This policy area, often referred to as EU foreign policy, has a broad scope covering all areas of foreign … The CSDP is framed by the Treaty on European Union (TEU). EU foreign and security policy seeks to: preserve peace While the High Representative formally assisted the rotating presidency, the first officeholder Javier Solana was an experienced politician, who quickly put many national foreign ministers in the shadows (Müller-Brandeck-Bocquet & Rüger, 2011). Other scholars have proposed other adjectives, such as ethical power (Aggestam, 2008), structural power (Keukeleire, 2003), and market power (Damro, 2012). 31–32). EPC was initially kept separate from economic integration in the context of the European Community. By not involving the EU institutions in the foreign policy discussions, the member states felt they could keep more control. Yet it is equally important to consider the positioning of EU foreign policy versus national foreign policy. This raises questions of coherence. It needs to have cohesion in terms of its goals, tactics, procedures, and output. The Normative Power Europe thesis is thus losing some of its original appeal. A more contested proposition is whether we also see a Europeanization of national foreign policy, that is, whether member states have adapted their national foreign policies as a result of EU membership and participation in EU foreign policy. The member states of the European Union (EU) coordinate, define, and implement foreign policy in the context of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). It is important, however, not to overstate this argument. This article focuses on key academic debates and does not seek to summarize the numerous studies on EU foreign policy toward particular regions and countries. The historiography of the CFSP is almost a function of world politics. Through distinctive and independent institutions, it acquires autonomy from its member states. The debate on what type of actor the EU represents continues to date. To influence policies violating international law or human rights, or policies disrespectful of the rule of law or democratic principles, the EU has designed sanctions of a diplomatic or economic nature. From Civilian Power Europe during détente in the 1970s to Normative Power Europe in the midst of transatlantic conflict over Iraq in 2002–2003, it is difficult to deny a certain tide in the CFSP scholarship. The unique method of policymaking, through which member states and the EU institutions coordinate, define, and implement the CFSP, affects policy outcomes. The changing international order, in which the emerging powers increasingly compete for influence, presents furthermore a new challenge for EU as an international actor. The Common Foreign and Security Policy in turn is the key instrument in this work. There is clear evidence that national foreign policy is affected by EU foreign policy. The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy is also a vice president of the European Commission. Governance structures affect how national policies are projected and how adaptation and socialization take place. It should be considered a separate unit in the international system. Each six-monthly rotating presidency would organize one ministerial meeting and two meetings of political directors in its own capital. The idea of national projection is uncontroversial in the academic literature. The Normative Power Europe thesis holds that it does so successfully. For French President De Gaulle, for example, the very essence of Europe becoming a “third power” during the Cold War was about France continuing its influence in world affairs. This raises the all-important question of coherence between EU and national foreign policy (Gebhard, 2011; Nuttall, 2000). After all, the actorness of the EU largely depend on how the internal machinery and external representation are organized. It has been progressively reinforced by subsequent treaties, particularly the Lisbon Treaty (Title V of the Treaty on European Union). The governance of EU foreign policy has been extensively researched. They also adopted rules of procedure and norms, started to coordinate in international organizations and third countries, and improved coordination between presidencies. Second the delegation of functions to the EU institutions. It has clarified the interaction between EU and national foreign policy. Rather than focusing on the foreign ministers, who take the formal decisions in EU foreign policy, scholars increasingly pay attention to the civil servants (Duke & Vanhoonacker, 2006). Few people would claim that EU foreign policy is completely replacing national foreign policy, but this should not prevent us from discussing it as a theoretical possibility. Intensive transgovernmentalism (Wallace & Reh, 2015, pp. This provided a model for European federalists in the 1950s, who proposed the plans for the doomed EDC (Burgess, 2009, pp. The process of European integration had long been analyzed through the perspective of international relations and international organization. The use of sanctions, which have become a favorite foreign policy tool of the EU, is another example. 76–77). Neighbouring countries are plugged into the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy and its Common Security and Defence Policy to different degrees, and also cooperate with groups of member states informally outside of the EU framework. The organizing principle behind this chapter avoids this compartmentalization. One reason for the member states to participate in EU foreign policy is to reach “politics of scale” (Ginsberg, 1989). The ambiguity in foreign diplomatic recognition and a reliance on the resources of its member states makes the EU an unconventional international actor. The CFSP was established by the Treaty of Maastricht in 1993. Spain, for instance, suddenly had to worry about the Western Balkans. Given the prominence of the Normative Power Europe thesis, it is important to also mention different critiques. This has resulted in a certain degree of fragmentation. An influential conceptualization has been that of the EU as a normative power (Manners, 2002)—the argument goes that the EU is seeking to transform the norms and standards of world politics. The bureaucratic politics literature indeed underlines the need for the High Representative and the EEAS to justify themselves, which might result in term stepping on the “turf” of the member states (Adler-Nissen, 2014; Dijkstra, 2011). With the development of the CFSP, the socialization of European diplomats and their esprit de corps within the different committees became a topic of academic debate (Cross, 2011; Juncos & Pomorska, 2011). It covers all areas of foreign policy, including all questions relating to security and defense (see, on the Common Security and Defence Policy, Duke, 2016). What is the Common Foreign and Security Policy? Rather than pursuing unilateral foreign policy, they may decide to act through the EU structures. For Manners (2002, p. 253) the ability to get others to accept one’s norms is “the greatest power of all.” The work of Manners (2002) has resulted in a cottage industry of Normative Power Europe–related research. A civilian power further prioritizes settling international disputes through diplomatic means and attaches importance to international law. A key question for scholars has thus been whether, in fact, the EU is an international actor. Finally, we can identify a Europeanization of the substance of national foreign policy. The SBD is carried out at staff level in an informal Politico Military Group session, as part of the events conducted in the framework of the EU Integrated Resolve 20 crisis management exercise. What also needs to be clarified is whether EU foreign policy complements, replaces, or competes with national foreign policy. The Council is the central decision-making body for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, including the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). As EU foreign policy has grown increasingly intensive and wider in scope, the member states have sought to improve the efficiency of their own coordination processes. The Lisbon Treaty confers on the Court limited jurisdiction which the recent case law has interpreted in broad terms. First, some argue that the EU is hardly alone as a normative power. It was, however, not uncontroversial. It has encouraged academics to experiment with different approaches ranging from international relations to comparative politics, foreign policy analysis, and public administration. To further increase coherence, efficiency, and impact, the member states have tasked the EU institutions with the formulation and implementation of EU foreign policy. The Europeanization debate, which started in the early 2000s, has been most helpful. The fact that scholars are open to insights from not only EU studies and international relations but also comparative politics, public administration, economics, and sociology is a healthy sign. The EU’s joint foreign and security policy, designed to resolve conflicts and foster international understanding, is based on diplomacy and respect for international rules. From the establishment of EPC to the Treaty of Lisbon, the Commission has tried to get more involved in the CFSP using the argument of coherence (Dijkstra, 2014; Spence, 2016). The third debate is about the governance of the CFSP. And if the EU can be considered an actor, what type of actor is it? Since the mid-1990s, however, scholars have started to borrow concepts and theories from comparative politics and public administration (e.g., Hix, 1994). The member states furthermore created the EEAS in 2011 by merging all the EU offices dealing with foreign policy and complementing them with national diplomats. Interaction is typically considered a two-way street. Attaching strings to development assistance is third one. It appears that current High Representative Federica Mogherini, who assumed office in November 2014, exerts more leadership than Ashton. The question of governance is closely related to the discussion of the EU as an international actor. Although the effects of Europeanization are considered to be weaker in foreign policy than in regulatory policy, the concept has proved useful in analyzing the relations between EU and national foreign policy. The direction of national foreign policy is shaped by European integration, but also by many other factors, which makes it difficult to come to definite conclusions. While HR/VP is regularly used, this article refrains from using too many acronyms. In federalist countries, for example, foreign policy and defense are often exclusively organized at the federal level. Common foreign and security policy is often concerned with preventing and dealing with crises as well as post conflict peacebuilding. As we move further into the 21st century, this is becoming increasingly less likely. The Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) of the European Union, established in 1993 with the Maastricht Treaty, aims to preserve peace and strengthen international security in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter. The strength of EU foreign policy, nevertheless, still depends largely on the input of the member states. an instrument of the Union's foreign policy, and is aimed at maintaining peace, preventing conflict and strengthening international security. Trade, humanitarian aid, and development cooperation also play an important role in the EU's international role. 109–111) seems a particularly suitable description of the mode of governance in the CFSP. Key objectives when adopting sanctions The conclusion reflects on the status of CFSP research. Under the label of Europeanization theory, scholars have debated the interaction between EU-level foreign policy and national-level foreign policy. EU foreign policy has given the member states a forum to exchange information and views and to coordinate their national positions to achieve a greater impact internationally. To the great surprise of many observers, there has been a sharp increase in the conceptual and practical activity of the Common Security and Defense Policy (CSDP), which legally belongs to the CFSP. The member states rather than “Western Europe as any kind of a power,” he noted, had responded to the Yom Kippur War in 1973, albeit “behaving at once like hens and ostriches.” Also Bull (1982, p. 151) was skeptical about the prospects of European integration in foreign policy: “‘Europe’ is not an actor in international affairs, and does not seem likely to become one; the Europe with which I am concerned is the actual one of state governments.”. It forces the EU to rethink the role of norms and interests in its foreign policy. This had the distinct advantage of keeping the sensitive foreign policy tasks in-house. The notion of civilian power neatly fitted the bill with Europe lacking real military might. The link was not copied. Scholars started to use the concept of Europeanization in the 1990s to examine the impact of European integration on the member states (authoritative volumes include Featherstone & Radaelli, 2003; Vink & Graziano, 2006). Department of Political Science, Maastricht University, Contentious Politics and Political Violence, Political Values, Beliefs, and Ideologies, https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.155, Common Security and Defence Policy, Duke, 2016, http://eeas.europa.eu/top_stories/pdf/eugs_review_web.pdf, International Security: Nuclear Proliferation, Federalism as a Theory of Regional Integration, The Founding Treaties of the European Union and Their Reform. They were worried about the possibility of EU foreign policy superseding national foreign policy. Finland supports the strengthening of the EU’s role as an international political player that acts with one voice in international organisations and contractual negotiations. This process of centralization, or “Brusselization,” started when EPC was allocated some office space with the Single European Act of 1987 (Allen, 1998). Includes free vocabulary trainer, verb tables and pronunciation function. The case of sanctions provides an example. This policy area, often referred to as EU foreign policy, has a broad scope covering all areas of foreign policy and all questions relating to security and defense. 210–215) find that the foreign policies of all member states, even the most reluctant ones, have been affected by Europeanization. This policy area, often referred to as EU foreign policy, has a broad scope covering all areas of foreign policy and all questions relating to security and defense. When she did get personally involved, it was often not controversial. Because foreign policy is normally the business of sovereign states, the exceptional nature of the CFSP has long been a subject of inquiry. Most member states have limited capacities and difficulty achieving international impact. She has higher visibility and has been praised for concluding the negotiations with Iran concerning nuclear non-proliferation. At minimum, it can be observed that EU foreign policy is no longer a purely intergovernmental policy area in which national leaders meet to discuss world affairs on an ad hoc basis without any commitment. The starting point when studying EU foreign policy is to conceptualize the EU as an international actor. The member states of the European Union (EU) coordinate, define, and implement foreign policy in the context of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). It is worth discussing these separately. This is likely to affect their perceptions and foreign policy identities (Alecu de Flers & Müller, 2013; Manners & Whitman, 2000, pp. While sanctions are part of foreign policy, they must be implemented through trade policy, where the Commission traditionally has a strong role. The Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) is the organised, agreed foreign policy of the European Union (EU) for mainly security and defence diplomacy and actions. A second critique concerns the legitimacy of EU norms, which Manners (2002) seems to take for granted. That having been said, it is not difficult to find examples in which EU institutions have competed with national actors for external representation, visibility, and access. While the parallel processes of institutionalization, Brusselization and delegation have given EU foreign policy some autonomy from its member states, it is not fully autonomous. Common Foreign and Security Policy, CFSP. The High Representative, the EEAS, and the approximately 140 EU delegations also largely perform complementary functions (see also next section). For example, the High Representative is now the permanent chair of the Foreign Affairs Council. [Thank you] Ms President, Honourable Members [of the European Parliament]. The rotating presidency was mandated to represent the member states internationally. If the EU has indeed some actorness, it is important to know where it stands in comparison to the foreign policies of the member states. The European Security and Defence Policy aims to strengthen the EU's external ability to act through the development of civilian and military capabilities in … CFSP deals only with a specific part of the EU's external relations, which domains include mainly Trade and Commercial Policy and other areas such as funding to third countries, etc. Publications on realist and market power have provided balance (Damro, 2012; Hyde-Price, 2006). Through enlargement, the EU promoted its norms in candidate countries. The common foreign and security policy and common security and defence policy will benefit the Western Balkans and the EU, writes Zeljana Zovko. The Common Foreign and Security Policy is based on unanimous consensus among the member states. It is well known that member states act through international institutions when it suits them. While this question is not often explicitly asked, it is implicit in much of the analysis and policy practice of EU foreign policy. They refer, for example, to the neutral member states that had to rethink their foreign policies. Furthermore, the 1990s and 2000s were the Golden Age of European integration. As EPC started modestly in 1970, the member states established a light coordination mechanism. Following the end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the EU continued to increase its mark on foreign policy. Rather than pushing national interests until the very end, they try to solve problems and accommodate the other member states. It succeeded European Political Cooperation (EPC), through which the member states had coordinated their foreign policies since the 1970s. The European Union is still the world’s first economic and trade power, despite the fact that European nations have been hard hit by the recent recession while other countries have experienced rapid growth. Yet the EU has developed a strong international presence nonetheless. The CFSP is often said to be an intergovernmental policy where consensus rules and the member states are omnipotent. While the theorists of international relations and European integration could thus account for the slow pace with which EPC developed, they were much less capable of making sense of what EU foreign policy was actually about. The member states can act through the EU to achieve more impact internationally. It is furthermore significant when thinking about the coherence between what Brussels says and what national capitals do (Gebhard, 2011; Nuttall, 2000). Several have contested the concept arguing that the EU is a normal or realist power and behaves like any other state (Hyde-Price, 2006; see also Duke, 2016). Based on these ideas, Jupille and Caporaso (1998) proposed a much-used operationalization of EU actorness. It is led by the High Representative, who is the “face and voice” of EU foreign policy, and supported by the substantial European External Action Service and 140 EU delegations in other countries and international organizations. CFSP is a mechanism for adopting common principles and guidelines on political and security issues, committing to common diplomatic approaches, and undertaking joint actions. This also goes for the CFSP, where authority is dispersed across different levels and actors. The United States, after all, equally promotes democracy and human rights (Sjursen, 2006, p. 240; or consider Normative Power China; Kavalski, 2013). The institutionalization and Brusselization of EU foreign policy are important as they raise questions as to whether the national capitals are losing their sovereign control over foreign policy. As a non-state actor, the EU is not automatically recognized by the other states, it cannot join all international organizations, and it has had difficulty participating in negotiations. What are its ends and means? Although she had more powers and resources, former High Representative Catherine Ashton has been less entrepreneurial than her predecessor Solana. If the EU can be conceptualized to a certain degree as an international actor, this immediately triggers the question of how EU foreign policy relates to national foreign policy. Yet in reality the EU is multi-layered with a maze-like system of institutions. You could not be signed in, please check and try again. Manners (2002, p. 242) counters by noting how the EU is “different to pre-existing political forms” as a result of its historical context, hybrid forms of governance, and legal constitution. The common security and defence policy (CSDP) is an integral part of the Union’s common foreign and security policy (CFSP). Through participating in the formulation and conduct of EU foreign policy, foreign ministers and national diplomats familiarize themselves with EU policies as well as the practices and interests of other member states. The CFSP has also received widespread attention from the scholarly community. The drawback is that for students of EU foreign policy, it is becoming nearly impossible to follow all the debates in their entirety. On a more micro level, Belgium may seek to affect EU policies on the Democratic Republic of Congo. The relations between EU and national foreign policy are critically important. The domain of international relations is normally reserved for sovereign states. The picture that Europeanization scholars offer us is, at best, mixed. The relevance of studying the governance of EU foreign policy mirrors a development in the study of the EU more widely. The member states relied for several decades on the services of the rotating presidency. The CFSP, albeit with a delay of about a decade, became an interesting laboratory for these kinds of theories as well. The EU not only often gives the member states more leverage, it also protects them when dealing with the great powers. The CFSP is supported by a distinctive institutional framework, in which national diplomats and EU officials jointly make policy on the basis of consensus. The member states have also gone out of their way to establish control over the EEAS. It is continuous and permanent—and transgovernmental rather than intergovernmental. After all, for the EU to be an actor requires a degree of autonomy from its member states. The TEU introduced the ‘three-pillar system’, with the CFSP as the second pillar. The European Union’s Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) operations contribute to the preservation of peace, the prevention of conflicts and strengthening international security. Three reports: Article 36 [TEU], the, On 25 March 2021, the European Union and Norway held their first structured dialogue on security and defence. Already in 1973, the member states themselves talked about a “coordination reflex,” in which diplomats first looked at their European partners before reacting to world events (also Nuttall, 1992).