EU Foreign Policy-making Research Articles

EU delegations as intermediaries of perceptions of the EU: A view from the MENA region

ABSTRACT The European Commission in its 2015 study on the perceptions of the EU acknowledged that mutual perceptions held by actors in the international arena affect their expectations about the other’s behaviour and hereby guide the interpretation of the other’s actions. Knowledge of how and what image of the MENA countries and of the EU is conveyed by country delegations is important for understanding whether the information that influences EU foreign policy-making is representative, and of whom. EU delegations are an acknowledged source of knowledge that feed into EU policymaking, and proposals have even been made for strengthening their role. Based on interviews with heads of delegations/Ambassadors in 2021, four interlinked categories of concerns affecting the perceptions of the EU are identified: historical legacy; knowledge about and expectations towards the Union; competing values and aims; and the EU’s internal policy inconsistencies. The findings in the interviews are contextualized through an analysis of previous research on the perceptions of the EU. Further, the article discusses the role of delegations in EU policy-making and invites to take a critical view of Ambassadors´ ‘perceptions of the perceptions of the EU’.

The Eurozone crisis’ impact: a de-Europeanization of Greek and Portuguese foreign policies?

ABSTRACT This article compares the impact of the Eurozone crisis on the foreign policies of Greece and Portugal from a de-Europeanization perspective. These two Southern European countries were significantly Europeanized in the past and both suffered greatly from the Euro crisis. Focusing on the Troika period and on relations with China, the article shows that both Greece and Portugal’s foreign policies towards Beijing went through an important degree of de-Europeanization during the Eurozone crisis. Such effect was, however, more intense and durable in the case of Greece, much driven by domestic politics. These national factors were intimately connected with exogenous drivers, such as EU-level developments and Beijing’s agency, both more relevant for illuminating the case of Portugal. Ultimately, the Eurozone crisis strengthened the influence of external actors like China over EU foreign policy-making, working as a complementary driver of de-Europeanization.

The Domestic Challenge to EU Foreign Policy-Making: From Europeanisation to de-Europeanisation?

ABSTRACT Developing a novel conceptualization of ‘de-Europeanisation’, this introduction provides a common theoretical framework to advance our understanding of EU foreign policy-making in times of internal and external challenges. De-Europeanisation relates to situations where EU foreign policy-making runs against the grain of certain Member States’ declared values and interests; where Member States are less willing to engage in collective foreign policy-making at the EU-level, prioritising other multilateral frameworks or (unilateral) national actions; and where the results of that policy-making are, on occasion, explicitly undermined by Member State practice. Departing from the understanding that (de)Europeanisation is an overarching ‘framework’ rather than a theory, authors focus on – and theorize about – different ‘drivers’, ‘elements’ and ‘dynamics’ of de-Europeanisation’. The theoretical framework developed in this introduction provides guidance for the following individual articles, which are mapped against a common understanding of de-Europeanisation and which locate themselves within the overarching conceptual framework. This will allow for a systematic analysis, comparison and evaluation across the different case studies included in this special issue.

Neither Fish nor Fowl. How eu Delegations Challenge the Institution of Diplomacy: The Cases of Moscow and Washington

Summary This article explores European diplomatic cooperation abroad since 2009 by studying diplomatic structures and practices in two key locations: Moscow and Washington, dc. It analyses the functions of European Union (eu) delegations as part of the hybrid eu foreign policy system and their way of engaging with the changing global patterns of diplomatic practice. The empirical analysis draws on extensive semi-structured interviews conducted in Moscow and Washington during 2013-2014. Our cases confirm the deeper institutionalization and intensification of European diplomatic cooperation abroad. The eu delegations increasingly assumed traditional diplomatic tasks and coordinated member states on the ground. The eu delegations’ ability to establish good working relationships with member states as well as the leadership of key individuals (notably eu ambassadors) were key factors in shaping how this new system fell into place, which shows the continued prevalence of hybridity in eu foreign policy-making.

Book Review: Lobbying in EU Foreign Policy-Making. The Case of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Book Review: Lobbying in EU Foreign Policy-Making. The Case of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

EU Policies in the Arab World: Update and Critical Assessment

This article provides an update and critical assessment of EU action in the Middle-East and North Africa (MENA), a region frequently referred as to the European Southern Neighbourhood. It examines the different instruments and approaches, which are put at work by a variety of institutional actors (EU Commission, Directorate-Generals (DGs), Development Cooperation (DEVCO), EU’s Humanitarian Office (ECHO) and Neighbourhood and Enlargement Negotiations (NEAR); as well as the EEAS and the Member States), and which in their combination are shaping the EU’s MENA policy. The particular focus is on the politico-organizational interplay between the EU’s institutional architecture, and the effects of EU policies on the political order in the Middle-East and the ArabWorld. The questions are: What can we reasonably expect from EU external action in MENA? Does EU foreign policy-making at all affect power and governance structures in the MENA region? To what extent, and under what conditions is the EU likely to contribute to promoting democracy and stability? Adopting a case study research strategy, the article analyses the design and implementation of individual policy issues in the areas of security, crisis management, international cooperation and development, and studies the effects thereof in three countries within the region. Based on document review, interviews with policy makers and direct observation, taking into account the local context in recipient countries, as well as the regional and geopolitical dimension, the article contributes to empirical research on EU action in a global hotspot area, undergoing turbulence and violent transformation. Results point to an overstrained Europe, ill-prepared underperforming in the face of the colossal challenges in a radically transformed socio-political and security context. The consequence has been a series of uncoordinated ad-hoc actions by individual member states and the general sense of disunity.

EU foreign policy through the lens of practice theory: A different approach to the European External Action Service

There is a proliferation of works on the new European External Action Service (EEAS). Most of these approach the EEAS through a rationalist framework, assessing how a new institution can solve long-term questions of EU foreign policy-making to ensure consistency and coherence while reducing transaction costs between actors (both supranational and national) in a multilevel governance structure. This paper takes a different direction. Using 30 interviews with officials from the EEAS, the European Commission, and national ministries of foreign affairs, conducted between 2010 and 2013, it shows how the study of practice aids understanding of the nature of the EEAS. As a new institution, the EEAS lends itself particularly well to practice-based study because new institutions must develop new practices. The first section of the article defines the notion of practice and shows the importance of historicizing the struggles around practices in understanding the creation of the EEAS. The second section demonstrates how agents’ practices shape professional cultures within the EEAS. The third section highlights the relationship between practices and rule-making. Going over the EEAS as a case study, the conclusion focuses on the importance of analysing actors’ practices for understanding the current evolution of diplomacy and international relations in general.

European Integration: From Nation‐States to Member StatesBickerton, Chris J.Oxford, Oxford University Press (2012), 240 p., ISBN 978‐0‐19‐960625‐2

European Integration: From Nation‐States to Member StatesBickerton, Chris J.Oxford, Oxford University Press (2012), 240 p., ISBN 978‐0‐19‐960625‐2

Europe's Foreign Policy and the Middle East Peace Process: The Construction of EU Actorness in Conflict Resolution

Relying on the ‘EU actorness’ framework, this article examines the relationship between the EU's evolving institutional capacity as an international actor and its performance as an external mediator in the Arab–Israeli conflict. It shows that the EU's actorness has progressed in terms of diplomatic ‘cohesion’, enhanced ‘horizontal coordination’ between CFSP and the EU's external economic relations, and the ‘surpanationalisation’ of EU foreign policy-making. On the whole, the strengthening of its actor capacity also allowed the EU to progressively expand its activities in conflict resolution, conflict prevention and conflict management. Still, important shortcomings in Europe's conflict resolution policy have remained and the EU finds it difficult to realize its full potential as an external mediator.

The Internal-External Security Nexus: More Coherence Under Lisbon?

Since the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, the EU has intensified its efforts to establish closer coordination between the internal and external dimensions of the EU’s security policies – i.e. between the fields of justice and home affairs (JHA) and foreign and security policy – based on the assumption that this serves the interests of all actors involved. More inward-looking actors, typically from the ministries of the interior and justice in individual Member States, believe that they can strengthen their internal problem-solving capacities if the EU uses its foreign policy instruments and capabilities in a targeted and focused way to improve internal security and to engage third countries in achieving its goals in the JHA domain. At the same time, JHA expertise and actors have become an indispensable resource for traditional foreign policy actors in terms of dealing with today’s security challenges and achieving the EU’s main foreign policy objectives, such as promoting the rule of law and preventing state failure.This Occasional Paper seeks to analyse the issue of coherence and complementarity between EU internal security policies and external relations/foreign policy, focusing on the impact of the Lisbon Treaty on existing political and institutional challenges. A key political challenge has been that the mainstreaming of internal security objectives in EU external relations, frequently driven by a security rationale that relegated human rights and civil liberties-related issues to secondary status, has risked undermining the stated normative principles of EU foreign policy-making. At an institutional level, the EU has had difficulties in living up to the expectations of its ambitious strategic papers, not least due to the tendencies of each Council formation (Justice and Home Affairs, Foreign Affairs Council) to protect its own turf.The paper argues that the EU can address the institutional and political challenges by strengthening existing coordination mechanisms and fully exploiting the possibilities which the Lisbon Treaty offers. The European Parliament, now a legislative actor equal in standing with the Council in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ), should become more engaged in the process of negotiating international agreements in the JHA field and the Council should no longer sideline its priorities in relation to issues such as readmission of third-country nationals and data protection involving high stakes in the sphere of human rights and civil liberties. The problem of insufficient institutional cooperation between the Justice and Home Affairs and Foreign Affairs Councils can be tackled by, firstly, establishing a strong JHA expertise in the European External Action Service and, secondly, involving the JHA Council structures in a more comprehensive and systematic way in the planning and conduct of CSDP civilian crisis management missions and in CFSP thematic and geographical working groups. The paper concludes by underlining that the EU’s success in moving towards comprehensive coherence will also be determined by the political will and ability of internal and foreign policy actors to overcome their habit of thinking in different security mindsets and to develop a shared understanding of European security challenges.

The European Union at the Human Rights Council: speaking with one voice but having little influence

The Human Rights Council (HRC) was supposed to address the shortcomings of the former Commission on Human Rights (CHR), but it is already suffering similar shortcomings. Some critics of the Human Rights Council have singled out the European Union's (EU) role as particularly disappointing. This article argues that while there is evidence that EU member states are acting cohesively within the HRC, and more so than they have done in United Nations (UN) human rights bodies in the past, the EU's influence in the institution is still quite limited. It speaks with one voice and EU voting cohesion is impressively solid, but has had little influence on the agenda or outcomes of the HRC. This reflects in part the fragile place that human rights have in EU foreign policy-making.

Repercussions of the Emerging European Security and Defence Policy on the Civil Character of the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership

The EU's most important integration project in recent times is her pursuit of an autonomous European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP). Due to divergent perceptions, interests and national security identities within the EU, however, ESDP is still lacking a coherent strategy. This deficit provokes critical questions about whether ESDP will remain within the framework of a civil security culture, as developed in the theoretical concept of a European civilian power, or whether ESDP will open the way to a more ‘realistic’ approach to EU foreign policy-making. This question is especially decisive for the Mediterranean Partner Countries (MPCs), since their territories are potential destinations for future ESDP missions. So far, Euro-Mediterranean relations have been organized in the civil framework of the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership (EMP). To what extent will ESDP challenge the special character of the EMP?