European Union External Action Research Articles

Strengthening the EU’s defence cooperation

In an expeditiously changing world, security challenges have become more intricate, multifaceted and complex. The 21st century is an epoch of strategic competition and multisided relations. The influence and rate of occurrence of hybrid security threats are constantly rising and deepening. World is in era of transition, characterized by creating new dynamics by emerging players along with significant shift of geopolitical and economic power, and currently, global attention is drawn to the Russian aggression against Ukraine, which is the consequent catalyst for the EU states, obligating them to take more responsibility and improve security and defence. Russia does not use force only to dominate on Ukraine, but this war aims to reverse and strike down western dominance - it is a big threat-economically, militarily, and politically. In an international competition, other powers are challenging the European countries’ ability to protect their interests and values that was the motivation for the idea of collective security building called "strategic sovereignty". For this reason, both defence and security fields are essentially important for the European Union. The EU leaders have long been trying to improve common defence policy - the European Union External Action Service in 2011, and later in 2016, the EU Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker called for a common defence fund, a “European headquarters.“ In March 2022, the EU council approved the Strategic Compass. The Compass gives the European Union an ambitious plan of action for strengthening the EU's security and defence policy by 2030 (EU, 2022. French President Emmanuel Macron urged Europe to invest in its own collective security framework in the face of Russian military moves on the bloc’s doorstep - "Europe needs to finally build its own collective security framework on our continent." We argue about the prospects of collective security and the fact that it may now be time for the EU member States to take the necessary decisions.

More bark than bite? European digital sovereignty discourse and changes to the European Union’s external relations policy

ABSTRACT Despite the allure of ‘European digital sovereignty’ as an official European Union (EU) strategic objective, it remains unclear whether this discourse has driven concrete changes to EU external action policies, particularly those leveraging cyber instruments. This question is explored vis-à-vis three policies which have enabled the EU to pursue its digital sovereignty objectives in practice: the Cyber Diplomacy Toolbox, external capacity building (CCB) assistance initiatives, and the 5G Toolbox. Drawing upon extensive archival research and elite interviews, the paper finds that, while European digital sovereignty discourse influenced comprehensive changes for the 5G Toolbox process, it failed to drive policy changes to the Cyber Diplomacy Toolbox and external CCB assistance initiatives. To explore this variation, the paper considers institutional and ideational factors particular to EU external action over the 2017–2022 period. Overall, the study contributes both to contemporary debates about European digital sovereignty and its relationship to EU cyber instruments and longstanding work on EU foreign policymaking.

The Common Commercial Policy as a Legal Instrument of Confirmation of the European Union International Identity

Abstract The key component of European Union external action is undoubtedly its Common Commercial Policy. Under EU primary law, the exercise of this policy falls within the exclusive competence of the EU. In order to assure its implementation, the competent EU institutions negotiate and conclude international agreements with third countries and adopt secondary law acts, mainly in the form of Regulations with the aim of liberalizing and expanding international trade as well as promoting protecting the commercial interests of member states' businesses in the international markets. The aim of the study is to examine the question of the delimitation of the scope of the Common Commercial Policy as well as the operation of the EU institutional system regarding its the formation and implementation after previously analyzing the objectives served by the exercise of this common policy in the field of international economic relations. JEL classification numbers: K20, K33, F13. Keywords: European Union Law, Common Commercial Policy.

EU and crisis management: Afghanistan and Ukraine on social media

The European Union (EU) is a very relevant actor in the political scene. The EU's external action is inspired by the principles of peace and rule of law. However, the EU is composed of different institutions and leaders, making it difficult to find a single voice. This promotes a feeling of remoteness that threatens the legitimacy of the EU political system. In recent years, the EU has faced many internal challenges, such as the refugee crisis and Brexit, but recent events in Afghanistan and Ukraine reveal the need to further our understanding of the role of the EU as an international actor. Bearing these trends in mind, this research aimed to explore the management of crisis communication by the EU leaders regarding the two most recent international events: Afghanistan in 2021 and Ukraine in 2022. Specifically, we analyze the profiles of Ursula von der Leyen (@vonderleyen), Josep Borrell (@JosepBorrellF), and Charles Michel (@eucopresident). Content analysis is manually performed on 479 tweets on military conflicts over a general sample of 661 messages. The strategies and specific topics are studied based on a pretest. In addition, we calculate the impact rate of the tweets. In this sense, the data were captured for a 2-month period (15 August to 15 September 2021 and 24 February to 24 March 2022). As a result, we show the predominance of messages on Ukraine together with a significantly different action of von der Leyen in terms of strategies and employment of the tools of Twitter. Her impact rate is also higher. This study contributes to current discussions on the mission of communication to foster trust, since the anti-publicity bias of the EU requires better levels of coherence to more effectively disseminate messages.

The EEA Agreement from the Perspective of the European Union's External Action

The EEA Agreement from the Perspective of the European Union's External Action

Insights for Foreign Policy Analysis from European Union External Action Studies

Abstract The European Union (EU) has increasingly become a foreign policy actor in its own right, sparking the emergence of EU External Action Studies (EU EAS). Although this thriving field at the intersection of EU Studies and International Relations has gradually matured, the interaction of EU EAS with Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA) has so far remained limited. This contribution discusses whether concepts and approaches from EU EAS hold valuable theoretical insights for FPA, and how these could be exploited. It argues that there is a largely untapped potential for cross-fertilization between the two fields. This claim is illustrated with several examples as well as two short instructive cases that show how the approach to studying the EU's “external effectiveness” helps addressing FPA's blind spot regarding foreign policy impacts, and how the critical agenda on “decentering” EU external action directs much-needed attention to the “foreign” in FPA.

La autonomía estratégica de la Unión Europea más allá de la seguridad y la defensa: la seguridad de las cadenas de suministro y la potenciación de la conectividad

This article explores the rise of strategic autonomy of the European Union (EU) with a view beyond security and defence. In particular, this article provides evidence about the presence of a distinct and emerging characterisation of the concept: strategic autonomy as a set of practices to secure favourable dependencies and curb unfavourable ones. Drawing on different formulations of the concept and a type of characterisation of the strategic environment that is gaining momentum at the EU level in terms of vulnerabilities, dependencies and connectivity, this article identifies three policy areas that have experienced growing concern in the field of EU external action: the security of supply chains, the EU's global connectivity agenda and the development of defence industrial initiatives. The hypothesis is that the development of these three policy areas in the context of this rhetoric on vulnerabilities and the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, provide evidence about the presence of a formulation of the EU strategic autonomy as a set of strategies and programmes to identify, prioritise and secure favourable dependencies and to identify, prioritise and curb unfavourable dependencies.

Development as non‐migration? Examining normative and policy coherence in EU external action on migration and development

SummaryMotivationWithin the efforts of the European Union (EU) to govern migration, the nexus between migration and development has moved centre stage. Analysing how the EU has approached the migration–development nexus in its foreign policy from the perspective of policy coherence for development (PCD) allows this study to examine how far the EU migration–development nexus is coherent at the policy and normative level.PurposeHow does the EU conceptualize PCD? To what extent does the EU's external action in the migration–development nexus strengthen or undermine its normative commitment to coherence for development?Methods and approachThis article develops a conceptual framework of overall coherence for development, which consists of: (a) policy coherence; and (b) normative coherence for development. Both aspects are analysed through a qualitative content analysis of 18 expert interviews and EU policy documents.FindingsThe analysis shows that the EU perceives PCD as a policy‐making tool and a technical mechanism to reach the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Furthermore, the EU's approach to the migration–development nexus is incoherent both at the policy and the normative levels. In its policies, much of the focus is on containment of migration to Europe. At the normative level, the EU proclaims a sedentary and place‐bound notion of development.Policy implicationsThe article contributes to the current debates on PCD in the EU and on the EU's external action in the migration–development nexus. In order to foster PCD, the EU should approach the migration–development nexus more holistically.

Europe's cross-border trade, human security and financial connections: A climate risk perspective

As the impacts of climate change begin to take hold, increased attention is being paid to the consequences that might occur remotely from the location of the initial climatic impact, where impacts and responses are transmitted across one or more borders. As an economy that is highly connected to other regions and countries of the world, the European Union (EU) is potentially exposed to such cross-border impacts. Here, we undertake a macro-scale, risk-focused literature and data review to explore the potential impact transmission pathways between the EU and other world regions and countries. We do so across three distinct domains of interest - trade, human security and finance - which are part of complex socio-economic, political and cultural systems and may contribute to mediate or exacerbate risk exposure. Across these domains, we seek to understand the extent to which there has been prior consideration of aspects of climate-related risk exposure relevant to developing an understanding of cross-border impacts. We also provide quantitative evidence of the extent and strength of connectivity between the EU and other world regions. Our analysis reveals that - within this nascent area of research - there is uncertainty about the dynamics of cross-border impact that will affect whether the EU is in a relatively secure or vulnerable position in comparison with other regions. However, we reveal that risk is likely to be focused in particular ‘hotspots’; defined geographies, for example, that produce materials for EU consumption (e.g. Latin American soybean), hold financial investments (e.g. North America), or are the foci for EU external action (e.g. the Middle East and North Africa region). Importantly, these domains will also interact, and - via the application of a conceptual example of soybean production in Argentina based on a historical drought event - we illustrate that impact and response pathways linked to EU risk exposure may be complex, further heightening the challenge of developing effective policy responses within an uncertain climatic and socioeconomic future.

Editorial: Governing the EU's climate and energy transition through the 2030 Framework

Editorial: Governing the EU's climate and energy transition through the 2030 Framework

EU INTCEN: a transnational European culture of intelligence analysis?

ABSTRACTThis article aims to gain a better understanding of EU INTCEN’s analytic culture and the use of structured analytic techniques by EU analysts; an under researched topic in the intelligence studies literature. The Intelligence Analysis and Situation Centre of the European Union (EU INTCEN) is a directorate of the European Union External Action Service (EEAS) that has been characterized as an EU analytic structure similar to the State Department’s INR. The article reviews relevant literature and presents findings based on the analysis of a questionnaire on ‘Intelligence analysis and production in EU INTCEN/SITCEN, that was distributed to EU INTCEN intelligence analysts (EEAS officials having worked as analysts in EU SITCEN/INTCEN between June 2005 and June 2014), and in-depth phone interviews to better understand INTCEN analytical process. Analytic projects at EU INTCEN are initiated with Requests for Information to which replies can be received. The analysts count as well with previous contributions and assessments, open sources, and diplomatic reporting. Among other findings, the study reveals that SATs are little used in practice in spite of most EU INTCEN analyst has received some training on SATs.

The Case Western Sahara Campaign UK and the International and Institutional Coherence of European Union External Action. Opening Pandora’s Box?

The article explores the recent Case Western Sahara Campaign UK and the consequencesarising from the Court’s findings on European external action and trade policies. The Case represents a landmark decision on the relationship between the European Union and principles of customary international law. In assuming that the territory of Western Sahara is not part of the Kingdom of Morocco, the Court reaffirms its role in interpreting whether international agreements concluded by the Union are compatible with the Treaties and the rules of public international law. What makes the Court’s decision particularly interesting is that the Case concerns a controversial international law principle, such as the right to self-determination. This opens many questions on the future approach of the external action with self-determination claims in European Union trading partners. The article comes to the conclusion that the Case shows an evident lack of coherence of European external action, both in its international and institutional dimensions.

The EU and climate-related security risks: a community of practice in the making?

ABSTRACTClimate change is increasingly acknowledged as a threat to states and societies, and several international organizations are now seeking to respond to climate-related security risks. The EU’s comprehensive approach to security suggests that the Union is particularly well-suited to respond to such risks, but the EU has not yet developed a coherent policy. This article addresses the gap between discourse and policy outcomes by exploring how practice shapes EU climate security policy. It provides unique insights based on practitioners’ accounts of the work being done in the European Union External Action Service to align various EU foreign policy tools and instruments in order to address climate-related security risks. A key finding is that a community of practice is emerging on climate security in the EU, but it is characterized by overlapping and conflicting practices relating to climate diplomacy, development, and security and defence.

Local ownership, inclusivity and civil-military synergy in EU external action: The case of EU support to security sector reforms in Mali

The evolution of the European Union (EU) as a security and peacebuilding actor raises questions as to its identity as a largely civilian power alongside the development of its military capabilities. Specifically, a key challenge lies in how its civilian and military capabilities relate to each other as they develop, with increasing expectations from the EU to act effectively across its peacebuilding and conflict prevention interventions. The EU aims to do more to link top-down and bottom-up approaches, but there is currently a lack of focus on the latter. In exploring the challenges and opportunities for the EU to enhance its potential for civil-military synergies in crisis management, the paper takes a holistic whole-of-society perspective, asking questions about the level of inclusivity and local ownership in its approaches. The paper takes a closer look at the European Union Training Mission (EUTM) and European Union Capacity Building Mission in Mali (EUCAP Sahel Mali) as a specific case. Based on the findings, this paper argues the EU could be more effective, especially at the operational level, by taking a more bottom-up approach in the areas of designing, planning, monitoring and evaluating interventions. The EU will need to find ways to better embed its interventions in local realities, for instance by working with local civil society in the EU's security sector reform efforts, and offering platforms for more civilian oversight and feedback mechanisms. Only then, with a stronger focus on the inclusivity and local ownership aspects of civil and military action of the EU, will it be able to better address the 'intangible aspects' of security sector reform.

High Stakes of the Small EU Partnership Instrument on the Eve of the 2017 Mid-Term Review

The European Union (EU)’s so-called Partnership Instrument (PI) captures the changing psychology of EU relations with rising powers, and has been designed to give more room for manoeuvre for EU external action. Two years of practice leading up to the 2017 Mid-Term Review have shown that the PI is instrument-driven rather than objective-driven, and that its strategic potential is undermined by lengthy committee-based procedures and sector-based programming. In an arena of vested interests, the PI’s significance is tied up with what EU stakeholders want to make of the European External Action Service (EEAS). National foreign ministries struggle to connect national objectives with EU interests, apart from the wider debate not addressed here as to where European interests come from when they are not based on national objectives. This article argues that national foreign ministries should consider the potentially positive effect on EU external action of this relatively small initiative, notably as the instrument to connect one European entity to other global powerhouses. EU Member States have so far been unable to link fully with the PI, and – like the EEAS and the European Parliament – they have too little clout to exert influence on the European Commission. The EU Global Strategy offers a window of opportunity for making the PI more political, expedient and flexible.

Irish Diplomacy in a Time of Crisis and the Evolution of a ‘European’ Diplomatic Service

In looking at the European Union's External Action Service (EEAS) and the associated implications of the Lisbon Treaty for the Union's diplomacy, we can't lose sight of the needs of the Union's member states. In recent years the foreign policies of several European states have been centrally engaged in national crisis management following the eurozone crisis. In several instances this has included determined efforts to rebuild national credibility, intensively to engage with bilateral partners and multilateral agencies, both in Europe and internationally, and actively to contribute to trade promotion and the attraction of foreign direct investment as part of a programme of national economic recovery. In such a context, where a national diplomatic service is tasked with roles that can be seen to be addressing a near existential crisis for the state, what, if any, role does European diplomatic cooperation (negotiation, information-gathering and representation) play? The following article conducts a detailed analysis of Irish diplomacy in a time of crisis (2008–14), assesses its response to that crisis, evaluates the role of EU-level diplomacy and finally offers conclusions to what this may suggest for the future of EU foreign policy. It thereby offers a somewhat critical perspective on the potential impact and implications of European diplomatic cooperation outside EU borders.

Irish Diplomacy in a Time of Crisis and the Evolution of a ‘European’ Diplomatic Service

In looking at the European Union's External Action Service (EEAS) and the associated implications of the Lisbon Treaty for the Union's diplomacy, we can't lose sight of the needs of the Union's member states. In recent years the foreign policies of several European states have been centrally engaged in national crisis management following the eurozone crisis. In several instances this has included determined efforts to rebuild national credibility, intensively to engage with bilateral partners and multilateral agencies, both in Europe and internationally, and actively to contribute to trade promotion and the attraction of foreign direct investment as part of a programme of national economic recovery. In such a context, where a national diplomatic service is tasked with roles that can be seen to be addressing a near existential crisis for the state, what, if any, role does European diplomatic cooperation (negotiation, information-gathering and representation) play? The following article conducts a detailed analysis of Irish diplomacy in a time of crisis (2008–14), assesses its response to that crisis, evaluates the role of EU-level diplomacy and finally offers conclusions to what this may suggest for the future of EU foreign policy. It thereby offers a somewhat critical perspective on the potential impact and implications of European diplomatic cooperation outside EU borders.

Between Autonomy and Effectiveness: Reassessing the European Union’s Foreign Policy Towards the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Through a consideration of policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this article examines the autonomy and effectiveness of the European Union (EU) as an actor. We discuss first the criteria by which autonomy and effectiveness can be judged and then consider these by reference to EU policy since the formation of the Quartet in 2002. We argue that the EU has been effective in articulating a consistent and clear set of policies on Israel-Palestine. While this has placed it on-side with US-led initiatives to foster a solution to the conflict, we regard such an alignment as consistent with EU autonomy. These findings allow us to make qualified but still positive comments on the emerging EU Global Strategy. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict certainly demonstrates the limitations of EU external action but in affirming its credentials as an autonomous partner of the United States, the EU is less ineffectual than some commentators claim.

The Origin of Intercultural Dialogue Practice in European Union External Action

This paper analyses the origin of the practice of ‘intercultural dialogue’ as a tool for European Union external action towards the Mediterranean. ICD is currently a relevant instrument in EU external relations. However, when it was first launched in 1995, in the policy initiative known as the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership or the Barcelona Process, ICD was granted little effort by the partners involved. Many accounts from that period agree that this tool initially took a back seat if compared to other political-economic priorities in the EU agenda in this initiative. The paper aims to investigate the reasons for the initial neglect of this tool, which was considered by many to be a relevant innovation when it was launched, but that has actually become a relevant resource for EU external action only recently. Through analysis of EU policy documents of the period, the paper demonstrates that the EU had envisaged strategic use of ICD before 1995, in particular, in the hope of tackling key issues, such as mounting xenophobia in Europe and escalating Islamic fundamentalism in the Maghreb. It thus identifies a dual explanation for the limited and ineffective scope attributed to ICD in the first years of the Barcelona Process. On the one hand, in 1995 a number of Mediterranean partner countries were reluctant to lend much credit to the intercultural aspects of regional cooperation, and, on the other, the EU at that time had a growing but still restrained perception of urgency for the emerging issues that ICD was designed to address.

The European Union as a Global Conflict Manager, by Richard Whitman and Stefan Wolff, eds

Richard Whitman and Stefan Wolff, eds The European Union as a global conflict manager London: Routledge, 2012. 254pp, $39.95 (paper) ISBN 978-0-415-52872-6In recent years, European Union (EU), as an established regional institution, has taken steps to become a global actor in conflict management. EU foreign policy was first outlined in European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP). After Treaty of Lisbon was adopted in 2007, policy was renamed Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) and developed a new focus on conflict prevention and management. The depth and effectiveness of this policy has become a topic of heated debate in international relations.The European Union as a Global Conflict Manager, edited by Richard Whitman and Stefan Wolff, contributes to debate on European foreign policy, notably conflict management, and provides an analytical framework to evaluate role to which EU now aspires. The book, consisting of 14 chapters, offers comprehensive analysis of European common foreign, security, and defence policy, and EU's capacity to manage conflicts in its immediate neighbourhood and globally. Empirical chapters provide thorough discussions of EU's mediation and peacebuilding efforts in Cyprus, sub-Saharan Africa, Israel-Palestine, Georgia, Afghanistan, Moldova, Bosnia and Elerzegovina, and Macedonia.The book also offers some thoughtful recommendations for EU policymakers. The institutional architecture introduced by Lisbon Treaty has enabled EU to develop an effective global conflict management strategy by bringing together instruments of EU's external action and by integrating its member states. The focus on global security management also fosters new cooperative avenues between EU and other regional actors such as Russia, Turkey, China, India, Brazil, and South Africa. Yet post-Lisbon experience shows that such an approach poses a major challenge to EU. The 28 operations conducted by EU since 2002 have not been framed under a common policy. Another challenge is limited scope of EU military engagements in light of cuts in military spending within member states.The book's introduction sets tone by correctly pointing out that existing theories on EU as a conflict manager fail to account for its successes and failures in specific interventions. The first part of book outlines conceptual perspectives on EU and its institutional nature as a global conflict manager. For instance, it discusses distinction between Europe as civilian power and Europe as military power.In second part, contributors explore seven cases of EU intervention. For example, Gorm Rye Olsen observes that three military missions launched by EU in Democratic Republic of Congo and Darfur reveal EU's capacity and political will to engage in conflict prevention and management in Africa. This policy focus, he notes, is strongly influenced by shared interests of Europe's former colonial powers-especially France and UK. In other cases, EU's room for manoeuvre is much more circumscribed. The EU's policy toward IsraeliPalestinian conflict is a case in point. Asaf Siniver argues that the EU displayed once more inherent inconsistencies between its rhetoric and actions (86). …