How much unity do you need? Systemic contestation in EU foreign and security cooperation

Heidi Maurer,Nicholas Wright

doi:10.1080/09662839.2021.1947800

Heidi Maurer, Nicholas Wright

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2021.1947800

Copy DOI

Abstract

ABSTRACT The Common Foreign & Security Policy (CFSP) is a transnational policy framework to deliver collective foreign policy and also to manage differences among member states. As such, it has always been dependent on their support. Since 2019, however, disagreement within this system is said to have reached a new level. Taking this political trend as our starting point, this article proposes a new, conceptual approach to understanding how contestation challenges the EU’s foreign policy cooperation system. While the majority of research focuses on disagreements in decision-making, we argue for a broader conceptualisation – systemic contestation. Drawing on norm contestation scholarship, we argue that systemic contestation manifests itself in two ways: as passive contestation, when member states disengage from and fail to take ownership of CFSP initiatives and their implementation; and as tacit contestation, when they fail to act when faced with the need to safeguard the system. This approach accounts for the transgovernmental character of the CFSP; and the central role of member states within it. Finally, we contend that our conceptualisation of systemic contestation offers promising new avenues for empirical research to understand the “black box” of EU foreign policy cooperation.

Highlights

The Common Foreign & Security Policy (CFSP) is a transnational policy framework to deliver collective foreign policy and to manage differences among member states
We propose a different way of thinking about contestation in the CFSP, opening up pathways for future empirical research
That passive contestation consists in a lack of ownership or leadership initiative on the part of member states and disengagement from policy implementation – both of which we argue are as negative and corrosive for EU foreign policy cooperation as direct and active contestation

Summary

Introduction

[A] dialectical relationship exists between the national instinct and the perceived need for solidarity. (Hill 2004, p. 160). We propose here an examination of systemic contestation – i.e. the impact of contestation by member states on the CFSP as a transgovernmental system of foreign and security policy cooperation, where cooperation is understood to be the core norm. Applying Deitelhoff and Zimmermann’s understanding of validity contestation, allows us to see how challenges to CFSP procedural and behavioural norms, as well as to the broader norm of cooperation, amount to systemic contestation – i.e. whether stakeholders consider the CFSP a legitimate framework for addressing foreign policy challenges This enables us to distinguish between those member states contesting the content of specific policy proposals versus those contesting the cooperative nature of the system itself, including its procedures and mechanisms. We seek to show the potential value of our conceptual approach and the basis it can provide for further such research

Passive contestation: non-activism in a transgovernmental policy system

Tacit contestation: when apathy is worse than disagreement