EU foreign policy as a vocation for Europe

Author(s):  
Beatrix Futák-Campbell

This chapter focus on the moral concerns of practitioners regarding the eastern neighbourhood. The normative power literature deliberately decouples norms from values. But this chapter demonstrates that in practice it is impossible to do so. The EU practitioners demonstrate how they operationalise their specific moral concerns for the eastern neighbourhood. Their norm deployments are consistent with Legro, Buzan and Zizek’s claims of norm use. In addition, the analysis reveals instances when practitioners risk sounding moralising rather than moral. This is highly problematic for two reasons. First, moralising endangers alienating neighbouring states who align themselves with the EU but do not want to receive a lecture by EU practitioners. Second, if the EU cannot deliver on specific commitments, this will have implications for its status with regards to support for democracy or human rights in the region.

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

In considering EU foreign policy in practice, this book argues that a specific focus on practitioners’ (diplomats, bureaucrats, and public officials) interactions can offer insight into the way EU foreign policy is practised. An assessment of the practices of practitioners through a new type of data set and a new discursive framework demonstrates the significance of European identity, collective interests, and the role that normative and moral concerns play for EU practitioners when they consider EU foreign policy in the eastern neighbourhood. It also highlights that these four concepts are interlinked when they consider the policy, despite the commonly accepted understanding, even by practitioners, that the EU is a normative power in global affairs. These findings are relevant not only for understanding current developments in EU foreign policy, but also for allowing scholars, as well as practitioners, to move away from considering the EU exclusively as a normative power but perceiving it as a more complex power with a collective ‘European’ identity, collective understandings of European norms that are linked to collective moral concerns that at the same time all link to collective European interests. Currently there is a lot of discussion regarding the EU becoming a resilient, or pragmatic power. Only time and EU actions will tell what these terms mean in practice. However, this book is a testament to the fact that practitioners have always considered EU foreign policy beyond the normative. In this introduction I begin by providing some context for the book, followed by an explanation of, and rationale for, its theoretical and methodological approach, as well as an outline of the rest of the book’s structure....


2014 ◽  
Vol 69 (1) ◽  
pp. 195-217 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joakim Kreutz

AbstractIs foreign policy influenced by humanitarian concerns, or are concepts such as human security merely rhetoric for traditional power politics? Using a multilevel modeling technique and a unique data set of military and economic European Union (EU) intervention 1989–2008, I find that military and economic interventions by the EU are conducted in response to humanitarian atrocities but that geostrategic concerns also influence EU action. While the EU consistently is more likely to act against countries with greater civilian victimization, the size of the effect is influenced by spatial considerations. The EU is most attentive to human rights violations in non-EU European states, followed by countries in sub-Saharan Africa, while it has been least active in Asia and the Americas.


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.


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.


Politeja ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (5(62)) ◽  
pp. 117-140
Author(s):  
David Darchiashvili ◽  
David Bakradze

The article views the geographical area between the EU and Russian borders as a battle space of two, drastically different foreign policy and ideological approaches. The authors argue that in the years since the end of the Cold War, a unique surrogate of former clash of liberal and communist worlds emerged, leading to and underpinning current Hybrid Warfare, underway from Ukraine to Georgia. Its roots lay in the Russian interpretation of the Western attitude towards the East as Neo-colonialist. Relying on the income from its vast energy resources, Russia also tries to develop its version of so called “Soft Power”, used by the West in this region. Though in Russian hands, it is coupled with Moscow’s imperial experiences and resentments, and is becoming a mere element in Hybrid or “non-linear” war. Speaking retrospectively, the Eastern Partnership Initiative of the European Union can be seen as a response to Hybrid threats, posed by Russia against its Western and Southern neighbors. But the question is, whether EU foreign policy initiatives towards this area can and will be efficient and sufficient, if continued to be mostly defensive and limited within Soft Power mechanisms and philosophy, while Russia successfully combines those with traditional Hard Power know-how? The authors argue that in the long run, European or Euro-Atlantic Soft Power tool-kits, spreading Human Rightsbased culture farther in the East, will remain unmatched. But in order to prevail over the Russian revisionist policy here and now, the West, and, particularly, the EU need to re-evaluate traditional foreign policy options and come up with a more drastic combination of Soft/Hard Powers by itself. As the Georgian case shows, the European community should more efficiently use Conditionality and Coercive Diplomacy, combined with clearer messages about partners’ membership perspectives.


Basic Rights ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 5-10
Author(s):  
Henry Shue

This introductory chapter provides an overview of basic rights. The wisdom of a U.S. foreign policy that includes attention to “human rights” depends heavily upon which rights are in practice the focus of the attention. The major international documents on human rights include dozens of kinds of rights, often artificially divided into “civil and political” and “economic, social, and cultural” rights. U.S. foreign policy probably could not, and almost certainly should not, concern itself with the performance of other governments in honoring every one of these internationally recognized human rights. The policy must in practice assign priority to some rights over others. It is not entirely clear so far either which rights are receiving priority or which rights ought to receive priority in U.S. foreign policy. The purpose of this book is to present the reasons why the most fundamental core of the so-called “economic rights,” which can be called subsistence rights, ought to be among those that receive priority. The chapter then presents some divergent indications of what the priorities actually are.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document