An Alternative Theoretical Approach to EU Foreign Policy

Rome, IAI, March 2022, 33 p. (JOINT Research Papers ; 8), 2022

Fractious domestic debates, the fragmentation of regional politics and growing interstate competition all affect the capacity of the EU to forge a joined-up and sustainable foreign and security policy (EUFSP) in crises and conflicts. The problem is amplified by EUFSP governance structures, which have evolved irregularly, with a multiplicity of actors resorting to an increasingly diverse array of policy instruments when engaging with external players on multilateral, regional and bilateral levels. The potential for improved action depends on the capacity of EU institutions and member states to work within the multi-dimensional perimeter of the EUFSP governance system to create the conditions to mitigate the effects of intra-EU contestation, regional fragmentation and multipolar competition.

While there is broad scholarly agreement that policy-making in the European Union (EU) involves a multitude of public and private actors at different levels of government, there is less agreement whether the EU should be conceptualized as a form of governance by networks or governance in networks. This article first examines different concepts of networks. It then sets out multiple functions of networks within the EU policy process. Particular attention is paid to the extent to which networks may provide added value to European integration and improve the quality of governance by effectively solving common problems and helping to address the democratic deficit or whether, by acting as mechanisms of exclusion rather than inclusion, they actually contribute to the EU’s legitimacy deficit. Since networks can enhance governance quality as well as undermine its democratic credentials, a balance sheet shows both positive and negative consequences.

2000

It has been suggested in recent years that EU policies towards Northern Europe could serve as a potential model for the EU's relations with its other neighbours. This paper focuses on two particular EU policies towards non-EU members in Northern Europe: the Northern Dimension (ND) initiative and the European Economic Area (EEA), which are analysed in light of two broader

Journal of Public Policy, 2009

Given its complex multilevel governance structures, the European Union (EU) is an obvious focus for studying policy networks as informal coordination mechanisms between state and non-state or public and private actors. The importance of this research field has increased exponentially with the EU's spatial expansion, its institutional deepening, its forays into new policy areas and its growing role as an international actor. Research on policy networks at first focussed on analysing changes in national political systems and policy-making in particular policy fields. This approach is now being applied more systematically and comprehensively to understanding the transformation of EU governance during the last decade. Concurrently, the widespread belief until well into the s that European integration was a system of policy-making 'sui generis' that could not be fruitfully compared to anything else no longer has much support. The EU is increasingly contrasted and compared vertically, to national political systems and forms of governance in its member-states, especially federal states such as Germany. At the same time, new research is developing that compares the EU and its policy-making to the United States. However, as the articles in this special issue demonstrate, crucial dimensions of the role of policy networks in EU governance are distinctive. Thus, as Tanja Börzel and Karen Heard-Lauréote show, EU actors have become increasingly preoccupied with the EU's alleged 'democratic deficit'. In the wake of the Commission crisis of  and the failed referendums in France and the Netherlands in  and Ireland in , this has induced the Commission to invest great hopes in policy networks as means of enhanced input legitimacy through increased participation of civil society organisations in policy-making. Originally, policy networks were thought to contribute to output legitimacy by improving the quality of policies through expert input and the involvement of economic actors. They had never been expected to enhance the democratic input quality of governance at the national level. Indeed, as Börzel and Heard-Lauréote argue, they might not be able to do so at EU level, or only to a limited extent and possibly, at the expense of efficiency and output legitimacy.

Manchester University Press eBooks, 2018

The European Union's foreign policy is an ongoing puzzle. The membership of the enlarging European Union has set itself ever more ambitious goals in the field of foreign policy-making, yet at the same time each member state continues to guard its ability to conduct an independent foreign policy. As far as the EU's ambitions are concerned, foreign policy cooperation led to coordination, and coordination in turn gave way to the aspiration of developing a common foreign policy. Concern over foreign policy was the precursor to endeavours to cooperate in matters of security and eventually defence policy. And the desire to maintain the national veto over decision-making within the 'second pillar' of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) gave way to the acceptance that, at least in some agreed areas, detailed policies-joint actions and common positions-would be determined by qualified majority vote. Yet, despite these advances the reluctance of member states to submit their diplomacy to the strait-jacket of EU decision-making has remained. Individual states have maintained distinct national foreign policies, whether this is about specific regional interests, specific global issues or special relationships with other powers. This has been reflected in the institutional arrangements based on the principle of unanimity. Indeed, the very pillar structure of the EU treaties-separating the 'Community pillar' from the special regime that governs CFSP and parts of Justice and Home Affairs-is a hallmark of an arrangement in which member states have sought to minimise the role of supranational institutions and preserve national autonomy. And yet, despite the sensitivity of member states in the area of foreign policy, and their caution to move beyond intergovernmental decision-making mechanisms in this field, foreign policy has been one of the areas in which European integration has made the most dynamic advances. This includes institutional innovations such as the establishment of the post of High Representative for the CFSP and the creation of an EU Military Staff, both based within the

The European Union in international affairs, 2023

This chapter seeks to conceptualise the multi-actor character of what we refer to here as EU(ropean) foreign and security policy. It takes a holistic approach to European foreign and security policy-a policy that covers multiple areas and is carried out by a multitude of actors and institutions. While the framework builds on institutional approaches, such as the literatures on multi-level governance and Differentiated Integration (DI), it adds a new dimension by applying a somewhat broader definition of European integration-a definition that captures more than just the processes that occur within the EU. Applying a broader approach towards European integration allows us to continue to perceive the EU as central to the European integration process, while also allowing for the inclusion of other processes that in some ways, either formally or informally, are linked to the EU. We argue that such a framework better captures the dynamics of today's increasingly complex EU(ropean) integration process, characterised by opt-outs and opt-ins, formal and informal processes, enhanced cooperation, and various forms of governance led by actors at different levels and with different types of relations to the EU. As we will show in this chapter, a more generic definition of integration helps us develop a framework that captures this complexity and sees clearly the different roles EU institutions play in the various policy areas. The intention is to present a more inclusive conceptual framework that fills two key gaps in the existing literature on European integration in this area.

Security governance is commonly understood as an answer to the new and constantly changing security environment after the Cold War. In the context of the European Union (EU), the governance approach is believed to understand better the evolving institutional characters, networks, and processes of the EU's actions in global politics. By employing a neo-Gramscian framework we challenge the 'orthodox view' in the EU governance literature that networks are flexible and hierarchy-immune responses to increasingly global policy challenges. We argue that networks in and of themselves reproduce existing power structures, and discuss the presence and replication of hegemony through these networks by examining the EU's governance system post the Lisbon Treaty.

European foreign affairs Review, 2005

While the field of EU studies has generated a rich theoretical literature, the usefulness of analyses of the EU for broader processes of regional governance has been questioned. At the same time much recent scholarship on the EU has examined the Union's external relations as opposed to its internal governance. At stake in both of these debates are questions about the nature of the EU, what it represents and how it should be conceptualised. By examining the conceptual literatures on EU 'actorness', the governance of EU external relations and policy and academic discourses of comparative regional integration, this paper argues that approaches informed by broadly constructivist insights carry significant promise and can help to answer questions about the EU's role in world politics that perplex both the policy and the academic imaginations.

JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 2011

A growing number of scholars argue that the development of the common security and defence policy (CSDP) should be analysed as the institutionalization of a system of security governance. Although governance approaches carry the promise of a sophisticated, empirically grounded picture of CSDP, they have been criticized for their lack of attention to power. This is because governance approaches focus on institutional rules and ideas rather than the social structure that underpins them. To refine the notion of security governance, this article analyses co-operation patterns through social network analysis. Confirming the governance image, it maps out a complex constellation of CSDP actors that features cross-border and cross-level ties between different national and EU policy actors. It is also found, however, that CSDP is dominated by a handful of traditional state actors -in particular, Brusselsbased national ambassadors -who retain strategic positions vis-à-vis weaker supranational and non-state actors. These actors are not giving up on state power, but reconstituting it at the supranational level.