legally acknowledged may illustrate this fact.
The European continent has suffered from wars and national hatred for centuries; it was farfrom being a singular entity in any way until the beginning of the 20th century. After WorldWar I, a primary stage of a pacifistic European idealism grew out of the rubble.27 “[B]ereft of afirm psychological basis”28 and under the Nazi-occupation of Europe, the merits of the idea ofEurope became ambiguous though.29 Ravaged by war and destruction, bemoaning the lossof millions of people and economically devastated, Europe experienced its zero hour in theaftermath of World War II. The founding fathers of the European unification primarily initiatedthis project in order to restore peace in Europe30 and “to eradicate unnecessary suffering from Western Europe whether caused by interstate war or by economic collapse”31. However, the occupying powers, namely the United States of America and the Soviet Union, werenot interested in fostering an independent Europe32 and aimed at a restoration on a nationstate level instead.33 Given the amount of challenging tasks, the European national governments’ point of interest was their own country at first, not the seminal ideas of Europe.34 Itwas imperative to rebuild entire nations, including their societies, their economy, their politicalstructure and their international relations, too. In this environment, considerable courage anddedication was needed to achieve a European unification35, given the tremendous dimensionof fragmentation and devastation.
One first step to foster closer cooperation and interaction took place in Geneva in 1947 whenthe United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE or ECE) was founded36. Itwas the first supraregional sub-organization of the United Nations. Just one year later, 18European states joined the Organization for European Economic Cooperation (OEEC).37 Inthe very same year, the Hague Congress took place. It was the first meeting of such a kind,presided over by former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, in which some 800 politicians of Western European countries came together to explore future framework requirements of a unified Europe.38 Simultaneously launched, the Marshall Plan contributed much tothe European unifying process in the economic sphere - even though it should be noted thatthe US was in a position to impose more pressure which could have resulted in the creationof a common European political structure.39
The next decisive step was the Schuman Declaration of May 9th 195040. French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman proposed the establishment of a community working supranationally,organizing coal and steel industries in France, Germany and other European countries willingto join.41 His forward-looking plan was implemented through the foundations of the EuropeanCoal and Steel Community (ECSC) and the Treaty of Paris.42 In the field of military unification, the treaty of a European Defense Community (EDC), based on a proposal by RenéPleven, then-French Prime Minister regarding a pan-European defense force, was signed onMay 27th 1952 by the members of the ECSC43, but the French Parliament denied its ratifica- tion. Thus, the idea of the EDC was never realized. With the Treaty of Rome (the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community), signed on May 25th 1957, the European Economic Community (EEC) and the European Atomic Energy Community (EAEC or EURATOM) were founded.44
The division of Germany and the iron curtain, an ideological as well as a physical boundary,led to a separation between Western and Eastern Europe in a hitherto unknown intensity.45 The bipolarity between the Soviet-dominated Warsaw Pact on the one hand and the European Community and NATO member states on the other hand, as well as the subsequent political, economic, military and social tensions made history. The Cold War dominated the second half of the 20th century. But it also “gave way to debate in terms of Europe”46 due to thegeographical closeness and the gradually defining of the European Community’s role. Withthe reunification of Germany in 1989 and the collapse of the Eastern Bloc, Europe witnessed“a historic turning point in [its] history”47. From then on, its actions were no longer reactive,but started showing constructive and forming traits48, giving a hand to “post-socialist societieswhich were struggling to achieve economic prosperity and political stability”49. Thus, a multitude of new EU member states’ incentives to join the EU was initially based upon mere economic calculations rather than on the founding ideas of the post-World War II momentum.50 The Maastricht Treaty, signed on February 7th, 1992, legally avouched the four great freedoms (freedom of trade, passenger traffic, services and capital) and presented the ThreePillars of the European Union.51 With the Lisbon Treaty, signed on December 13th, 2007,which adopted, with regard to contents, the 2005 Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, the EU now has a constitution-like legal framework. Even today, no proper term hasbeen found to describe the political nature of the EU - which makes it one of a kind, “suigeneris”52.
The face of Europe has changed remarkably over the last five decades. Never has this continent seen a comparable era of peace, stability, prosperity and harmony. The number of itsmember states has more than quadruplicated since the foundation of the ECSC. Given itsconstant advancements and adjustments to internal and external requirements, the EU todayis “clearly far more than a conventional international organization”53. Forging a common destiny54 on various levels, the EU has developed far beyond mere economic integration traditionalists envisioned.
b. Analyzing present and potential future challenges for the EU
A united Europe is anticipated to be the best possible solution to prepare its member statesfor present and future challenges55 through sustainable and stabilizing politics. For centuries,“Western Europeans have devoted a great deal of energy to killing each other”56 instead ofcooperating and showing solidarity with neighboring countries. Owing to the economical, political and social unification expedited by the EU, military conflicts among member stateshave become almost unimaginable.57 The EU represents the longest period of peace andstability ever experienced on European soil. Thus, potential threats are hardly expected tocome from other member states since “threat makes us choose sides”58. Due to historicalexperiences, the EU prevented various dangers of all kinds so far. Referring toneofunctionalism, endogenous preferences and spillover effects foster appropriate developments.59
In order to analyze present and potential future challenges for the EU, one has to classify them first. So there will be a selection of (1) internal EU-issues, (2) threats coming from other countries and (3) ecological factors.
First and foremost, the cleavage between the EU-citizens and the proceeding European conciliation does not stop increasing.60 Due to the continuous lack of legitimacy and democracy61, the EU-citizens feel neither represented nor personally addressed. Therefore, many ofthem have developed an indifferent attitude towards European polity.62 Decisions made inBrussels, regarding more and more aspects of everyday life, are often perceived as burdens.63 Particularly when it comes to mere cost-benefit calculations64, donor EU memberstates weight their own contributions against what they might receive or be given back bymember states that are supported. As there is no stable nor acknowledged EU-identity,transnational solidarity is remarkably low.65 Since 2008, when the economic crisis startedspreading globally, the EU had to learn what solidarity among member states really means.
National debt crises of Greece, Spain, Portugal, Cyprus and Italy burdened and even exhausted the intra-European relations sustainably and there is still no end in sight.66 The economic strength and success of the EU has been the most appealing argument in the courseof the European unification67 but being equitable partners collaborating in an economic system68 makes demands on both sides. Given the distinctly diverse levels of economic power,some states claimed economic aid69 in order to be given a chance to catch up with the eco-nomic locomotives of the EU. Due to traditional rivalries and stereotypes70, friction amongmember states will likely prove a roadblock to success, and will have to be dealt with in thefuture.
Another component of the crucial test the EU is currently facing, as well as the issue it willhave to confront in the future is the multitude of cultures that exist within Europe. In somecases, the reach of a culture does not even match the geographical borders71. Indeed, thinking within the limits of nations restrains European integration. Nationalism has to be countered for Europe can be “a place where institutional arrangements foster a plurality of identities”72. In the same vein, the EU also has to foster a sustainable integration of Central European countries that are “no longer allies of the USSR, nor are they members of NATO, norare they formally neutral, nor are they organized regionally in security terms”73. Finding asatisfying and wise solution in this domain is imperative and demands a constructive andpositive dialogue among all member states.
Furthermore, the EU shoulders great responsibilities. Due to its economic and political influence, it is dealing with “new and global responsibilities”74, e.g. humanitarian aid and development assistance and even beyond EU-borders, when it comes to foreign and security policy75.
Referring to the second sort of challenges - threats coming from other countries - the question of migration76 will undoubtedly be one of the most urgent ones. It is “a major political question and  the subject of turbulent debates in the public sphere”77 where “major political actors [agree on] a more restrictive, control-oriented approach.”78 With plenty of immigrants, may they be “prompted by conflict, the fear of repression or just sheer lack ofhope.”79, Ultimately, it should be said, Western European countries fear a further crisis oftheir national identities.80
Apart from migration, the rise of newly industrializing countries and an immense growth of population - China, India and Brazil81 - create profound changes in the economic and political world order.82 The EU has to define and to defend its position in order to remain meaningful. Acting individually, no European nation would truly be in a position to negotiate with global enterprises or global powers.83
Finally, one must return to the matter of responsibilities. Although environmental effects do not affect only specific countries but are experienced globally, its political strength and its state of the art of science and technology oblige the EU to take measures for the protection of the environment84 and the handling of climate change.85 In order to preserve the world for future generations, the EU has to set an example and implement international standards through its environmental policy.
Recapitulatory, the amount of challenges for the EU in various areas are manifold. But the EU has proved itself flexible and adaptive so far, since its entire history can be seen as a learning process.86 Europe has never been an exclusively European topic87 nor will it ever be due to its global interconnectedness on all levels. The EU’s uncontested strength in facing these challenges is rooted in its inner plurality.88
c. Together we stand, divided we fall: Expounding the necessity of a mutu ally acknowledged EU-identity
Taking into consideration the supremely favorable development of the EU and its powerfulposition in the world today, why would there be a need for a mutually acknowledged identity?There has not been an EU-identity so far and still the Union stands tall. But as in everydaylife, the true stability of relations is revealed in times of crises. Given the ongoing financialcrisis and the challenges that are in the offing, the lack of an EU-identity, shared by the EUcitizens, is precarious. EU-internal debates are no longer exercised on a professional and rational level, but emotional and biased towards old antagonisms.
As mentioned before, the European continent has never witnessed a similarly long phase ofpeace so far: Since 1945, there has been no armed conflict amongst the member states ofthe EU.89 Due to legal, political and economic interdependencies90, the EU succeeded in pacifying a multitude of former belligerent countries. Howbeit “nation-states have become sincethe last century the natural political form”91, the EU member states are endowed with ashared inheritance.92 Never before was the continent likewise thrice blessed with wealth,rights, and perspectives93 like these days. In order to enshrine these achievements, the EUhas to “search for an essence”94. It must define its illusions, goals, and objectives so as tocreate a normative identity.95
With integration being the exclusive alternative96, the EU has to recollect its supranational97 identity markers and envisage a reflection “in public debate”98 Only by starting from the citizen’s level, self-determination on a global level99 can be successful. A legitimate and democratic imprint is indispensable if a political identity100 is supposed to emphasize membership and the willingness to participate.
Consequently, the EU has to foster the genesis of an EU-identity that is mutually acknowledged to override internal friction, to rekindle European solidarity again, and to define its position in the world in the future. Europe, more specifically the EU, can only outlast united. Tovisualize the situation, one can imagine the individual countries of the EU as young trees. If atress is located alone, there is no protection from any side. Wind, rain, snow, and furtherkinds of weather harry it without hindrance. It is solely in a group of trees - a copse or a forest - where stronger and more resistant trees give shelter to smaller ones and render theirgrowth possible. They are rooted in the same earth and are bathed in the same sunlight. Yetevery tree is an individual and will always be.
d. The EU White Paper on Sport
The Treaty of Rome did not mention sport in any way101. This neglectful treatment on thelevel of governance lasted until 1985, the Milan European Summit. The EC Council of Ministers decided to use sport as an instrument for communication and public relations.102 Thus,the Adonnino Report highlighted the fact that sport is a preeminent medium to tighten theEC-citizens’ sense of belonging to the European Community.103 With the foundation of theEuropean Sports Forum in 1991104 the European Commission acted on the suggestion of theEuropean Olympic Committee (EOC).105 In this vein, various sports associations of EUmember states were given the chance to communicate. Until the Treaty of Lisbon, the role ofsports has been increasingly carved out in various documents and treaties.106 With the Treaty of Lisbon sport has been legally pinned individually in an EU-treaty for the first time.107 Thus, the EU can refer to a legal basis in order to support member states on the domain ofsport108 since a defined EU competence has been introduced. Due to the enhanced competences, the Directorate-General Education and Culture of the European Commission109 (DGEAC) is being regarded more highly.110
Within the EU, questions on sports are dealt within DG EAC; moreover the European Parliament runs a Committee responsible for education, culture, youth, sport and the cultural andeducational aspects of the EU's media policy.111
The EU White Paper on Sport is the first document on the level of the EU formulating clearobjectives.112 Containing recommendations for future European policies and propoundingstrategies how sports can be embedded in various political domains, it was presented onJuly 11th, 2007 by the European Commission.113 Despite the small volume of only 21 pages, its tripartite114 structure is strategically clear and it extensively115 analyses all possiblespheres of sports.116 The White Paper on Sport comes with three accompanying documents:The action plan Pierre de Coubertin117 , the Commission Staff Working Document Back-ground and Context and the Commission Staff Working Document Impact Assessment.118 Hence, the White Paper on Sport can be seen as a guideline for sport-related projects in thecoming years. Despite the cross-border effects and the internationality of sport119, this document “shows a European Commission that is aware of its limitations to intervene in the sportssector”120 since it has to respect national sports associations’ sovereignty. Owing to the interdependencies of professional sport and the economic sector, the sector of popular sports ishardly ever mentioned. The emphasis of the White Paper is clearly on professional sport,based on the well-known potentials of sport in general.
In summary, the White Paper on Sport can be regarded as the most comprehensive and visionary document on sport produced so far by the EU. It reveals that many problems of sports (e.g. doping, gambling, etc.) can be solved on the level of the EU only.121 Despite the “relatively new”122 interest in sport governance, the extent and the impact of upcoming actions based on this document can be expected to be profound.
2. The European Union and its prospective identity
Referring to the prevailing view, it can be said that there is “no stable core, no given European identity”123 which would be perceived by Europeans.124 In order to specify the term ofidentity in this thesis, one has to draw a line between a European identity in general and theEU-identity in particular. To what extent are these two identities synonymous125 ?
1 Cf. http://www.medaillenspiegel.eu
2 Despite this success, the expectation to send one EU team to the next Olympics to Rio is naïve. Moreover, nehas to take into consideration that this team would hardly be able to repeat since various reasons (IOC reglementreferring to the number of athletes, nation state pride, national sports associations, to name the most obviousones) are opposing.
3 Cf. Weidenfeld, Werner, Turek, Jürgen, Wie Zukunft entsteht. Größere Risiken - weniger Sicherheit - neue Chancen, München 2002, p. 178.
4 Cf. Ibid., p. 179.
5 McCormick, John, Understanding the European Union. A Concise Introduction, New York, NY 2011, p. 24.
6 Cf. Westerwelle, Guido, Der Wert Europas: Vier Thesen zum Zukunftsprojekt Europa, in: integration, 2012 (2), p. 91.
7 Thatcher, Margaret, A Family of Nations, in: Nelsen, Brent F., Stubb, Alexander C-G. (Eds.), The European Union, Boulder, CO 1994, p. 51.
8 Cf. Göler, Daniel, Die Grenzen des “Cost-of-Non-Europe“-Narrativs: Anmerkungen zur Sinnstiftung der Europäischen Integration, in: integration, 2012 (2), p. 134.
9 Cf. Tokarski, Walter, Steinbach, Dirk, Spuren. Sportpolitik und Sportstrukturen in der Europäischen Union, Aachen 2001, p. 54.
10 Cf. Dumont, Jacques, Le sport, vecteur d’intégration ? 1952, première tournée en Europe d’une équipe guadeloupéenne, in : Villain-Gandossi, Christiane (Ed.), L’Europe à la recherche de son identité, Paris 2002, p. 459.
11 Cf. Schäfers, Bernhard, Sozialstruktur und sozialer Wandel in Deutschland, Stuttgart 2002, p. 311.
12 McCormick, John, Understanding the European Union, p. 25.
13 Cf. Schmale, Wolfgang, Geschichte und Zukunft der Europäischen Identität, Bonn 2010, p. 182.
14 Cf. Janz, Louis, Die Geschichte der europäischen Einigung nach den Zweiten Weltkrieg, in: Weidenfeld, Werner (Ed.), Die Identität Europas, München 1985, p. 87.
15 Cf. Kutz, Martin, Zentrum und Peripherie, oder: Über den Zusammenhang von kultureller und wirtschaftlicher Dynamik Europas in Geschichte und Gegenwart, in: Kutz, Martin, Weyland, Petra (Eds.), Europäische Identität? Versuch, kulturelle Aspekte eines Phantoms zu beschreiben, Bremen 2000, p. 178.
16 Cf. Take, Ingo, Weltgesellschaft und Globalisierung, in: Schieder, Siegfried, Spindler Manuela (Eds.), Theorien der Internationalen Beziehungen, Opladen 2010, p. 284.
17 Linklater, Andrew, A European Civilizing Process, in: Hill, Christopher, Smith, Michael (Eds.), International Relations and the European Union, New York, NY 2005, p. 376.
18 Cf. Janz, Louis, Die Geschichte der europäischen Einigung nach den Zweiten Weltkrieg, p. 82.
19 Cf. Weidenfeld, Werner, Europa im Umbruch: Perspektiven einer neuen Ordnung des Kontinents, in: Weidenfeld, Werner, Stützle, Walther (Ed.), Abschied von der alten Ordnung: Europas neue Sicherheit, Gütersloh 1990, p. 7.
20 Wæver, Ole, Kelstrup, Morten, Europe and its nations, p. 65.
21 The five main fragments in the dominant discourses on Europe were: the role of Europe as a geographical concept, the concept of liberty, Europe as Christendom, the balance of power and European civilization, cf. ibid.
22 Cf. Janz, Louis, Die Geschichte der europäischen Einigung nach den Zweiten Weltkrieg, p. 81.
23 Cf. ibid., pp. 93 f.
24 Checkel, Jeffrey T., Katzenstein, Peter J., The politicization of European identities, in: Checkel, Jeffrey T., Katzenstein, Peter J. (Eds.), European Identity, Cambridge 2009, p. 1.
25 Janz, Louis, Die Geschichte der europäischen Einigung nach den Zweiten Weltkrieg, p. 109.
26 Cf. Schmale, Wolfgang, Geschichte und Zukunft der Europäischen Identität, p. 103.
27 Cf. Szyszko, Agata, Die kulturelle Identität Europas als ideen- und begriffsgeschichtliches Konzept, in: Birk, Eberhard (Ed.), Aspekte einer europäischen Identität, Fürstenfeldbruck 2004, p. 16.
28 Checkel, Jeffrey T., Katzenstein, Peter J., The politicization of European identities, p. 4.
29 Cf. Schäfers, Bernhard, Sozialstruktur und sozialer Wandel in Deutschland, p. 296.
30 Cf. Westerwelle, Guido, Der Wert Europas, p. 91.
31 Linklater, Andrew, A European Civilising Process, p. 376.
32 Cf. Gruner, Wolf D., Woyke, Wichard, Europa-Lexikon. Länder - Politik - Institutionen, München 2004, p. 42.
33 Cf. ibid.
34 Cf. ibid., pp. 42 f.
35 Cf. Szyszko, Agata, Die kulturelle Identität Europas als ideen- und begriffsgeschichtliches Konzept, p. 16.
36 Cf. Janz, Louis, Die Geschichte der europäischen Einigung nach den Zweiten Weltkrieg, p. 83.
37 Cf. ibid.
38 Cf. Hick, Alan, Die Europäische Bewegung, in: Loth, Wilfried (Ed.), Die Anfänge der Europäischen Integration 1945-1950, Bonn 1990, p. 241.
39 Cf. Janz, Louis, Die Geschichte der europäischen Einigung nach den Zweiten Weltkrieg, p. 84.
40 This date is regarded as the hour of birth of the EU and is celebrated as the Europe Day since 1986, commemorating Schumans far-reaching idea and speech.
41 Cf. Janz, Louis, Die Geschichte der europäischen Einigung nach den Zweiten Weltkrieg, p. 86.
42 Cf. ibid., p. 89.
43 Cf. ibid., pp. 89 f.
44 Cf. ibid., p. 93.
45 Cf. ibid., p. 80.
46 Wæver, Ole, Kelstrup, Morten, Europe and its nations, p. 64.
47 Weidendfeld, Werner, Janning, Josef, After 1989: The Emerge of a new Europe, in: Weidendfeld, Werner, Janning, Josef (Eds.), Global Responsibilities: Europe in Tomorrow’s World, Gütersloh 1991, p. 12.
48 Cf. Wæver, Ole, Kelstrup, Morten, Europe and its nations, p. 64.
49 Linklater, Andrew, A European Civilizing Process, p. 368.
50 Cf. Kielmannsegg, Peter Graf, Integration und Demokratie, in: Jachtenfuchs, Markus, Kohler-Koch, Beate (Eds.), Europäische Integration, Opladen 2003, p. 50.
51 Cf. Hänsch, Klaus, Perspektiven der europäischen Integration, in: Leiße, Olaf (Ed.), Die Europäische Union nach dem Vertrag von Lissabon, Wiesbaden 2010, p. 70.
52 McCormick, John, Understanding the European Union, p. 22.
54 Cf. Weidenfeld, Werner, Turek, Jürgen, Wie Zukunft entsteht, p. 178.
55 Cf. Westerwelle, Guido, Der Wert Europas, p. 90.
56 Calhoun, Craig, The Virtues of Inconsistency: Identity and Plurality in the Conceptualization of Europe, in:Cederman, Lars-Erik (Ed.), Constructing Europe’s Identity. The external dimension, Boulder, CO 2001, p. 37.
57 Cf. Weidenfeld, Werner, Turek, Jürgen, Wie Zukunft entsteht, p. 178.
58 Checkel, Jeffrey T., Katzenstein, Peter J., Conclusion - European identity in context, in: Checkel, Jeffrey T., Katzenstein, Peter J. (Eds.), European Identity, Cambridge 2009, p. 214.
59 Cf. Schimmelpfennig, Frank, Zwischen Neo- und Postfunktionalismus: Die Integrationstheorien und die Eurokrise, in: Politische Vierteljahreszeitschrift, 2012 (3), p. 395.
60 Cf. Hänsch, Klaus, Perspektiven der europäischen Integration, p. 69.
61 Cf. Kielmannsegg, Peter Graf, Integration und Demokratie, p. 53.
62 Cf. Meyer, Thomas, Die Identität Europas, Frankfurt/Main 2004, p. 10.
63 Cf. Kielmannsegg, Peter Graf, Integration und Demokratie, p. 51.
64 Cf. Göler, Daniel, Die Grenzen des “Cost-of-Non-Europe“-Narrativs: Anmerkungen zur Sinnstiftung der Europäischen Integration, in: integration, 2012 (2), p. 132.
65 Cf. Schimmelpfennig, Frank, Zwischen Neo- und Postfunktionalismus, p. 396.
66 Cf. Schimmelpfennig, Frank, Zwischen Neo- und Postfunktionalismus, p. 394.
67 Cf. Seidl-Hohenveldern, Ignaz, Fragen zu Großeuropa, in: Seidl-Hohenveldern, Ignaz (Eds.), Auf dem Weg nach Europa - Fragen zur europäischen Integration, Köln 1991, p. 6.
68 Cf. Berting, Jan, Braak, Hans van de, L’identité culturelle de la »Grande Europe« : mythe ou réalité, in : Viallain-Gandossi, Christiane, Bochmann, Klaus, Metzeltin, Michel, Schäffner, Christina (Eds.), Le concept de l’Europe dans le processus de la CSCE, Tübingen 1990, p. 35.
69 Cf. Seidl-Hohenveldern, Ignaz, Fragen zu Großeuropa, p. 6.
70 Cf. McCormick, John, Understanding the European Union, p. 32.
71 Cf. Berting, Jan, Braak, Hans van de, L’identité culturelle de la »Grande Europe«, p. 35.
72 Calhoun, Craig, The Virtues of Inconsistency, p. 53.
73 Heisbourg, François, Restructuring European Security, in: Weidendfeld, Werner, Janning, Josef (Eds.), Global Responsibilities: Europe in Tomorrow’s World, Gütersloh 1991, p. 101.
74 Weidendfeld, Werner, Janning, Josef, After 1989: The Emerge of a new Europe, p. 12.
75 Cf. Westerwelle, Guido, Der Wert Europas, p. 91.
76 “In the context of the EU, cultural readings of migration emerge in relation to three themes. The first is the cultural (and possibly racial) significance of border controls and limitations of free movement. The second is thequestion of integration or assimilation of migrants into the domestic societies of the member states. The third is the relationship between European integration and the development of multicultural societies” in: Huysmans, Jef, European Identity and Migration Policies, in: Cederman, Lars-Erik (Ed.), Constructing Europe’s Identity. Theexternal dimension, Boulder, CO 2001, p. 198.
77 Ibid., p. 189.
79 Heisbourg, François, Restructuring European Security, p. 98.
80 Cf. Mitchell, Mark, Russell, Dave, Immigration, citizenship and the nation-state in the new Europe, in: Jenkins, Brian, Spyros, A. Sofos (Eds.), Nation and Identity in Contemporary Europe, London 1996, p. 73.
81 Cf. Hänsch, Klaus, Perspektiven der europäischen Integration, p. 75.
82 Cf. Westerwelle, Guido, Der Wert Europas, p. 90.
83 Cf. Hänsch, Klaus, Perspektiven der europäischen Integration, p. 75.
84 Cf. Berting, Jan, Braak, Hans van de, L’identité culturelle de la "Grande Europe", p. 43.
85 Cf. Hänsch, Klaus, Perspektiven der europäischen Integration, p. 69.
86 Cf. Kohlhase, Norbert, Strategien der Europapolitik, in: Weidenfeld, Werner (Eds.), Die Identität Europas, München 1985, p. 263.
87 Cf. Muschg, Adolf, Was ist europäisch ?, Bonn 2005, p. 15.
88 Cf. Szyszko, Agata, Die kulturelle Identität Europas als ideen- und begriffsgeschichtliches Konzept, p. 22.
89 Cf. Enzensberger, Hans Magnus, Sanftes Monster Brüssel oder die Entmündigung Europas, Berlin 2011, p. 7.
90 Cf. Kohlhase, Norbert, Strategien der Europapolitik, p. 257.
91 Jacobs, Dirk, Maier, Robert, European Identity: construct, fact, fiction, in: Gastelaars, Marja, Ruijter, Arie de (Eds.), A United Europe. The Quest for a Multifaceted Identity, Maastricht 1998, p. 17.
92 Cf. Berting, Jan, Braak, Hans van de, L’identité culturelle de la "Grande Europe", p. 45.
93 Cf. Cohn-Bendit, Daniel, Verhofstadt, Guy, Für Europa! Ein Manifest, Antwerpen 2012, p. 11.
94 Bifulco, Marco, In search of an identity for Europe, Bonn 1998, p. 3.
95 Cf. Schmale, Wolfgang, Geschichte und Zukunft der Europäischen Identität, p. 131.
96 Cf. Hollaschke, Gerhard, Die EG-Integration zwischen Anpassung und Veränderung. Demokratietheoretische Überlegungen und institutionelle Reformen, in: Strübel, Michael (Ed.), Wohin treibt Europa? Der EG-Binnenmarkt und das Gemeinsame Europäische Haus, Marburg 1990, p. 56.
97 Cf. Szyszko, Agata, Die kulturelle Identität Europas als ideen- und begriffsgeschichtliches Konzept, p. 22.
98 Checkel, Jeffrey T., Katzenstein, Peter J., The politicization of European identities, p. 4.
99 Cf. Szyszko, Agata, Die kulturelle Identität Europas als ideen- und begriffsgeschichtliches Konzept, p. 11.
100 Cf. Meyer, Thomas, Die Identität Europas, p. 21.
101 Cf. Tokarski, Walter, Europa in Bewegung - Der Sport im „Europa der Bürger“ gewinnt Konturen, in: Tokarski, Walter, Petry, Karen, Schulz, Norbert (Eds.), Brennpunkte der Sportwissenschaft. Sport im „Europader Bürger“. Neue Beiträge zum Zusammenwachsen des Sports im Europäischen Binnenmarkt, 1994 (1), p. 5.
102 Cf. Danckert, Peter, Kraftmaschine Parlament. Der Sportausschuss und die Sportpolitik des Bundes, Aachen2009, p. 230.
103 Cf. Kepper, Christophe de, Die Europäische Union und der Sport, in: Schimke, Martin (Ed.), Sport in der Europäischen Union, Heidelberg 1996, p. 4.
104 Cf. Kepper, Christophe de, Die Europäische Union und der Sport, p. 5.
105 Cf. Tokarski, Walter, Steinbach, Dirk, Spuren. Sportpolitik und Sportstrukturen in der Europäischen Union, p. 56.
106 E.g. The EU member states agreed on paying more regard to sports in the Amsterdam Treaty. In the Treaty ofNice, they stressed the social and cultural values of sport. Neither of the treaties was legally binding though, cf.http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/institutional_affairs/treaties/amsterdam_treaty/index_en.htm andhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/treaties/dat/12001C/pdf/12001C_EN.pdf
107 Singer, Otto, Sportpolitik der Europäischen Union nach dem Lissabon-Vertrag,http://www.bundestag.de/dokumente/analysen/2010/Sportpolitik_EU.pdf, p. 3.
108 Ibid., p. 11.
109 Cf. http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/
110 Singer, Otto, Sportpolitik der Europäischen Union nach dem Lissabon-Vertrag, p. 13.
111 Cf. Tokarski, Walter, Steinbach, Dirk, Spuren. Sportpolitik und Sportstrukturen in der Europäischen Union, p. 56.
112 Cf. Danckert, Peter, Kraftmaschine Parlament, p. 238.
113 Cf. ibid., p. 237.
114 The societal role of sport, the economic dimension of sport and the organization of sport, cf. Europäische Kommission, Mitteilung zum Sport (2011). Entwicklung der europäischen Dimension des Sports, Brüssel 2011, p. 3 f.
115 Cf. Danckert, Peter, Kraftmaschine Parlament, p. 238.
116 The White Paper on Sport appreciates the societal role of sports, defines the role of sport in education and training, fosters the promotion of volunteering, takes side effects like integration and the fight against racism into consideration, explores the economic dimension of sport, acknowledges the organization of sport - primarily professional sports and drafts follow-up measures.
117 In this document, the measures mentioned in the White Paper on Sport are embodied. The action plan contains 53 concrete sport-related suggestions that intend to guide the European Commission’s sport policy in theupcoming years.
118 Cf. Danckert, Peter, Kraftmaschine Parlament, p. 237.
119 Cf. Hansen, Hans, Europa wächst zusammen, in: Rydzy-Götz, Marlis (Ed.), Die Europäische Gemeinschaft und der Sport, Frankfurt a.M. 1992, p. 3.
120 García, Borja, The Governance of European Sport, in: Dine, Philip, Crosson, Seán (Eds.), Sport, Representation and Evolving Identities in Europe, Oxford 2010, p. 47.
121 Cf. Danckert, Peter, Kraftmaschine Parlament, p. 240.
122 García, Borja, The Governance of European Sport, p. 29.
123 Wæver, Ole, Kelstrup, Morten, Europe and its nations, p. 65.
124 Cf. Kielmannsegg, Peter Graf, Integration und Demokratie, p. 57.
125 Cf. Risse, Thomas, A Community of Europeans? Transnational Identities and Public Spheres, Ithaka, NY2010, p. 50.