Diplomatic service of the European Union

Problem setting. Today the European Union interacts with the whole world and represents the interests and values of the European community far beyond one continent. Carrying out such activities provides for the existence of effective institutions for its implementation, which today are the European External Action Service and the European Uniondelegations around the world. It significantly differs from the classical manifestations of diplomacy, which determines the relevance of research into the establishment and development of the European Union diplomatic service. Moreover, understanding the process of formation and features of European Union diplomacy is interesting for domestic researchers of European Union law given the pro-European aspirations of Ukraine. Analysis of recent researches and publications. Certain aspects of this topic have been studied by suchdomesticscientistsas F. Baranovsky, M. Hnatyuk, O. Grinenko, O. Gladenko, M. Entin, O. Opanasyuk-Radlinska, E. Ryaboshtan, D. Tkachenko, O. Turchenko, Y.Sergienko, V. Streltsova, G. Utko, O. Fisun, V. Tsivaty, V. Shamraeva, O. Shapovalova, etc. Target of research is to research the basic preconditions and features of the establishment and development of the European Union diplomatic service and its functioning in today’s conditions. Article’s main body. The article is devoted to the study of the main prerequisites and features of the establishment and development of the diplomatic service of the European Union. The authors paid attention to the coverage of the status, competence and procedure for sending the first representations of the Communities abroad, in particular the delegations of the European Commission. The changes made by the Maastricht, Amsterdam and Lisbon treaties on foreign policy are analyzed as well. All the reforms implemented by these treaties were aimed primarily at making the European Union more effective and coordinated in the international arena, and finally resolved the issue of the institutionalization of the body that deals with the European Union diplomatic service. So now it has the status of the European External Action Service and successfully performs its functions in the current conditions. Conclusions and prospects for the development. The modern European Union diplomatic service is the result of a long process of formalization and institutionalization of a whole set of its foreign policy bodies. The development of the European Union representation system shows that the spread of its representative activities has become global, as well as the dynamic transformation of the content of its goals to interact with the world in order to implement its foreign policy. However, despite the current and rapid dynamics of development and evolution of this institution, the question remains whether the European External Action Service is the final option for the external design of the European Union diplomatic service, or whether it will be another step in the process of building pan-European diplomacy.

My Lord, the Ambassador

Herbert’s embassy coincided with a particularly complex period of European diplomacy as Catholic and Protestant nations moved from negotiating to taking up arms in the Thirty Years War. Chapter 7 explores his diplomatic role, actions, and lifestyle. It considers the difficulties he encountered in serving an English monarch pursuing a pro-Spanish foreign policy unpopular with a majority of his subjects, while cultivating good relations with an inexperienced French monarch facing internal opposition from his politically ambitious mother, rebellious nobility, and a discontented Protestant minority. It looks at Herbert’s reinvigoration of his noble and princely contacts in France and other European states and his relations with princes, ministers, and fellow diplomats. It focuses upon his determination to maximize his status and dignity when representing James I in the renewal of the oath of alliance with France, his energetic but unofficial support for the elector and electress palatine when they accepted the Bohemian Crown and triggered European-wide war, and his robust defence of French Protestants. It emphasizes the quality of his diplomatic reports and the success of his diplomatic networking and intelligence gathering. It examines his controversial exchanges with Louis XIII, and the royal favourite, the duke of Luynes, when, on the direct instruction of James I, he criticized the French king’s use of military force to suppress French Protestantism in south-west France during 1620 to 1621.

Budáról Rómába

Rome was the centre of European diplomacy from the middle of 15th century to the depredation of the city in 1527. The formation of certain countries’ foreign representations happened in this period, the appearance of the system of the residing envoys and their spread in a wide range. In this process, when the international relations were modernized, the Holy See, the Republic of Florence and of Venice served as a model. The Roman pope as the primary head of Christianity paid extra attention to the regular connections with the particular churches. As the centre of the Respublica Christiana in the second half of the 15th century, the Eternal City became the supranational heart of European diplomacy; as a consequence every princely court and Signoria was represented by an envoy on the banks of Tiber. The diplomatic representation of king Mathias Corvinus and the Jagiellonian dynasty in the Holy See was multilevel and continuous. In my paper, I am analysing the representation of the Kingdom of Hungary in Rome in the late Middle Ages by focusing on the following questions: What status and nationality did the appointed envoys have? What qualifi cations did they have and what was expected of the diplomats?

New diplomatic history: formation, research directions and perspectives

The paper analyses the main methodological principles of the direction in studying the history of diplomacy – New diplomatic history. The precondition for the formation of this historiographical trend was the transition from a teleological and state-centered perception of history to actor-centrism (as applied to the history of diplomacy).The main stages of development of the New diplomatic history are revealed. The substantive aspects of criticism of the classical approach to the history of European diplomacy and the process of the emergence of a permanent embassies mission are considered. In general, modern scholars are inclined to the problematic nature of identifying precise criteria for the permanent nature of diplomatic representation in the Early Modern period.Examples of studies of various aspects of diplomatic history within the framework of the New diplomatic history are given. The socio-cultural aspects of the activities of a diplomat of the Modern period come to the fore in the research topics of representatives of this direction. In this regard, the attention of scientists is extended to such topics as the symbolic language of diplomacy, the role of art, everyday life in the work of a diplomat, informal channels of diplomacy, reflection of diplomats.The characteristics of new basic sources for the study of the history of diplomacy in the Modern period are given. Modern historians pay great attention to personalized groups of sources, such as personal correspondence and memoirs of diplomats.

Whither European diplomacy? Long-term trends and the impact of the Lisbon Treaty

The article analyses the evolution of European diplomacy over two decades, to assess the impact of the European External Action Service (EEAS) creation alongside consecutive waves of enlargement. Data is drawn from two original datasets about European Union (EU) member states’ diplomatic representations within the EU and across the globe. It shows that member states have maintained and strengthened their substantial diplomatic footprint across the EU’s territory, expanding it to include new members and making Brussels a diplomatic hub also for non-member countries. In parallel, and despite the establishment of the EEAS, member states have maintained and even increased their networks of diplomatic representations across the globe, alongside more numerous and more politically active EU Delegations (EUDs). At the same time, member states have been reducing their diplomats’ numbers, as the cases of Austria, France, Germany and Italy show. This delicate balancing act has been made possible not only by contemporary technological developments, but also by European cooperation, as in the case of EUDs hosting member states’ representations in non-member countries, a development referred to as co-location. Therefore, whereas the continued presence of national embassies on the ground could be interpreted as detracting from the EEAS, the existence of EUDs contributes also to other, more indirect but certainly novel, forms of diplomatic cooperation under a single European roof.

The strategic interests of Russia in the Austro-Russian-Turkish War (1735-1739) discovered in French intelligence sources

This paper is an analysis of the Russian strategic interests during the Austro-Russian-Turkish war (1735-1737) and is based on unpublished sources of French origin. The reports which Colonel Jean-Jacques de Beausobre (1704-1783) compiled as a direct witness of the conflict are of key importance in the study of this subject and to date have not been given the attention they deserve. Having chosen a military career, de Beausobre distinguished himself as a man with deep knowledge of the theory of war. For this reason, he was engaged in observing the conflict, sending regular reports to the French government. De Beausobre was posted as French military attaché to the Austrian army, spending much time in the Austrian General Staff. From this position he was able to collect intelligence, which he then dispatched to the French Ambassador in Vienna. Occasionally, he would even personally visit the Austrian capital and Paris in order to convey the information he had gathered. The intelligence mission of Colonel De Beausobre shows the great interest France had for the outcome of the war and the country's intention to position itself favorably in European diplomacy at the time. From De Beausobre's reports it is possible to see that he was able to see through Russian strategic interests in the war and his activities proved of great value for French diplomacy, which achieved great success at the Belgrade peace talks.

The Embassy of Pyotr Potemkin to Spain, 1667–1668: Some Features of Mutual Perception and Dialogue of Two Diplomacies

The Russian diplomacy of the 17th century had some specific features in comparison with the Western European diplomacy of the same time. The purpose of this article is to identify these features and analyze the perception of Russian ambassadors by European diplomats. The research is based on both Russian and Spanish documentation of the embassy of Piotr Potemkin (1667–1668), the first Russian embassy in Spain. Since there were no instances of diplomatic contacts between the two countries in the past, the diplomatic ceremonial was of crucial importance for P. Potemkin’s mission. Since no contact between the diplomats and the Ambassadorial Chancellery in Moscow was not possible due to the long distance between Russia and Spain, the detailed instructions (nakaz) given to P. Potemkin in Moscow acquired a special significance. Therefore the article aims to determine the extent and nature of the dependence of the diplomats’ actions on their instructions. A comparative analysis of the nakaz and the final report (stateinyi spisok) in the part related to the stay of the embassy in Madrid and the negotiation process shows that the ambassadors scrupulously observed the nakaz, taking initiative only in those cases that were not covered by it. All of its requirements had a logical explanation: not to harm the interests of Russia, not to lower the honour of the envoys of a great power, not to create a bad precedent in the diplomatic ceremonial. The Spanish side, not sufficiently aware of the specifics of the nakaz, sometimes did not understand the behaviour of the ambassadors, attributing it to their vanity, pettiness, and bad temper. At the same time, although the Russian embassy took Spanish diplomats wholly by surprise, the latter managed, within a limited time, to collect a variety of information about the Russians and take it into account, showing flexibility in organizing audiences and during negotiations. Although there were differences between Spanish and Russian diplomats, both sides adhered to European diplomatic practice. The absence of contradictions between the two states and their interest in establishing diplomatic relations and developing bilateral trade determined the success of P. Potemkin’s embassy.