scholarly journals Allocating political attention in the EU’s foreign and security policy: The effect of supranational agenda-setters

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 634-656
Author(s):  
Frank M Häge

Supranational bureaucracies are often promoted as a solution to collective action problems. In the European Union context, investing the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy with new agenda-setting powers was expected to improve the coherence, continuity and efficiency of foreign policy-making. Relying on novel fine-grained and comprehensive data about the content and duration of working party meetings, the study maps and analyses the allocation of political attention to different foreign policy issues between 2001 and 2014. The results show that the empowerment of the High Representative by the Lisbon Treaty had little immediate effect on the Council’s foreign policy agenda. However, the study also indicates that this result might be due to a lack of capability and ambition rather than weak institutional prerogatives.

2010 ◽  
Vol 62 (3) ◽  
pp. 397-417
Author(s):  
Zaklina Novicic

The article deals with institutional innovations introduced with Lisbon Treaty in the EU common foreign and security policy. The pillar structure of EU was abolished, but main features of intergovernmental decision-making procedures and unanimity would de facto remain. That is the main structural constrain of a single and bolder European outbreak an international scene. An novelty is the some kind of presidentialization (personalization) of the field in the new posts of President of European Council and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. New procedures and structures are introduced also in a realm of Common Security and Defense Policy. A special hope of Eurocrats are put on the ongoing process of setting up new European External Action Serves as de facto new diplomatic service of the Union. However, there is the main paradox of the Lisbon arrangement in that it is supposed to confirm integration through foreign policy success at a same time when Europe is divided over a number of domestic as well as foreign policy issues, and all that at a time of the manifold global financial and economic crises.


2021 ◽  
pp. 43-59
Author(s):  
Tomasz Dubowski

In the discussion on the EU migration policy, it is impossible to evade the issue of the relation between this policy and the EU foreign policy, including EU common foreign and security policy. The subject of this study are selected links between migration issues and the CFSP of the European Union. The presented considerations aim to determine at what levels and in what ways the EU’s migration policy is taken into account in the space of the CFSP as a diplomatic and political (and subject to specific rules and procedures) substrate of the EU’s external action.


Author(s):  
Wolfgang Wagner

Whether foreign policy should be exempted from democratic politics has been discussed since the early days of modern democracy. While this debate has oscillated between executive-friendly and democracy-friendly positions, it has neglected the role of political parties as essential actors in democratic decision-making and in providing cues to the public more broadly. Institutionalist and ideational theories of the so-called Democratic Peace in particular have neglected political parties, even though they silently assume that foreign and security policy is a matter of party-political contestation. Therefore, the theoretical framework outlined in this chapter also draws on scholarship in Foreign Policy Analysis that examined the role of ‘government ideology’. It suggests two propositions to inform the empirical analyses, namely 1) that foreign affairs are systematically contested, rather than shielded from democratic politics; 2) that party-political contestation is structured along the left/right dimension.


2014 ◽  
Vol 2 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 25-32

The article is focusing on the interplay between foreign policy agenda of the post-Soviet states at the one hand and internal policy developments in these countries at the other hand. One of the main explanations why the post-Soviet elites in non-Russian republics are pursuing the so-called multi-vectorialism in the foreign policy is that it serves as a strategy to maximize the most from having good relations both with East and West, and thus trying to perpetuate the monopoly of the power. Uzbekistan is a country in case, as Ukraine (and Moldova) is (or was) indeed also. At the same time, the special relations between the elites of post-Soviet countries and Moscow are very important in shaping the foreign policy agenda of these countries as a result of the Soviet legacy, i.e. the ties of the former Communist nomenklatura with Moscow are still playing a very important role in the most of the former Soviet republics.


2019 ◽  
Vol 65 (3/2019) ◽  
pp. 13-42
Author(s):  
Dragan Simić ◽  
Dragan Živojinović

Many critics of Donald Trump argue that Donald Trump’s Grand Strategy is an absence of Grand Strategy or that his foreign and security policy is driven by impulses and tactical approach. However, such policy leaves us with practical consequences which mean that we have to follow this sort of a Donald Trump approach to foreign affairs and politics in general. The best guide in that sense would be the 2017 U. S. National Security Strategy idea of principled realism which is the most important written strategic statement of the Trump administration up to this date. If Trump’s approach “is guided by outcomes not ideology” and if “prosperity depend on strong, sovereign nations that respect their citizens at home and cooperate to advance peace abroad”, then the U. S. policy to Western Balkans has to be considered in that context. The Prespa agreement between Greece and North Macedonia is one form of that approach put in practice. Having in mind Belgrade–Pristina negotiations and Bosnia and Herzegovina’s future as well, the main thesis of this paper is that we may expect some kind of unusual approach from the United States to this region, different from the framework that was set up in the 1990s. That will have consequences both for the region and for the outside great powers, especially the European Union.


2020 ◽  
pp. 80-86
Author(s):  
Ivanna Maryniv

Problem setting. In spite of the presence of numerous conventions, treaties and organizations in the world today, the issue of security is still a very acute issue for the world community. There are many reasons for this: the presence of nuclear powers, serious disputes between countries that are justly considered world leaders, the existence of numerous local conflicts and wars of a more global nature across the globe. These and other factors are pushing states around the world to allocate budget funds to ensure effective security policies. Given today’s realities, one can trace the tendency of several countries to pool their own efforts and resources to pursue a common security policy. The European Union is one of the clearest examples of this behavior. This intergovernmental organization is committed to maintaining peace, diplomacy, trade and development around the world. The EU also promotes cooperation with neighboring countries through the European Neighborhood Policy. Target research. The aim of the research is to study the role of the European Union’s institutional mechanism in the exercise of its powers to ensure the defense and foreign policy cooperation of the Member States. Analysis of recent research and publication. Many domestic and foreign scholars, including B. Tonro, T. Christiansen, S. Morsch, G. Mackenstein, and others. The institutional basis of foreign and security policy is analyzed in detail by J. Peterson, questions related to the European Union’s security policy. M. Shackleton. K. Gill, M. Smith and others study the general features of the development of a common EU security policy. Some contribution to the study of various problems related to European and Euro-Atlantic integration has been made by such national scientists as V. Govorukh, I. Gritsyak, G. Nemyrya, L. Prokopenko, O. Rudik, V. Streltsov, O. Tragniuk, I. Shumlyaeva, I. Yakovyuk and others. Article’s main body. The article examines the emergence and development of the European Union’s security policy from the date of the Brussels Covenant to the present. Particular attention is paid to the role of the European Union’s institutional mechanism in the exercise of its powers to ensure the defense and foreign policy cooperation of the Member States. A study of the officially adopted five-year global foreign and security policy of the EU is being done to improve stability in Europe and beyond, analyzing EU conflict resolution and crisis management activities. Conclusions and prospect of development. In view of the above, it can be concluded that the EU’s foreign and security policy institutional framework is an extensive system in which all the constituencies are endowed with a certain range of general and specific powers and are called upon to cooperate with one another to achieve a common goal. It cannot be said that such close cooperation puts pressure on Member States. Yes, a Member State has the right to refrain from voting for any decision that requires unanimity and such abstention will not prevent the above decision being taken. In this case, the mechanism of so-called “constructive retention” is triggered: the abstaining country is not obliged to comply with the decision, however, accepts the fact that it is binding on other Member States and takes this into account when concluding treaties, which should not contradict the said decision.


Author(s):  
Thomas Ramopoulos

Article 25 TEU Without prejudice to Article 240 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, a Political and Security Committee shall monitor the international situation in the areas covered by the common foreign and security policy and contribute to the definition of policies by delivering opinions to the Council at the request of the Council or of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy or on its own initiative. It shall also monitor the implementation of agreed policies, without prejudice to the powers of the High Representative.


Author(s):  
Nigar Tahir qizi Sultanova

The European Council represents the supreme level of political cooperation between the EU member-states. Diverse questions pertaining to international politics are discusses on the various levels: summits (in 2019 EU – League of Arab States summit, EU –China summit, EU – Ukraine summit in Kyiv, EU – Canada summit in Montreal, G7 summit); conferences and informal meetings; council boards on foreign affairs; joint conferences; association councils, etc. A new strategic agenda 2019-2024 adopted by the European Council determines he priority areas that guide the work of the European Special Councils and other EU institutions. Transatlantic relations, crises in Syria, Ukraine and other parts of the world, relations with Russia, Iran nuclear deal, and other question remain on the agenda of the European Council. The article explores the legal framework of the actions of European Council in the area of foreign policy. The overview of foreign policy agenda of the European Council allows analyzing the role of the European Union on the international arena.


Author(s):  
Hylke Dijkstra ◽  
Sophie Vanhoonacker

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). 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. The CFSP is supported by a unique institutional framework, in which member states diplomats and officials from the EU institutions jointly make policy. 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. Because foreign policy is normally the business of sovereign states, the exceptional nature of the CFSP has long been a subject of inquiry. The CFSP has particularly puzzled advocates of the traditional theories of European integration and international relations, who have failed to appreciate what the EU does in the field of high politics. Given the absence of formal diplomatic recognition and a strong reliance on the resources of the member states, the EU is still not a full-fledged actor, yet it has a strong international presence nonetheless. Its presence and the gradual increase in “actorness” have also raised questions about whether the EU presents a different type of actor, a civilian or normative power, which derives its influence from non-traditional sources of power. Under the assumption that the EU has some actorness, the Europeanization of foreign policy has become an area of interest. Member states can act through the EU structure to achieve more impact internationally, can adjust national foreign policy on the basis of EU positions, and are socialized into greater European coordination. The relationship between national and EU foreign policy is thus a significant topic of debate. Finally, governance perspectives increasingly provide insight into the organization of the CFSP. How the member states and the EU institutions collectively coordinate, define, and implement EU foreign policy is not only an important question in itself but also matters for policy outcomes.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document