New Pathways for Paradigm Shifts in EU Foreign and Security Policy: from the Liberal International Order to Symbiotic Security Order

This chapter provides a critical discussion of the mediatization of policy in general, and of EU foreign and security policy in particular. A common argument in public debate and research is that the media logic is increasingly affecting how policy is formulated. Brommesson and Ekengren are critical of this (as they see it) oversimplified perspective, and they analyse EU foreign and security policy from the opposite point of view in this chapter. Foreign policy is usually described as a conservative policy area, in as much as it is informed by a long-term perspective, and foreign policy is not the subject of public debate to the same extent as other policy areas. Based on this reverse perspective, the authors ask whether policy actors are actually taking advantage of the opportunities provided by mediatization to strengthen long-term policy objectives. The chapter sheds light on the relationship between policy and mediatization through a comparative analysis of two important strategy documents of EU foreign and security policy: the European security strategy of 2003 and the EU global strategy of 2016. The authors discuss the overarching question of whether the formulation of EU foreign and security policy is dominated by media logic, in other words, whether this policy has been mediatized.

The Balkans have been the crucible of the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). In the 1990s the appointment of David (Lord) Owen as a strong representative to manage the EU's Bosnian policy, the sidelining of the EU itself by the Contact Group, and American dominance at Dayton (what price 'this is the hour of Europe'?) and over Kosovo were important precursors to the important European Council decisions in June 1999 to appoint a high-profile international statesman as High Representative for the CFSP and to create the EU's own military capability in European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP). The Constitutional Treaty's further provisions, notably replacing the Presidency in external relations, will be sorely missed and will need to be brought back.ESDP is developing well, if modestly, and making a genuine contribution, mostly with a strong civ-mil component, in several parts of the world. The CFSP itself seems to be managing quite well. But the EU is not yet set up for serious 'events' or crisis management. Experience shows, and greater recognition is needed, that the EU (probably even with an EU Foreign Minister) needs to be represented by member states that carry conviction to outside interlocutors: some member states are inevitably more equal and carry greater weight than others, even if all have an equal voice. Since EU foreign policy is in large measure inescapably a function of US foreign policy, member states need to have a better common understanding among themselves about the nature of the transatlantic relationship. It will take confidence in the efficacy of the CFSP, to which all must give greater priority, before those member states that have alternatives will accept being bound to conducting their foreign policy (or being represented in the UN Security Council) through Brussels. at will take time and effort.

The concluding chapter reviews the findings of the investigation into the emergence of communities of practice in EU foreign and security policy. Among the most important findings of this book is the way in which learning has contributed to establish a repertoire of practices which assist practitioners to navigate the formal and informal rules and ways of working which make the everyday making of EU foreign and security policy possible. In particular, the case studies reveal a high degree of awareness on the level of the individual and the group, along with a strong willingness to adapt and develop diplomatic practices in order to make EU foreign and security policy work. This practical knowledge along with a shared sense of competent performance as a diplomat contribute to overcome dissent in the various venues and bodies of the Common Foreign and Security Policy of the EU.

The main aim of this article is to explore and analyze key determinants of EU Common Foreign and Security Policy efficiency. For this purpose a 3C analytical approach is used, exploring EU foreign and security policy consistency, capacities and the dimension of cooperation. Article analyzes both horizontal and vertical, consistency of EU Foreign and Security policy especially with connection to Ukraine crises and diverging interests of EU member states. EU capacities are explored with main focus on military spending and challenges related to limited spending. EU military decline is put in contrast with new emerging regional powers. In the area of cooperation article is dedicated mainly to ineffective partnership with Turkey, cold attitude of Trump administration towards Europe and the implications of Brexit for EU foreign and security policy.

This article argues that the study of EU foreign and security policy has been hampered by its conceptualization of the sovereign state. Realist and constructivist scholars share Stanley Hoffmann's formulation of states as either ‘obstinate or obsolete’. EU foreign and security policy is puzzling in this respect as it corresponds to neither. Drawing on two examples – the EC's role in the Conference on Security and Co‐operation in Europe (CSCE) in 1973–75 and the contemporary workings of the Political and Security Committee (PSC) – this article suggests that we think of EU foreign and security policy as driven not by the obstinacy or the obsolescence of the nation‐state but rather by its transformation. In line with this claim, the article proposes a social theory of EU foreign and security policy with democracy and bureaucracy as two competing political forms within the framework of the modern state. It is the changing balance between these two political forms that drives forward closer foreign and security co‐operation in Europe.

None of the existing models for the future trade policy relationship between the UK and the EU come with a predetermined foreign and security policy relationship. This article assesses how the future EU-UK foreign and security policy relationship might be organised post-Brexit. It provides evaluation of the current EU-UK interrelationship in the fields of the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) and assesses the degree to which the UK is presently integrated into EU decision-making and implementation. It highlights that the UK needs to determine the degree to which it wants autonomy or even divergence from existing EU policies. The article concludes by rehearsing the costs and benefits of three possible future relationships between the UK and EU foreign, security and defence policy: integrated, associated or detached.

The paper examines the normative foundations of EU foreign and security policy against the context of one of the world’s most intractable disputes, the Israeli- Palestinian conflict. Recent scholarship has developed a thesis that the European Union – perhaps uniquely – is a ‘normative power,’ an international actor dedicated to the export of values and norms rather than (or in addition to?) the pursuit of interests. This generates a number of questions, at perhaps the core of which is under what conditions and in what circumstances can and does the EU use a strategy of norm export and to what effect? The aim of this paper is thus to assess how EU foreign and security policy is pursued on the ground, how EU officials perceive their own role and – crucially - how they are seen by others within this particular peace process. The paper concludes that there is only limited evidence for the thesis of the Union as a normative power and that the explanatory power of rationalism and instrumentalism thus remains considerable. However, the very fact that many officials – from both the EU institutions and the Member States – have internalised core common norms is testimony to the changes that have occurred in national foreign-policy making.

This article traces the evolution of attitudes and policies of Irish political parties towards Irish neutrality and the European Union Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) across four decades. The article provides conceptual snapshots of the position of parties' policies along two policy dimensions. The first dimension captures policies of limited ‘military’ neutrality and ‘positive’/‘active’ neutrality. The second dimension captures minimalist EU foreign and security policy, defined as ‘civilian’ or ‘soft’ security policy, to a maximalist EU CFSP/ESDP ‘hard security’ policy amounting to a ‘militarized’ EU. The positioning starts with the campaign for Irish membership of the European Economic Community (EEC), focusing on the accession negotiations and the 1972 referendum campaign and finishes with an analysis of parties' positions on the Security and Defence Policy aspects of the Lisbon Treaty in 2008. Evidence shows the positions of the larger parties of Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the Labour Party shifted away from fundamental neutrality to embrace treaty‐based progress towards a maximalist EU ESDP. Over the same time period, the smaller parties of Sinn Féin and the Green Party were more consistent in their adherence to positive neutrality and in their opposition to the development of a maximalist EU ESDP. The forces of Europeanization have been evident in influencing evolving party discourses in Ireland. Much of this influence has been occasioned by the impact of participation in government on parties and the sporadic requirement to engage with referendum campaigns. The process of Europeanization has thus been subtle and muted and has interacted in intricate ways with domestic party agendas and objectives.

General preface Fredrik Bynander & Stefano Guzzini Part I. Walter Carlsnaes... 1. In the Beginning was Conceptualisation Stefano Guzzini 2. IR goes world wide A.J.R. Groom Part II. The agency-structure problem... 3. Agency, Structure, International Relations and Foreign Policy Colin Wight 4. Agency, Structures and Time: From Atemporal Ontologies to Explicit Geo-Historical Hypotheses - and Anticipation of Global Democracy Heikki Patomaki 5. Theories, Truisms and Tools in International Relations Kjell Goldmann 6. The Ritual-Performance Problem in Foreign Policy-Analysis: European Diplomats at the Chinese Court Erik Ringmar 7. Agency and Structure in EU Foreign Policy Practices Magnus Ekengren 8. Agents, Structures and International Regime Significance Charles Parker Part III. ... and the study of foreign policy 9. Does Europe have foreign policy traditions? Knud-Erik Jorgensen 10. A Foreign Policy without a State? Notes to the Research Agenda on the EU's Normative or Ethical Power Helene Sjursen 11. EU Foreign Policy: Low Politics, High Impact Janne Haaland Matlary 12. The EU Foreign and Security Policy - High Expectations, Low Capabilities? Pernille Rieker 13. The Use and Abuse of Intelligence and the Iraq War Frederik Bynander 14. Foreign Policy Analysis and the Governance Turn Thomas Risse 15. Apostleship: A South African National Role Conception Deon Geldenhuys Part IV. A Selected Bibilography of Walter Carlsnaes

In this article, we identify Brexit as a critical juncture, wherein the EU has had the opportunity to reflect on and reinforce its identity, as a promoter of gender issues within the security domain. It draws on this identity from a foundational myth of the EU as gender equality polity, resulting in the creation of a socio-legal order and sustained discourse on gender inclusivity in all policy areas. Existing scholarship has drawn attention to the EU’s particular success in gender equality promotion in the areas of social inclusion at member state level, including in the UK. But, is the EU’s reach comprehensive beyond this policy sphere? We examine the ways in which gender is manifested in the area of foreign policy, an area where the UK has consistently shown some leadership on the integration of gender perspectives in its foreign policy through its international development programmes and the implementation of the Women, Peace and Security agenda. It is therefore timely to consider what impact Brexit has on EU policies, practices and the promotion of gender equality in this policy domain. Using a critical feminist lens, this article looks at the evolution of gender equality as a dimension of EU foreign and security policy in the context of EU–UK relations, and the divergences, opportunities and constraints that are crystallised by the Brexit process.

This chapter analyses the variations in foreign, security, and defence policy as well as the consequences of a possible fragmentation on the positioning of the Union as a united global force. Since ‘security and defence policy’ is separated from ‘foreign and security policy’, one of the key questions concerns the dividing line between the two areas. Is it possible for Member States not to participate in the security and defence integration or does the single legal order of the Union prevents this variation? A second question concerns the more general possibilities for closer or enhanced cooperation. And, finally, a third question is to what extent the proposed new EU Constitutional Treaty further consolidates the somewhat fragmented legal regime on differentiation in the area of foreign, security, and defence policy.

In this article the author examines the dynamic of the European Union Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) after the adoption of the two strategic documents — Global Strategy on EU Foreign and Security Policy “Shared Vision, Common Action: Stronger Europe” and the Strategic Compass on Security and Defence. Both documents were adopted during the period of transformation of the European Union Common Security and Defence Policy institutions, and influence on the further dynamic of the EU security and defence. The article evaluates the practical changes in the sphere of EU Security and Defence policy after the adoption of the strategic documents. The author studies the preconditions and causes of the adoption of these strategic documents and conducting a comparative analysis of the Global Strategy and the Strategic Compass by studying the official texts. The research on EU Common Security and Defence Policy is based on the neorealism theory of international relations. Particularly, the article is based on the “structural realism” theory by John J. Mearsheimer. The author applies the model of collective securitization for the examination of the common security and defence, and for the explanation of the modern trends in EU CSDP transformation. The research attempts to provide the results of the examination of the realization of the Global Strategy 2016, that lead to the adoption of the new document — Strategic Compass. The article notes the features of the EU Strategic autonomy and examines the factors affecting the Strategic autonomy.

Before conducting an empirical analysis of the causes and consequences of integrated policies among EU member states and institutions through the High Representative’s (HR) role in the cases of Kosovo and Ukraine, it is crucial to place EU foreign and security policy processes occurring under the Lisbon Treaty (LT) in their institutional setting. Within the current institutional framework the HR finds herself/himself at the crossroad between the supranational and the intergovernmental side of EU foreign and security policies. However, existing legal provisions do not provide enough indication on whether to conceptualize this institutional post as an autonomous political actor—part of the political executive of the EU—or as an implementing branch of the European Council and of the member states reunited within this intergovernmental forum.

Why has the European Union been able to craft a unified sanctions policy against Russia but failed to rein in Russia's ‘Trojan horses’ within the EU that pursue pro‐Putin foreign policies? We argue that the EU suffers from a specific type of disaggregation in its foreign and security policy. While the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy has increased its capacities over time, the EU still lacks the power to prevent Member States from pursuing their own independent policies. In the face of the Ukraine crisis, for instance, the EU marshaled a surprisingly strong sanctions regime, but could not prevent Member States from pursuing divergent pro‐Russia policies, such as signing new energy deals or granting port access for Russian naval forces. As EU foreign and security powers grow, foreign powers face increasing incentives to cultivate Trojan horses among the EU Member States.

This chapter seeks to conceptualise the multi-actor character of what we refer to here as EU(ropean) foreign and security policy. It takes a holistic approach to European foreign and security policy—a policy that covers multiple areas and is carried out by a multitude of actors and institutions. While the framework builds on institutional approaches, such as the literatures on multi-level governance and Differentiated Integration (DI), it adds a new dimension by applying a somewhat broader definition of European integration—a definition that captures more than just the processes that occur within the EU. Applying a broader approach towards European integration allows us to continue to perceive the EU as central to the European integration process, while also allowing for the inclusion of other processes that in some ways, either formally or informally, are linked to the EU. We argue that such a framework better captures the dynamics of today’s increasingly complex EU(ropean) integration process, characterised by opt-outs and opt-ins, formal and informal processes, enhanced cooperation, and various forms of governance led by actors at different levels and with different types of relations to the EU. As we will show in this chapter, a more generic definition of integration helps us develop a framework that captures this complexity and sees clearly the different roles EU institutions play in the various policy areas. The intention is to present a more inclusive conceptual framework that fills two key gaps in the existing literature on European integration in this area.