R, Wong (2017), "The Role of the Member States: The Europeanization of Foreign Policy?", in C. Hill, M. Smith and S. Vanhoonacker (eds), International Relations and the European Union, 3ed (Oxford University Press), pp.143-64. (Ch.7 proof) (original) (raw)
Related papers
2011
'National and European Foreign Policy' explores the processes of interaction between the national and the European levels in foreign policy making in European Union states. The volume also assesses the mutual influence which the Member States exert on each other, independent of the EU institutions, thus tracing the extent to which Member State foreign policies are being Europeanized into more convergent, coordinated policies. With chapters examining France, Germany, Italy, UK, Denmark, Greece, Spain, Finland, Poland and Slovenia, the overarching questions the volume addresses centre on the nature of the relationship between the foreign policies of the Member States and ‘European’ foreign policy. Engaging with ‘Europeanization’ with theoretical rigour, the contributors to this volume examine the EU’s impact on the foreign policies of Member States old and new, the impact of the Member States on the EU’s external relations, and the influence of the Member States on each other’s foreign policies. Providing interesting detail on changes in foreign policy thinking and national policies using the concept of Europeanization, National and European Foreign Policy will be of interest to students and scholars of European politics and policy formation, foreign policy and International Relations.
The Domestic Challenge to EU Foreign Policy-Making: From Europeanisation to de-Europeanisation?
Journal of European Integration
Developing a novel conceptualization of 'de-Europeanisation', this introduction provides a common theoretical framework to advance our understanding of EU foreign policy-making in times of internal and external challenges. De-Europeanisation relates to situations where EU foreign policy-making runs against the grain of certain Member States' declared values and interests; where Member States are less willing to engage in collective foreign policymaking at the EU-level, prioritising other multilateral frameworks or (unilateral) national actions; and where the results of that policymaking are, on occasion, explicitly undermined by Member State practice. Departing from the understanding that (de) Europeanisation is an overarching 'framework' rather than a theory, authors focus on-and theorize about-different 'drivers', 'elements' and 'dynamics' of de-Europeanisation'. The theoretical framework developed in this introduction provides guidance for the following individual articles, which are mapped against a common understanding of de-Europeanisation and which locate themselves within the overarching conceptual framework. This will allow for a systematic analysis, comparison and evaluation across the different case studies included in this special issue.
Abstract: A radical decision at the time, the 2004 enlargement constituted a critical juncture for the Central and Eastern European Countries. Although a great deal of literature has been written in regard to other aspects of Europeanization, the effects of EU membership on the foreign policy of the new member states have been rarely discussed. This is what the volume coordinated by Michael Baun and Dan Marek seeks to accomplish, namely to fill a gap in the European Studies with a series of articles explaining the more or less significant institutional and behavioural changes which occurred at the level of the new member states’ political elites. Focusing on three main domains in which Europeanization purportedly occurred, namely national preferences and interests, institutions and procedures, foreign policy strategies and actions, the studies gathered in this volume provide a useful overview of the effects of EU membership on what was traditionally known as “foreign policy”.
The EU global strategy: the dynamics of a more politicized and politically integrated foreign policy
Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 2019
The European Union (EU) has been portrayed as a force for good in the international system. However, due to systemic changes in the international environment and the crises of European integration, its role in the world is becoming more contentious. This paper applies the politicization literature to EU foreign policy and, using the case of the EU Global Strategy (EUGS), questions the effects of emerging politicization for EU political integration. The paper analyses how the EUGS has downscaled the transformative ambition of EU foreign policy, showcasing an adverse framing of its strategic narrative. However, it also argues that this narrative has been accompanied by more integrationist practices, as shown by the institutional developments during the making of the EUGS and its implementation in security and defence. The paper concludes that the effects of emerging politicization in EU foreign policy can simultaneously reflect a less transformative narrative but lead to more integrated practices and policies.
This paper is dedicated to the phenomenon of European foreign policy system – analysed in the processual context. Broadly defined processes of European integration affect the status of the main actors in the system. The point of reference in this study is provided by the European Union (EU) which is considered to be a source of systemic changes. However, the Member States are equally important, as well as their feedback in respect to the EU activity in the international environment of the European system. For the purpose of this study, the author has raised the question about the consequences the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty (LT) with regard to the position of sovereign states in the international system. Furthermore, it is important to look at the problem of coherence and effectiveness of the post-Lisbon solutions. The theoretical framework is provided by the synthesis of the Europeanisation concept with the realist paradigm of international relations. Such synthesis allows the author to analyse the nature and character of contemporary European states, still considered as the main actors of the European system. Therefore, it is worth to search for an answer as to why the EU member states are willing to limit the scope of their sovereignty and to what extent they are ready to share their competences in the field of foreign policy with EU supranational institutions
JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 2007
Schmidt's book is a valuable and well-written contribution to the analysis of the impact of European integration on national democracies. According to the author, democracy has become an issue for Europe and the suspension of the ratification process on the Constitutional Treaty, following the failures of the referendums in France and the Netherlands, shows that it will remain a problematic issue in the near future. The institutional reforms envisaged in the Constitutional Treaty may reduce the problem of EU democracy, but they would not solve the democratic deficit at the national level. The problem at stake refers to Europeanization, which means that national conceptions of democratic power and authority, access and influence, vote and voice remain mostly unchanged. National leaders have failed to initiate ideas and discourse that would engage national publics in the discourse about the EU-related changes to national democracy. Therefore, a key question here is 'how should national leaders proceed in such a discourse?' Firstly, they should decide what the EU is, in order to assess what their countries are becoming. Thus, the fundamental assumption of Schmidt's book is the idea of the EU conceived as a regional state. It is a regional union of nation states, where sovereignty is shared with Member States, boundaries are not fixed, identity is understood in terms of 'being' and 'doing', governance is dispersed. Schmidt argues that in such a fragmented democracy, the EU's legitimacy is in question because it is compared to the ideal of the nation state. However, if it is conceived as a regional state, the democratic deficit would not be so great. But the problem is much more significant in relation to national democracy. The author convincingly argues that this is because while the EU makes policy without politics, its Member States realize politics without policy. National citizens have little direct input into the EU policies that affect them. This results in the problems of voter disaffection and political extremism characterizing the EU Member States nowadays. To solve this problem, Member States have to come up with new national ideas and discourse in order to adjust the EU-related changes to the traditional performance of their national democracies. But firstly it is necessary to conceive how institutions affect European democracy at EU and national levels. Thus, Schmidt's book is about the nature of the EU governance system and its impact on national democracies. In Chapters 2-4, the author examines the impact of the EU upon national institutions, taking into account in turn the policy-making processes and the representative politics of the EU and the Member States. A special merit of Schmidt's work is that the author illustrates her argument with examples of four countries: Britain and France, as
JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 2007
In recent years, studies of European Union foreign policy activities have increasingly highlighted the importance of the normative dimension of the European integration process. This multidisciplinary volume contributes to that literature by focusing on Pillar I and Pillar II policies and on how the process of identity construction within the EU has been shaped just as much by external policy as by purely internal politics. Specifically the volume analyses the values, principles and images (VIPs) which help constitute the EU as an international actor; in doing so, it draws on the growing literature that frames the EU as (variously) a 'civilian', 'ethical', 'gentle' or 'normative' power in the world of international politics. Thus unsurprisingly the core values the book highlights include human rights and freedom of expression, democratic and representative government and the centrality of the rule of law. The core image of the world that helps transform values into principles is the liberal internationalist image of a Kantian actor-liberal, peaceable and committed to Groatian principles of regulation and international law. Setting out the volume's overarching theoretical frame of the EU as a contemporary integrative space and polity, Ian Manners examines the constitutive nature of the values, images and principles which inform how the EU behaves in the international arena. The VIPs which manifest themselves in those behavioural patterns are not just rhetorical or symbolic (and thus hollow); neither are they an expression of purely material attachments or ambitions. The EU really is different, as constructivist scholars of the integration process assert and really is pre-disposed to act in a normative way in its international activity. This is largely because it has evolved in a way which has facilitated the embedding of these core values, images and principles in its own self-representation and consequently in its foreign policy 'output'. And even if, as Knud Erik Jorgensen points out in his chapter, the VIPs identified in the volume are frequently contested and contestable (both in real world political activity and in scholarship), such VIPs constitute the primary cognitive repository which EU actors drawn on in contemplating what the EU is and should do in the world of international politics. In broadening the focus of EU external action and delivering a coherent and organically linked collection of chapters, the volume makes a valuable dual contribution to contemporary understandings of the European Union.
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