9. The EU as a Global Actor

The EU’s ambitions to be a global power are a surprising by-product of European integration. Students of European foreign policy mostly focus on EU trade, aid, and the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). But the national foreign policy activities of its member states cannot be neglected. On most economic issues, the EU is able to speak with a single voice. It has more difficulty showing solidarity on aid policy but is powerful when it does. The Union’s external policy aspirations now extend to traditional foreign and security policy. But distinct national policies persist, and the EU suffers from fragmented leadership. The chapter begins by considering the development of EU foreign policy and then considers how a national system of foreign policies exists alongside EU policies in the area of trade and international development. It then examines the EU’s CFSP and Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP).

This chapter takes stock of “the common” in the European Union’s Common Foreign and Security Policy. Doing so, the chapter analyses the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) both in terms of institutions and substantive policies. Showing how European Union (EU) foreign policies after the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty have partially been crafted without the necessary institutional consolidation, it sheds light on the many policy challenges that EU diplomacy is confronted with. Cases that this chapter analyses by way of illustration are policies in reaction to the so-called “Arab Spring” and the transnational war in Syria, the EU’s foreign policy performance at the Iran nuclear talks, and the impact of the “Ukraine crisis” on both the EU’s foreign policy manoeuvrability and the perception thereof in other parts of the world. Likewise, the 2015 refugee crisis has become a stress test for common foreign policy responses, and will therefore be assessed in its impact on the perception of EU foreign policy. Finally, the chapter also touches upon the Union’s Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) and its intricate interplay between the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) structures and EU autonomous defence instruments. The European Union’s credibility as a foreign policy actor, it will be argued, hinges on its ability to both formulate common strategies and policies internally, and to hold such policies up in the face of third parties in order to see such European foreign policies implemented beyond declaratory rhetoric.

In its aim to become a global security actor, the EU is increasingly undertaking civilian and military crisis missions all over the world. These missions are based on the European security and defence policy (ESDP) which forms an integral part of its common foreign and security policy (CFSP). The Treaty of Lisbon seems to mirror the Union’s global security ambitions as it addresses the European security and defence policy in a whole new treaty section. However, European missions still depend on willing Member States to make civilian and military capabilities available to the Union for the implementation of its security and defence policy. The purpose of this article is to examine the relationship between the European Union and the Member States in the fi eld of the common foreign and security policy and the European security and defence policy and whether the Treaty of Lisbon manages to clarify the situation. What constraints, if any, do the common foreign and security policy and the European security and defence policy impose on the Member States regarding the conduct of their national foreign policy? The article argues that the relationship between the EU and the Member States can only be determined after an examination of the binding nature of primary and secondary CFSP law as well as of international agreements concluded by the Union.

This chapter inquires into the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) elements of the European Union's toolbox in civilian peace-building. The lack of readily available police personnel for deployment to Kosovo under UNMIK initially led the European Union to focus its Common Security and Defense Policy (CSDP) efforts on police missions. On the basis of Resolution 1244, an international civil presence was mandated to perform the basic civilian administrative functions, but for an interim period. The chapter offers a brief description of a number of civilian EU operations, complemented by a thorough analysis of the missions in Kosovo and Afghanistan. It illustrates that the European Union has launched police missions over the complete range of strengthening types identified in its comprehensive concept, namely organisation and restructuring, training and selection, and monitoring and mentoring, that all represent different, but complementary and potentially synergy-creating avenues for assisting post-conflict police forces.Keywords: Afghanistan; Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP); Common Security and Defense Policy (CSDP); European Union; Kosovo; police forces; Resolution 1244

This chapter examines the European Union’s (EU’s) Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). It tells the story of increasing co-operation between member states on foreign policy matters, first with European Political Co-operation (EPC) and, since the 1990s, with CFSP and a Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). The chapter highlights the internal dynamics and external events that drove the member states towards such co-operation and considers the most recent example of such efforts: the 2017 attempt to create a system of permanent structured co-operation (PESCO). However, it is noted that the EU remains far from having a truly supranational foreign policy and there remains a reluctance from member states to push much further integration, given states’ keen desire to remain sovereign in this area. Finally, the chapter considers the EU’s status as a ‘power’ in international relations, noting that it has diminished in important respects since 2003, but remains an important economic power.

Rome, October 29, 2004-the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe was signed. One of its new and important features is its institutional strengthening of the Union's Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) including the security and defence component through the establishment of the “double hated” European Foreign Minister.Already the founding fathers of the Union had envisioned a united and therefore internationally strong Europe. As usual in the history of European integration, the idea evolved slowly overcoming quite a few setbacks. After the milestone of the Treaty of Maastricht (1992) which founded the European Union and the CFSP, the 1999 Treaty of Amsterdam strengthened this new common policy and clarified its role. Procedurally the CFSP was made more effective through increased Qualified Majority Voting (QMV) and the creation of the office of the High Representative which gave a human face to this new common policy.Under the impression of the war in Kosovo where a NATO intervention cruelly demonstrated the EU's incapacity to enforce peace and security in its own backyard and the dissipating willingness of the United States to be the European peacemaker of last resort the EU was pushed to set up another new policy, the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP).This paper analyses the latest development of CFSP as reflected in the Constitution for Europe. Has the European Constitution brought about an important change in the nature of the common policy or is it just another functional modification of the status quo with an ambitious name? Although the EU is finally granted legal personality, the treaty has not significantly increased the supranational element in foreign policy making—neither through pooling of sovereignty through the increase of qualified majority voting nor through the transfer of sovereignty to the European foreign ministers. Nevertheless, although both, the CFSP and ESDP, remain intergovernmental, the Constitution was another important step in shaping the common policy in a way which could enhance the Union's capacity to act effectively on the international scene. The Constitution is flexible, dynamic and has the potential to Europeanising national foreign policies—if Member States allow this to happen. Different speeds and endeavours will be able to move forward within the Union. Some Member States may be entrusted to perform a task within the Union framework as a group. In case of military capabilities fulfilling higher criteria and having made mutual binding commitments they may establish “permanent structured cooperation”. While this flexibility can be a useful tool to get a process started and to build up capacity, it will need vigorous steering to avoid disintegration rather than integration in the long run.Furthermore, the European Union has gained enhanced actor recognition in international politics. The Constitution does not only call for a fully fledged Union Minister for Foreign Affairs, but it also creates a European External Action Service (EEAS) —a European Diplomatic Service— as well as a European Defence Agency. In clarifying the institutional structure it makes the CFSP potentially more coherent and Europe could gain a clearer international profile. However, the new set-up does not respect the building principles of the Union in mixing the tasks of the Council with those of the European Commission through the at least double hatted EU Foreign Minister, who potentially is in competition with the President of the Union who is also entrusted with representing the Union at his/her level. Thus, institutional squabbling—in addition to the sword of Damocles of referenda in countries like the UK, France, Denmark, Sweden, the Czech Republic and Ireland—could endanger a project necessary to better equip the Union of 25 and the challenges ahead.Unfortunately, France and the Netherlands rejected the

Decision making has always been a sensitive issue for Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). Since the Maastricht Treaty, the right of the CFSP has materialized in unknown acts of the classic Community law: joint actions, common positions, joint strategies, as well as measures in the context of the former Community pillar called atypical acts: declarations, conclusions, and orientations. The CFSP, which includes the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP), is characterized by a complex institutional apparatus and heavy and sophisticated decision-making procedures. People can assume all the issues settled by the Treaty of Lisbon. This actually puts an end to the pillar structure and tries to reunite the entire Union law around the former Community law. The original text of the chapter is in French. Keywords: Common Security and Defence Policy; Common Foreign and Security Policy; Community law; decision making; Maastricht Treaty; Treaty of Lisbon; Union law

Present security situation in the world is differs from the Cold War and requires another approaches to solve many problems of regional or global character. To the fact, that the EU wants to play on the world political and military scene the role that is looking for, will be forced to work hard on enhancing effective (and in the future even a single) security policy, which has to be accompanied by an adequate building of military capabilities. Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) is an integral part of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), while it can be seen as a deepening of the CFSP, as well as a specific instrument of the CFSP. This article focuses on the role of the Common Security and Defence Policy of the European Union, which through foreign operations and missions contributes to the stabilization and security not only in Europe but also globally. Attention is also paid to the expenses EU Member States spend on defense and last but not least to the analysis of issues in cooperation of the EU and NATO as an important factor of transatlantic security.

Enhanced Cooperation and the Common Foreign and Security and Defence Policies of the EU

The European Union's (EU) Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) is a component of its Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). It was established in the Maastricht Treaty on European Union, which included a provision for the gradual introduction of a common defence policy that could eventually lead to a common defence framework. The CFSP emerged from the need to enhance the EU's political identity on the international arena and assert Europe's independence in the post-Cold War era. Simultaneously, it remains one of the few areas of competence that exclusively belongs to Member States, where proposals to deepen integration processes have met with lukewarm responses. However, the Russo-Ukrainian war has prompted the European forum to strengthen cooperation between Member States, particularly in the defence industry sector. The CSDP is regulated only by the Treaty on EU (TEU), while other EU policies are governed by the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU). The architects of the Lisbon reform aimed to underscore the distinctiveness of the CSDP from other EU policies, as demonstrated by its legal instruments, decision-making mechanisms, and the nature of EU competences. Cooperation under the CSDP does not fit neatly within the traditional treaty rules governing the division of competences between the EU and its Member States. Fundamental competences in the field of security policy are reserved for Member States, which result from both the TEU and the unambiguous content of Declaration No. 13 on the CFSP. The CSDP’s intergovernmental nature CSDP determines its institutional implementation. It is defined and implemented by intergovernmental EU institutions, particularly the European Council and the Council. The High Representative supported by the European External Action Service and Member States play a key role in its implementation, drawing on both EU and national funds. The competences of the EU's supranational institutions, particularly the Court of Justice of European Union, are strictly limited in this area. The relationship between the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the EU was institutionalised in the early 21st century, building on initiatives from the 1990s aimed at promoting greater European responsibility in defence matters.

The Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) objectives are an integral part of the overall objectives of the European Union and the policy area has developed from a purely intergovernmental form of cooperation in the days of the European political cooperation to an area in which the member states have increasingly accepted new forms of institutionalization. CFSP decisions are taken by the General Affairs Council, consisting of the ministers for foreign affairs of the member states. In spite of the growing pains in the development of Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP), the European Union has made significant strides in deploying crisis management operations. However, the issue of defining success of the CSDP is no longer measured in terms of merely launching missions, ensuring mission output, and gathering operational experience. Whenever a common policy does not prove possible, member states are free to pursue their own national foreign policies.

Cooperation within the EU on foreign affairs has always been ambiguous. Indeed, since the days of European Political Cooperation (EPC), EU foreign policy has been ‘less than supranational but more than intergovernmental’ (Ohrgaard, 1997), and successive treaties have never unpacked this ambiguity. Yet, the Treaty on European Union (TEU) was intended to enable the EU to address the post-Cold War internal (economic governance through Monetary Union) and external (enlargement and a common foreign policy towards the Balkans) challenges. It created the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), an intergovernmental mechanism for cooperation. In 1999 the Amsterdam Treaty flanked CFSP with the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) and created a titular head of the new processes: the High Representative (HR). Paradoxically, all these developments, including the Nice Treaty, which put flesh on the bones of the emerging new system of foreign policy coordination, reinforced the dualism between the intergovernmental mode of cooperation in traditional core issues of diplomacy and supranational management of certain fields of EU external relations; notably trade, aid, enlargement and humanitarian aid, by the European Commission.

The aim of this paper is to study the evolution of Britain’s involvement in the EU’s foreign and security policy in order to highlight the reasons that led the issue to be left out of talks on the post-Brexit future relation. The paper argues Europeanisation or de-Europeanisation largely depends on the degree of politicisation of issues both in the EU, the EU-27 and in the UK. As long as foreign and security issues remained relatively low key, the UK was able to enjoy the magnifying effect of its participation in the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) and contributed to the decision-making process in order to successfully influence EU policies. Politicisation of foreign and security issues was due both to developments in EU-led or national initiatives and to the reaction they provoked in the UK. The EU insisted the UK was to be considered as a ‘third country’ and stressed the need for future cooperation to be institutionalised. On the contrary, in the UK, public distrust against a putative European ‘super state’, led successive governments to avoid any formal commitment to new EU initiatives.

Foreign and security policy were not areas in which Prime Minister Cameron was seeking to renegotiate the relationship between the UK and the European Union (EU), but security may be a key issue in the EU referendum. The untangling of Britain's foreign and security policy from the EU following a Brexit vote would be relatively uncomplicated. The EU's arrangements for collective foreign and security policy, the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP), are conducted on an intergovernmental basis which allows the UK to preserve independence in its diplomacy while allowing for the coordination of policy where interests are held in common with other member states. The UK retains substantial diplomatic and military capabilities which would allow it to continue to pursue a separate national foreign, security and defence policy in the case of either a ‘Leave’ or ‘Remain’ outcome.

This chapter examines the European Union’s Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). From 1993 to 2009, external political relations formed the second pillar of the EU, on CFSP. Although CFSP was officially an intergovernmental pillar, the European Commission came to play an important role. There were serious attempts to strengthen the security and defence aspects of the CFSP in the face of the threats that faced the EU from instability in its neighbouring territories. However, the EU remains far from having a truly supranational foreign policy and its status as a ‘power’ in international relations is debatable. The chapter first provides a historical background on the CFSP, focusing on the creation of the European Political Co-operation (EPC), before discussing the CFSP and the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP). It concludes with an assessment of EU power and its impact on world politics.