'Conceptualizing the European Union's Global Role,'' (original) (raw)
Related papers
The study of EU foreign policy
Manchester University Press eBooks, 2018
The European Union's foreign policy is an ongoing puzzle. The membership of the enlarging European Union has set itself ever more ambitious goals in the field of foreign policy-making, yet at the same time each member state continues to guard its ability to conduct an independent foreign policy. As far as the EU's ambitions are concerned, foreign policy cooperation led to coordination, and coordination in turn gave way to the aspiration of developing a common foreign policy. Concern over foreign policy was the precursor to endeavours to cooperate in matters of security and eventually defence policy. And the desire to maintain the national veto over decision-making within the 'second pillar' of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) gave way to the acceptance that, at least in some agreed areas, detailed policies-joint actions and common positions-would be determined by qualified majority vote. Yet, despite these advances the reluctance of member states to submit their diplomacy to the strait-jacket of EU decision-making has remained. Individual states have maintained distinct national foreign policies, whether this is about specific regional interests, specific global issues or special relationships with other powers. This has been reflected in the institutional arrangements based on the principle of unanimity. Indeed, the very pillar structure of the EU treaties-separating the 'Community pillar' from the special regime that governs CFSP and parts of Justice and Home Affairs-is a hallmark of an arrangement in which member states have sought to minimise the role of supranational institutions and preserve national autonomy. And yet, despite the sensitivity of member states in the area of foreign policy, and their caution to move beyond intergovernmental decision-making mechanisms in this field, foreign policy has been one of the areas in which European integration has made the most dynamic advances. This includes institutional innovations such as the establishment of the post of High Representative for the CFSP and the creation of an EU Military Staff, both based within the
Rethinking European Union Foreign Policy
2004
The European Union‟s foreign policy is an ongoing puzzle. How can we describe, explain and foresee the development of a process that was originally conceived and constructed as being strictly intergovernmental and yet which now aspires to the creation of a „common defence‟? Moreover, in what spatial context is this occurring – is it a policy emerging from amidst the cooperation of distinct national agents or should it be viewed as a policy deriving from an emerging single polity? In addition, that aspect of EU foreign policy that is defined as CFSP is unique in terms of its process and nature. As Jørgensen (2002) notes in his contribution to this volume „communication and argumentation are essential features of the system‟ (original emphasis). Thus a large part of what passes for European foreign policy is about the way in which information is gathered, analysed and shared, the way in which member state representatives interact and debate issues amongst themselves and finally the ways in which language in used to give effect to the conclusions of those deliberations.
The Study of EU Foreign Policy: Between International Relations and European Studies
Rethinking European Union foreign …, 2004
The European Union‟s foreign policy is an ongoing puzzle encompassing a number of paradoxes. The membership of the enlarging European Union has set itself ever more ambitious goals in the field of foreign policy-making, yet at the same time each member state continues to guard their ability to conduct an independent foreign policy. As far as the EU‟s ambitions are concerned, basic foreign policy co-operation led first to co-ordination, and later the goal of creating a „common‟ foreign policy. However, behind each raised level of ambition was an unsatisfying reality of continuing policy incoherence and ineffectiveness. Similarly, early ambitions that Europe should develop a single foreign policy „voice‟ have been supplanted by aspirations to create a common security and defence policy – even as the Union‟s voice continues to be often fragmented and frequently tentative in its expression. Moreover, while the desire to maintain the national veto over decision-making within the „second pillar‟ of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) remains, it is increasingly challenged by the realisation that without extended use of qualified majority voting a common policy may prove illusory.
European Foreign and Security Policy in the Making
This article critically reviews and analyses the books listed below. The works reviewed provide an overview of the state of the art in the academic literature on the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy (CSFP). Bearing their original contributions in mind, the themes standing out in the review do not dramatically depart from the ones that have repeatedly been placed under the microscope of scholars. This article argues that the EU is still an ineffective power due to the lack of coherence among the Member States and institutions, and its reluctance and/or inability to promote universal values around the globe. Giegerich, B. (ed.) (2010) Europe and Global Security. New York: Routledge.
European Law Journal, 2004
The reform of the constitutional foundations of Europe's Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) featured prominently on the agenda of the European Convention. To the great surprise of many observers the much lamented absence of a common European response to the war in Iraq did not prevent the Convention from agreeing upon an ambitious reform package in the foreign-policy field. This article explores the legal implications of the new institutional balance for European foreign policy envisaged by the Convention against the background of the achievements and deficiencies of Europe's existing foreign policy regime. Thereby, we shall see in how far the Convention has met the original goal set by the Laeken European Council to consider reform steps to strengthen the Union's ability to 'shoulder its responsibilities in the governance of globalisation.'
The European Union’s New Foreign Policy
The European Union in International Affairs, 2020
That the European Union (EU) has something that can accurately be described as a foreign policy is a relatively recent phenomenon. For a long time, the European Community's external policies were focused on trade and development. Foreign policy per se remained a jealously-guarded Member State prerogative-defence was completely taboo. The story of the gradual emergence of the European Union's foreign policy has been well-rehearsed 1 , with most commentators identifying the 1992 signing of the Maastricht Treaty, with its provisions on the Common Foreign and Security Policy, as the moment when something recognisable as a proper foreign policy first started to emerge. The question arises, given that this is such a recent phenomenon, why does the title of this book refer to a 'new' foreign policy, with its strong implication that there was an 'old' policy? The answer is a composite one, comprising a series of constitutional and institutional, political and geographical developments that have resulted in a new geo-political environment with a series of new challenges being addressed by a combination of new instruments and actors and old instruments and actors used in new and different ways. Thus, the 'new' of the title refers as much, by implication, to the new environment as it does to new instruments, actors and initiatives (and old ones used in new ways). It is, in short, this ensemble that justifies the term 'new'. Clearly, the 2009 implementation of the Lisbon Treaty represented a major departure in this context, bringing many constitutional and institutional developments in its wake. Among the more important constitutional/institutional innovations were, variously: the creation of the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy; the (2011) creation of the European External Action Service (EEAS) 2 ; the creation of the permanent Presidency of the European Council; the implementation of Treaty on European Union (TEU) Article 3.5 3 and the concomitant establishment of a holistic overall external policy with a strong prescriptive element. Significant developments that have followed in the wake of the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty have included: the consolidation of the European Council President's role, as the EU navigated its way through three successive and unexpected crises-namely, the eurozone crisis, the migration crisis, and Brexit 4 ; the consolidation of the High Representative's role and empowerment through a series of significant achievements (perhaps most notably, the normalization of relations with Serbia and the establishment of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on Iran's nuclear programme-JCPOA) that have, cumulatively, put the High Representative on the map and legitimised the role 5 ; in that context, the 2014-2019 Juncker Commission's creation of 'teams' of Commissioners, with one team of seven Commissioners, 'Europe in the World', led by the High Representative, finally realising an old ambition to encourage overall coherence in the European Commission's external actions, and with the new European Commission of Ursula von der Leyen following the same model 6 ; also, in that context, the development and adoption of the European External Action Service's 2016 Global Strategy and its follow-ups (notably, annual reports) 7 ; the 2017 activation of Permanent Structured Cooperation on security and defence matters (PESCO) 8 ; the growth of the role and powers of the European