Still Governing in the Shadows? Member States and the Political and Security Committee in the Post‐Lisbon EU Foreign Policy Architecture*

Heidi Maurer,Nicholas Wright

doi:10.1111/jcms.13134

Abstract

AbstractThe Lisbon Treaty introduced far‐reaching reforms for EU foreign policy co‐operation. In the decade since, most scholarship has focused on the High Representative and EEAS. Far less consideration has been given to its consequences for member states' ownership of foreign policy. This article therefore examines how these institutional reforms have affected the Political and Security Committee (PSC), established to enable member states to better manage EU foreign policy cooperation. Drawing on new empirical data, it shows that the PSC has found its capacity to act as strategic agenda‐setter increasingly constrained because of greater opportunities for activism by the HRVP and EEAS; and by the emergence of the European Council as the key arbiter in foreign policy decision‐making. While this indicates the PSC today finds it harder to perform the role originally assigned to it, it is gaining alternative relevance through an emerging oversight role, which has implications for member states' EU foreign policy engagement.

Highlights

European foreign policy remains a complex and hybrid construct (Smith, 2018)
This article has examined the impact of institutional reforms of the Lisbon Treaty on the Political and Security Committee (PSC) as main actor and venue for member states’ representation vis‐à‐vis the External Action Service (EEAS), High Representative/Vice President of the Commission (HRVP) and European Council (EUCO)
We show that the increased activism of the HRVP and the EEAS as well as the strengthened role of the EUCO have had significant implications for the PSC and its role as the key preparatory forum for foreign and security policy‐making

Summary

Introduction

European foreign policy remains a complex and hybrid construct (Smith, 2018). Formal processes of decision‐making and the central role of member states have changed little since the Treaty of Maastricht established the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). Josep Borrell (2019) emphasized ‘unity’ and the united ‘power of EU member states’ in his mission statement This reflects the reality that the EU’s international actorness requires foreign policy cooperation, which in turn depends on member states. The PSC has been central to the institutionalization of EU foreign and security policy making It has facilitated and expanded the regular exchanges between member states and played a leading role in EU crisis management. An examination of the PSC, provides an ideal starting point to explore how policy interactions and power balances between supranational actors and member states have evolved in the post‐Lisbon environment and crucially to assess how and to what extent member state engagement in EU foreign policy making may have changed.

Operationalizing the Roles of the PSC Post‐Lisbon

The PSC after Lisbon

Discussion

Conclusion