To What Ends EU Foreign Policy? Contending Approaches to the Union’s Diplomatic Objectives and Representation
In: The Hague Journal of DiplomacySearch for other papers by Daniel C. Thomas in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Ben Tonra in
Current site
Google Scholar
Summary
The strengthened Office of the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the new European External Action Service (EEAS) presuppose a set of interests and/or values that the European Union (EU) wishes to pursue on the world stage. But what are those interests and/or values and how does the EU reach agreement on them? Rather than simply ‘cutting and pasting’ from EU treaties and strategy papers, this article identifies seven distinct theoretical models of how the EU and its member states arrive collectively at a definition of their diplomatic objectives. The seven models include intergovernmentalist models of veto threats and log-rolling, normative institutionalist models of cooperative bargaining and entrapment, and constructivist and sociological institutionalist models of elite socialization, Europeanization and collective identity formation. The article identifies the logics of each model and notes their implications for the role of the EU’s new foreign policy institutions.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
1)
Andrew Willis, ‘Belgian Minister Publicly Attacks EU Foreign Relations Chief’, EU Observer, 5 May 2011; Andrew Rettman, ‘MEPs Defend Ashton from EU Member States’, EUObserver, 11 May 2011; and Ian Traynor, ‘EU Foreign Ministers Round on Lady Ashton’, The Guardian, 23 May 2011.
-
4)
Stanley Hoffmann, ‘Obstinate or Obsolete? The Fate of the Nation-State and the Case of Western Europe’, Daedalus, vol. 95, no. 3, 1966, pp. 862-915; and Andrew Moravcsik, The Choice for Europe (Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press, 1999).
-
5)
Joseph Jupille, ‘The European Union and International Outcomes’, International Organization, vol. 53, no. 2, 1999, pp. 409-425; and Fritz Scharpf, ‘The Joint-Decision Trap: Lessons from German Federalism and European Integration’, Public Administration, vol. 66, no. 3, 1988, pp. 239-278.
-
6)
Sophie Meunier, ‘What Single Voice? European Institutions and EU-US Trade Negotiations’, International Organization, vol. 54, no. 1, 2000, pp. 103-135 at p. 132.
-
7)
Heather Elko McKibben, ‘Issue Characteristics, Issue Linkage, and States’ Choice of Bargaining Strategies in the European Union’, Journal of European Public Policy, vol. 17, no. 5, 2010, pp. 696-709.
-
8)
Robert O. Keohane, ‘Reciprocity in International Relations’, International Organization, vol. 40, no. 1, 1986, pp. 1-27.
-
9)
Thomas König and Dirk Junge, ‘Why Don’t Veto Players Use Their Power?’, European Union Politics, vol. 10, no. 4, 2009, pp. 507-534 (abstract).
-
10)
James G. March and Johan P. Olsen, Rediscovering Institutions (New York: Free Press, 1989); and B. Guy Peters, Institutional Theory in Political Science: The ‘New Institutionalism’ (London and New York: Continuum, 1999).
-
11)
Daniel C. Thomas, ‘Explaining EU Foreign Policy: Normative Institutionalism and Alternative Approaches’, International Politics, vol. 46, no. 4, 2009, pp. 339-357; and Frank Schimmelfennig and Daniel C. Thomas, ‘Normative Institutionalism and EU Foreign Policy in Comparative Perspective’, International Politics, vol. 46, no. 4, 2009, pp. 491-504.
-
13)
Knud Erik Jørgensen, Reflective Approaches to European Governance (New York: St Martin’s Press, 1997); Jeffrey Lewis, ‘Is the “Hard Bargaining” Image of the Council Misleading? The Committee of Permanent Representatives and the Local Elections Directive’, Journal of Common Market Studies, vol. 36, no. 4, 1998, pp. 479-504; Jeffrey Lewis, ‘Institutional Environments and Everyday EU Decision-Making: Rationalist or Constructivist?’, Comparative Political Studies, vol. 36, no. 1, 2003, pp. 97-124; and Michael E. Smith, Europe’s Foreign and Security Policy: The Institutionalization of Cooperation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004).
-
14)
Simon Nuttall, European Political Cooperation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992).
-
15)
David Lax and James Sebenius, The Manager as Negotiator: Bargaining for Cooperation and Competitive Gain (New York and London: The Free Press, 1986); P. Terrence Hopmann, ‘Two Paradigms of Negotiation: Bargaining and Problem Solving’, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 542, 1995, pp. 24-47; and Ole Elgström and Christer Jönsson, ‘Negotiation in the European Union: Bargaining or Problem-Solving?’, Journal of European Public Policy, vol. 7, no. 5, 2000, pp. 684-704.
-
18)
Frank Schimmelfennig, ‘The Community Trap: Liberal Norms, Rhetorical Action, and the Eastern Enlargement of the European Union’, International Organization, vol. 55, no. 1, 2001, pp. 47-80; Frank Schimmelfennig, ‘Strategic Action in a Community Environment: The Decision to Enlarge the European Union to the East’, Comparative Political Studies, vol. 36, nos. 1-2, 2003, pp. 156-183; and Frank Schimmelfennig, The EU, NATO and the Integration of Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004).
-
19)
Robert D. Benford and David A. Snow, ‘Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment’, Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 26, no. 1, 2000, pp. 611-639; and Rodger A. Payne, ‘Persuasion, Frames and Norm Construction’, European Journal of International Relations, vol. 7, no. 1, 2001, pp. 37-61.
-
21)
John Gerrard Ruggie, ‘What Makes the World Hang Together? Neo-Utilitarianism and the Social Constructivist Challenge’, International Organization, vol. 52, no. 4, 1998, pp. 855-885; and Richard Price and Christian Reus-Smit, ‘Dangerous Liaisons? Critical International Theory and Constructivism’, European Journal of International Relations, vol. 4, no. 3, 1998, pp. 259-294.
-
25)
Jolyon Howorth, ‘European Defence and the Changing Politics of the European Union: Hanging Together or Hanging Separately?’, Journal of Common Market Studies, vol. 39, no. 4, 2001, pp. 765-789 at p. 766.
-
26)
Robert O. Keohane and Joseph Nye Jr, ‘Transgovernmental Relations and International Organizations’, World Politics, vol. 27, no. 1, 1974, pp. 39-62.
-
28)
Philippe de Schoutheete, La Coopération politique européenne (Brussels: Labor, 1986).
-
29)
Jolyon Howorth, ‘Discourse, Ideas and Epistemic Communities in European Security and Defence Policy’, West European Politics, vol. 27, no. 2, 2004, pp. 211-234.
-
30)
Jeffrey Checkel, ‘International Institutions and Socialization in Europe’, International Organization, vol. 59, no. 4, 2005, pp. 801-826.
-
31)
Ana E. Juncos and Karolina Pomorska, ‘Playing the Brussels Game: Strategic Socialization in the CFSP Council Working Groups’, European Integration Online Papers, vol. 10, 2006, available online at http://eiop.or.at/.
-
32)
Ben Tonra, The Europeanization of National Foreign Policy: Dutch, Danish and Irish Foreign Policy in the European Union (London: Ashgate, 2001); and Ben Tonra, ‘Constructing the Common Foreign and Security Policy: The Utility of a Cognitive Approach’, Journal of Common Market Studies, vol. 41, no. 4, 2003, pp. 731-756.
-
33)
Claudia Major, ‘Europeanization and Foreign and Security Policy: Undermining or Rescuing the National State?’, Politics, vol. 25, 2005, pp. 175-190; Claudia Major and Karolina Pomorska, ‘Europeanization: Framework or Fashion?’, CFSP Forum, vol. 3, no. 5, 2005; Charalambos Tsardanidis and Stelios Stavridis, ‘The Europeanization of Greek Foreign Policy: A Critical Appraisal’, European Integration, vol. 27, no. 2, 2005, pp. 217-239; Reuben Wong, ‘The Europeanization of Foreign Policy’, in Christopher Hill and Michael Smith (eds), International Relations and the European Union (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005); Reuben Wong, The Europeanization of French foreign policy: France and the EU in East Asia (Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006); Ana E. Juncos and Karolina Pomorska, ‘The Deadlock that Never Happened: The Impact of Enlargement on the Common Foreign and Security Policy Council Working Groups’, European Political Economy Review, vol. 6, 2007, pp. 4-30; and Teemu Palosaari, The Art of Adaptation: A Study on the Europeanization of Finland’s Foreign and Security Policy (Tampere: Tampereen yliopisto, 2011).
-
34)
Robert Ladrech, ‘Europeanization of Domestic Politics and Institutions: The Case of France’, Journal of Common Market Studies, vol. 32, no. 1, 1994, pp. 69-88 at p. 69.
-
35)
David Campbell, Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity (Minneapolis MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1992), p. 75.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 961 | 158 | 6 |
| Full Text Views | 335 | 12 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 337 | 29 | 0 |
To What Ends EU Foreign Policy? Contending Approaches to the Union’s Diplomatic Objectives and Representation
In: The Hague Journal of DiplomacySearch for other papers by Daniel C. Thomas in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Ben Tonra in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Summary
The strengthened Office of the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the new European External Action Service (EEAS) presuppose a set of interests and/or values that the European Union (EU) wishes to pursue on the world stage. But what are those interests and/or values and how does the EU reach agreement on them? Rather than simply ‘cutting and pasting’ from EU treaties and strategy papers, this article identifies seven distinct theoretical models of how the EU and its member states arrive collectively at a definition of their diplomatic objectives. The seven models include intergovernmentalist models of veto threats and log-rolling, normative institutionalist models of cooperative bargaining and entrapment, and constructivist and sociological institutionalist models of elite socialization, Europeanization and collective identity formation. The article identifies the logics of each model and notes their implications for the role of the EU’s new foreign policy institutions.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 961 | 158 | 6 |
| Full Text Views | 335 | 12 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 337 | 29 | 0 |
