The new Inter-Parliamentary Conference on the CFSP/CSDP Why the new Inter-Parliamentary Conference on CFSP/CSDP is a positive-yet insufficient-step forward in the Post-Lisbon Democratic Control and Legitimacy of EU Foreign Policy (original) (raw)
Related papers
Second Pan-European Conference Standing Group on EU Politics
This paper is about the EU at the UN. It has three aims. In the first part of the paper, we briefly describe the EU's historical and contemporary role at the UN. In the second part of the paper, we analyse five key issues which all are related to the EU's role at the UN: values, role/status, identity, international society and UN reform. We begin by asking whether values are European, western or universal. We continue by discussing the EU as a middle power -a fairly atypical middle power we hasten to add. We then turn to the contested notion of EU interests. Subsequently we examine the EU's policy on UN reform. The last issue concerns the EU, the UN and international society. In the third part of the paper, we conclude by emphasising that it is time for the scholarly community to catch up with foreign policy practice. In this context we point out that there is a need for a research programme on EU politics vis-à-vis the UN.
CFSP/ Esdp and the New Eu Treaty
DergiPark (Istanbul University), 2007
This article aims to analyse the new EU Treaty's effects and implications on external relations, especially those aspects relating to the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP). For this purpose, it starts its analysis with examining the unified structure which has been established by unification of the Union's external action under a single set of principles and objectives and the existence of a single international legal personality which has always been presented as a serious obstacle for EU foreing policy's coherence. Then, it studies the amendments and developments with regard to CFSP, and it finds that the success of a more effective EU foreign policy still depends, to a great extent, on the decisions of the most influential member states in the Union. As regards to the ESDP, it questions whether the treaty can strengthen the foundation for a common defence policy examining the new and specific mechanisms which it includes. Based on its analysis, it makes it clear that it can strengthen the legal foundation, but the implementation of activities in this field inevitably relies on most influential member states' wills like in the CFSP field. As a conclusion, it argues that the new treaty, with its contributions, should be accepted as a positive step for EU coordination and consistency in external relations, but it is not yet sufficient to accomplish a successful CFSP/ESDP.
Caucasian Review of International Affairs, 4 (4), 2010
Despite its alleged inconsistency, the foreign policy of the European Union was successful with the enlargements of 2004 and 2007. The enlargements resulted in an increased number of EU members with important votes in qualified majority voting (QMV) and crucial influence over the unanimous decision-making. Meanwhile, the Lisbon Treaty is meant to foster greater cooperation among the member-states and make the EU speak with one voice in terms of foreign policy. This article analyses the political and institutional dynamics in the EU foreign policy decision-making process after the enlargements and in the wake of the Lisbon Treaty. Focusing on the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), the article tracks the dynamics in the CFSP evolution and identifies the potential impact the Lisbon Treaty may have on the consistency and coherence of EU foreign policy. The findings show that contrary to predictions the enlargements did not have negative effects on the institutional or political dynamics of the CFSP. However, the Lisbon Treaty, by introducing new institutions and responsibilities as part of creating more efficient institutional framework, has instead created confusion and institutional competition.
Book Review: New Approaches to EU Foreign Policy
Marmara Journal of European Studies (MJES), 2017
Language: English 282 pages ISBN: 978-0-415-81366-2 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-315-77115-1 (ebk) Lisbon Treaty, the last revision Treaty of the EU, has provided significant changes in the EU foreign policy system both in the institutional, financial and policy-making framework. The volume, taking its starting point from the idea of the current challenges the EU faces in foreign policy, and institutional developments took place after the Lisbon Treaty, issues of legitimacy, constitutionalization and parliamentarisation of the EUFP/CFSP, the very complex and analytical object was put under research presenting newer approaches to EU foreign policy such as delegation approach, the parliamentarisation approach, post-modern perspective on foreign policy. This book, which is edited, by Maciej Wilga and Ireneusz Pawel Karolewski has three consecutive parts addressing these issues in an analytical, empirical and comparative way. It is thus a valuable contribution to EU literature, putting together the chapters of which were written between 2011-2013.
The European Parliament is confident of its democratic credentials. Portraying itself as the true embodiment of the citizens’ will it has been repeatedly empowered by national governments in consecutive Treaty reforms and successfully shifted the institutional balance in its favour in the day-to-day management of inter-institutional decision-making. Despite this remarkable success the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy (CSFP) continues to defy calls for enhanced parliamentarization. As early as 1986 when the Single European Act incorporated the previous practice of European Political Cooperation into the legal framework of the present European Union, the European Parliament (EP) “emphasis(ed) its consternation with the codification of the existing split between Community activities and Political Cooperation” and “deem(ed) necessary to be more closely involved in the development of Political Cooperation through adequate mechanisms.” Surprisingly at first sight, not much has changed until this day with the Parliament still being largely excluded from the course of CFSP which remains by far the most intergovernmental area of European decision-making. This article explores the role of the EP in the European Union’s CFSP with a view to conceptual reasons underlying the EP’s pervasive exclusion from decision-making in foreign and security policy. The constitutional status quo of the Treaty of Nice lays the starting-point for our survey, whose course not even the Constitutional Treaty would have altered substantially (section I). The EP’s budgetary powers are the only instrument through which it can exercise measurable influence on the course of CFSP – albeit with considerable drawbacks on its standing in the eyes of the Council lamenting about the EP’s reluctance to provide “adequate” financial resources (section II). A closer look at the living constitution of institutional activities in Brussels and Strasbourg reveals a reinforced activism of the MEPs in the foreign policy field, although its substantive contributions may not necessarily transcend the “virtual” world of parliamentary discourse and influence the actual decision-making in the Council (section III). The continued involvement of national parliaments in CFSP does not substantially alter the situation (section IV). Eventually, national constitutional arrangements confirm that the EP’s limited role in CFSP is not necessarily an atypical deviation from the orthodoxy of the Community method but follows an underlying constitutional rationale of executive prerogatives in foreign affairs (section V).