The Growing Role of the European Parliament as an EU Foreign Policy Actor

Author(s):  
Myriam Goinard
2018 ◽  
Vol 42 ◽  
pp. 316-321
Author(s):  
Boris I. Ananyev ◽  
Daniil A. Parenkov

The aim of the article is to show the role of parliament in the foreign policy within the framework of the conservative school of thought. The authors examine both Russian and Western traditions of conservatism and come to the conclusion that the essential idea of “the rule of the best” has turned to be one of the basic elements of the modern legislative body per se. What’s more, parliament, according to the conservative approach, tends to be the institution that represents the real spirit of the nation and national interests. Therefore the interaction of parliaments on the international arena appears to be the form of the organic communication between nations. Parliamentary diplomacy today is the tool that has the potential to address to the number of issues that are difficult to deal with within the framework of the traditional forms of IR: international security, challenges posed by new technologies, international sanctions and other.


Author(s):  
Helene Sjursen

This chapter examines the normative principles underlying the European Union's foreign policy and whether there are inconsistencies therein. Drawing on a distinction between the principles of sovereignty, human rights, and a common good, the chapter challenges the notion that the EU is a distinctive foreign policy actor. Each of these principles points to a different perspective on how international politics should be organized, and each would take the EU's foreign policy in different directions. The chapter shows that the unresolved tensions in the EU's internal constitution, between its cosmopolitan vocation and the ambition of (EU) nation building, are also reflected in the EU foreign policy.


Author(s):  
Beatrix Futák-Campbell

This chapter focuses on norms and the functions of norms in EU foreign policy. The analysis presented here offers an evaluation of the EU’s role as a normative power in the region, examining what EU practitioners understand as norms. It also offers insight in the context in which EU foreign policy is practiced through norms which in turn guide the practices of EU practitioners. The following patterns emerge from the data. First, how norms are constructed, what norms the EU can spread to its neighbours and how practitioners can urge neighbouring states to embrace these norms through the EU’s prescribed reform process. Second, practitioners’ attention shifts to the EU model of norms itself. They strive not only to make the specific EU model relevant but also attractive to the neighbours. In addition, they claim to have the necessary expertise to assist these countries to emulate this model. Third, practitioners address two sources of non-compliance: one is non-alignment with the EU model, and the second is the existence of a competing model, the Russian model, that does not quite meet EU standards of norms. Finally, practitioners put forward an all-encompassing EU-centric view that reveals a particular ethnocentric view.


Author(s):  
Michael E. Smith

This chapter examines the policy instruments used by the European Union to translate its common interests into collective action in the international arena. It first considers the problem of implementation in EU foreign policy before discussing the EU's own resources in external relations/third countries as well as the role of member states' resources in EU's external relations. It then explores the instruments of EU foreign policy, which can be grouped into diplomatic, economic, and military/civilian capabilities. It also analyses the credibility and capability gaps in the EU's policy implementation, noting that there exists a key divide between the ‘low politics’ of economic affairs and the ‘high politics’ of security/defence affairs. The chapter suggests that the EU's unique capacity for policy implementation in the area of international relations can be very erratic.


Author(s):  
Carolyn Moser

This chapter deals with legal accountability arrangements in the context of EU peacebuilding activities carried out under the CSDP with a special focus on legality, access to justice, and monetary relief. It starts by illustrating why and how judicial actors were kept at a safe distance from EU foreign policy and security matters. The analysis then moves on to sketch out the limited function of national judicial actors in adjudicating matters pertaining to civilian CSDP. Subsequently, the chapter discusses the important role of the CJEU with regard to foreign policy issues (ie the implied and contingent jurisdictional competences of the Court), while concentrating on recent case law pertaining to civilian CSDP. Moreover, it measures the wider jurisdictional field, that is, the division of labour between the CJEU on the one hand, and national courts and the ECtHR on the other. Finally, the chapter draws some conclusions on the evolution and current state of legal accountability in civilian CSDP.


2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 144-160
Author(s):  
Luigi Gianniti ◽  
Nicola Lupo

Summary This contribution argues, counterintuitively, that the most important functions exercised by the European Parliament’s President are the external ones, which are expressly laid down in Rule 22(4) of the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure. Among these, specific attention is devoted to the President’s ‘diplomatic functions’. This article analyses the presidencies of Jerzy Buzek and Martin Schulz and argues that these ‘diplomatic functions’ have been reinforced because of intensification of the European Union’s international activities as well as the European Parliament’s enhanced post-Lisbon Treaty powers in eu foreign policy. It is also observed that these functions are exercised differently depending on the personal and political preferences of each President. While Jerzy Buzek’s Presidency was oriented more towards the eastern European Union, the two consecutive Presidencies of Martin Schulz veered more towards the European Union’s south.


2020 ◽  
pp. 004711782092091
Author(s):  
Andreas Raspotnik ◽  
Andreas Østhagen

This article explores the interaction between European Union (EU) foreign policy and the external dimension of fisheries policy in a specific case: a dispute over snow crab fisheries around the Norwegian Arctic Archipelago of Svalbard. We do two things: first, we examine a specific case that concerns both EU foreign policy and fisheries policy in order to understand the workings of the EU regarding these two policy domains. Second, we connect the dots between the EU’s external fisheries policy and the EU as a foreign policy actor in general, examining how intra-institutional dynamics matter when studying policy and its related developments in Brussels. This analysis of the snow-crab dispute between the EU and Norway illustrates how a relatively minor issue in fisheries policies is also relevant to the study of the foreign policy of the EU, and more generally for the links between foreign policy and fisheries as a nexus that is increasingly relevant in international politics.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document