Abstract

Moravcsik’s reply to the six commentaries deals with sources omitted from the original article, the use of evidence in his analysis of the Fouchet Plan and the “empty chair” crisis, and broader critiques of (and proposed alternatives to) the commercial interpretation of French policy on European integration during the presidency of Charles de Gaulle. Moravcsik concedes some of the points raised by the critics and offers a more qualified and nuanced restatement of his argument, but he sticks to his basic contention that “commercial interests were a dominant and sufficient motivation for French policy in Europe.”

pdf

Additional Information

ISSN
1531-3298
Print ISSN
1520-3972
Pages
pp. 117-142
Launched on MUSE
2000-08-01
Open Access
No
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.