To What Extent Does the Development of the GCC Countries’ Sovereign Wealth Funds Provide an Evolving Instrument in their Security and Foreign Policy

«М’ЯКА СИЛА» ЯК ХАРАКТЕРНА ОЗНАКА ПОЛІТИЧНОГО ВПЛИВУ ВЕЛИКОЇ ДЕРЖАВИ ЗАУМОВ БАГАТОПОЛЯРНОГО СВІТУ В ЛАТИНОАМЕРИКАНСЬКОМУ РЕГІОНІ

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.

From today's viewpoint, 2016 may well represent the end of the post‐Cold War era and the general assumptions that are associated with it. These include the beliefs that the United States remains a European power, guaranteeing the territorial integrity of its European NATO allies, that liberal democracy represents the political system widely seen as the only legitimate normative reference point, and that the future of the European Union will be defined by continued integration into an ‘ever closer Union’. These assumptions have been shaken to the core.

The text reviews the main characteristics of and milestones for the Czech foreign, security and defence policy since 1993. The Czech foreign and security policy is a relatively stable and Europeanised endeavour. It is firmly embedded in the European institutions, but is dependent on a very immature political debate. While foreign and security policy considerations guided Czech politics in the beginning, they have moved from the foreground lately and have given way to domestic issues. The foreign policy ended with the accession to NATO and the EU for the Czech public debate, and there is insufficient understanding of external relations among the politicians. Czech political parties, as a result, lack expertise on foreign policy. Domestic considerations trump foreign policy thinking and Czech behaviour on the international scene is often trapped by domestic politicking. The resulting incoherent policy does not provide Czechs with much leverage in European negotiations, which in turn feeds the populist and isolationist voices at home.

This chapter reviews the main characteristics of—and milestones for—the Czech foreign, security and defence policy since 1993. The Czech foreign and security policy is a relatively stable and Europeanised endeavour. It is firmly embedded in the European institutions, but is dependent on a very immature political debate. While foreign and security policy considerations guided Czech politics in the beginning, they have moved from the foreground as of late and have given way to domestic issues. The foreign policy ended with the accession to NATO and the EU for the Czech public debate, and there is insufficient understanding of external relations among the politicians. Czech political parties, as a result, lack expertise on foreign policy. Domestic considerations trump foreign policy thinking and Czech behaviour on the international scene is often trapped by domestic politicking. The resulting incoherent policy does not provide Czechs with much leverage in European negotiations, which in turn feeds the populist and isolationist voices at home.

Using Samuels’ [(2007). Securing Japan: The current discourse. The Journal of Japanese Studies, 33(1), 125–152] political categories of Japanese perspectives on strategic policy, this article argues that the nation’s foreign and security policy under the leadership of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has undergone three distinct phases: a first phase of neoconservatism during his first tenure as Prime Minister from 2006 to 2007; a second period when he returned to the office of Prime Minister five years later in 2012 that can be described as neoautonomous; and a third phase of pragmatic realism from 2015 to 2016. In addition, this article analyses the factors driving change from one phase to another. By adopting an eclectic approach to theory, it claims that each traditional theory in the field of International Relations (IR) offers different but complementary causal effects to shifts in security and foreign policies. Each IR theory emphasizes or downplays these four factors: actors, structures, material forces and ideas. This article will employ all three IR traditional theories as they relate to these factors to discern the change factors of Abe’s foreign policy. Finally, it concludes by siding with those scholars who assert that Japan’s foreign policy has made a consequential break from its past and has embarked on a new path towards a remilitarization of its foreign and security policy.

During the last fifty years when the EC turned into the EU, the foreign policy aspect constantly gained importance; in changing its structures and functions the EU added foreign policy tools and developed a foreign policy which is different from the foreign policy of a nation state: The goals are strongly influenced by the historic experience of the Union, focussing on conflict prevention and conflict solution, reconciliation, fostering of human rights and rights of minorities, sustainability and protection of the environment while upholding a free market economy based on the European social model.Pursuing effective multilateralism, fostering interregionalism as a new diplomatic tool, inventing the European Neighbourhood Policy as an alternative to accession are some key instruments. Thus, a European diplomacy should translate the goals of the Common Foreign and Security and European Security and Defence Policies into action.The Lisbon Treaty of 2007, if ratified, will streamline the foreign policy process in creating the new function of the double hated High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy, supported by European Diplomatic Service, called European Action Service. Since the adoption of the European Security Strategy in 2003, the military component in the EU's foreign policy has become more important, as the artificial distinction between economics and politics was abandoned. Although the European Union acts as civilian or soft power e. g. it is able to influence many but not all actors by offering the huge advantage of membership in the Union, the need for a certain military capability in order to be able to pursue its goals, is gradually recognised. Although foreign policy will remain the prerogative of the nation state, which remains the constituent element of the EU, the Europeanisation of foreign policy goals and the need to pool sovereignty in order to contribute to solving problems or to overcome crisis gains slowly momentum. The EU perceived by many as a role model is also responding to the perceptions of the international community which expects a substantial contribution of the EU to the governance of the international system commensurate with its economic might.

This study aims to comprehensively address the foreign policy cooperation processes shaped at the European Union (EU) level, especially in the context of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), through the concept of Europeanization. In-depth analysis of the effects of the EU's integration and cooperation processes in the field of foreign policy on the national foreign policies of the member states is of great importance in understanding how this interaction is shaped both at the European and national levels. In this framework, it will be analyzed in detail how the EU's common foreign policy practices, which have been developed to increase its global influence, have harmonized with national interests and how they have sometimes come into conflict with these interests. Thus, it will be revealed how the EU's foreign policy strategies and national foreign policy dynamics interact. In this context, this study aims to examine the challenges faced by the EU in the foreign policy-making process and the historical, theoretical and practical obstacles in solving these challenges within the framework of the concept of Europeanization. It aims to analyze the development of foreign policy cooperation within the EU, especially in the period starting with the Maastricht Treaty, and the balance between the member states' desire to protect their national sovereignty and their efforts to establish a common foreign policy. In doing so, the scope and dimensions of the Europeanization process of national foreign policies in the context of the Common Foreign and Security Policy will be discussed and the formation process of the EU foreign policy and the important turning points in this process will be analyzed.

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.

Issues in Australian Foreign Policy January to June 2022

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).

The European Union’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 genuinely 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).

The legal framework which governs the foreign and security policy of the European Union (EU) provides an intriguing case study of flexibility. On the one hand, it has provided fertile ground for an impressive range of structures of flexibility, both formal and informal, which have emerged in different ways and for different reasons over the course of the development of Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) as a distinct strand of the Union's external action. On the other hand, flexibility has been inherent in the conduct of the policy as a matter of practice and quite independently from the legal mechanisms set out in the Union’s primary rules. This chapter will argue that there is a density of rules and procedures goverining flexibility which which has developed independently from the ad hoc arrangements prevailing in the area of secrity and defence as a matter of practice. This phenonemon illustrates a heavily proceduralised emphasis on law which is justified by neither prior experience, nor subsequent practice. The analysis is structured as follows. First, it will examine the typology of flexibility mechanisms set out in the rules which govern the CFSP and the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). Secondly, it will explore the central position of flexibility in the design and application of the CFSP/CSDP system and its impact on the conduct of the Union's security and defence policy. Finally, it will reflect on the qualitative differences which characterize flexibility in this area compared to other strands of EU action.

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.