No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Common Foreign and Security Policy
Abstract
This chapter provides an overview of the historical evolution and the post-Lisbon institutional and legal characteristics of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), including the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). Specific attention is paid to the specificity and sui generis nature of the CFSP as an EU competence and to the instruments at the disposal of the EU under this policy. The limited but growing jurisdiction of the Court of Justice in CFSP is illustrated with recent case law. The legal and institutional underpinnings of the CSDP are discussed, as well as its post-Lisbon dynamics, notably operations, international agreements, permanent structured cooperation, and mutual assistance.
... Even though the candidate states were obliged to adopt the so-called CFSP acquis politique during the pre-accession phase, this did not lead to a total convergence between old and new member state foreign policies, as this process was characterized by its declaratory nature and flexibility. As is often noted in the pre-enlargement literature, the new member states were likely to bring to the table their own foreign policy interests, namely a stronger concern for Eastern Europe, Russia and the western Balkans (Archer 2004;Missiroli 2003;Whitman 1999). 5 While this did not imply an increase in the scope of the EU's external action -most of these issues were already being discussed in CFSP committees -it was expected that new advocacy groups consisting of the new member states would emerge around these issues (Whitman 1999, 144). ...
... In such cases, attention has been limited to the formal institutional setting and, in particular, linked to the discussions surrounding institutional reform (e.g. Cameron and Primatarova 2003;Whitman 1999). This article explores both the formal and informal adjustment mechanisms put in place to overcome the challenges posed by recent enlargements in the CFSP area. ...
This article examines the impact of the 2004 and 2007 enlargements on CFSP committees. It aims to determine in which manner enlargement has affected the deliberative nature of CFSP committees and in which ways formal and informal mechanisms have contributed to overcoming deadlock in the decision‐making process. The article concludes, first, that formal and informal adjustment mechanisms have ensured a smooth functioning of the CFSP. Second, socialization and consensual decision‐making are still prevalent in the practice of CFSP bodies and have prevented deadlock. Moreover, learning processes remain crucial in committee governance, allowing newcomers to familiarize themselves with CFSP practices. As regards legitimacy, however, a less positive assessment can be made. By increasing the informality of CFSP negotiations and the role of ‘like‐minded’ groups, and decreasing the role of formal meetings, enlargement may have contributed to an erosion of the CFSP’s democratic legitimacy.
... Even though the candidate states were obliged to adopt the so-called CFSP acquis politique during the pre-accession phase, this did not lead to a total convergence between old and new member state foreign policies, as this process was characterized by its declaratory nature and flexibility. As is often noted in the pre-enlargement literature, the new member states were likely to bring to the table their own foreign policy interests, namely a stronger concern for Eastern Europe, Russia and the western Balkans (Archer 2004; Missiroli 2003; Whitman 1999). 5 While this did not imply an increase in the scope of the EU's external action — most of these issues were already being discussed in CFSP committees — it was expected that new advocacy groups consisting of the new member states would emerge around these issues (Whitman 1999, 144). ...
... In such cases, attention has been limited to the formal institutional setting and, in particular, linked to the discussions surrounding institutional reform (e.g. Cameron and Primatarova 2003; Whitman 1999). This article explores both the formal and informal adjustment mechanisms put in place to overcome the challenges posed by recent enlargements in the CFSP area. ...
Contrary to some previous assumptions, the enlargement did not halt the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) decision-making process in a substantial way. Rather it changed the dynamics within the working environment, preserving the importance of consensus-building practices in the Council working groups. The aim of this article is twofold. First, it tracks the changes that the recent enlargement caused in the working practices of the Council working groups. It also attempts to assess the adaptation processes of the new member states to the work in the Council working groups and pinpoint the main challenges that their administrative systems were faced with.
... Pero latinoamericanos y europeos también fueron muy activos en la redacción de esa Convención. Por una parte, según un diplomático francés, la Comisión Europea "tomó las medidas necesarias para asegurar que la Convención de Viena adoptara el artículo 12 sobre precursores químicos" (Césaire, 1995). Por otra, en las negociaciones que antecedieron la firma de la convención, representantes de países que concentraban productores y traficantes de estupefacientes de origen orgánico con destino a usos alejados de la medicina y la ciencia, con el fin de "equilibrar las responsabilidades", y ante el hecho de que la mayoría de artículos apuntaban a contrarrestar la oferta para usos no autorizados, presionaron para la adopción del artículo que penaliza a los consumidores sin fines médicos o científicos (Boister, 2003). ...
The article develops the argument that the global governance of drugs is the result of a social process that, materialized by different actors in multilateral arenas, is not intended to prohibit drugs but to limit their use to medicine and science and to eliminate their offer for any other different use. To this purpose, the author first presents the actors that determined the principles and objectives of international drug law, then demonstrates that the institutional authorities that sustain these norms are spaces for social interaction, and points out the role of Latin America in regulating the repression against illicit uses.
... This selfdefinitional relationship between the members of the EU international society can be illustrated by the practice of the prospective Member States of the EU aligning themselves with the foreign policy positions developed within the core by EU Member States. It is common practice for the applicant states to associate themselves with declarations and common positions issued under the CFSP and to permit the core states to represent the collective position on their behalf within regional and international organizations (Whitman, 1999). ...
The English School of international relations has rarely been used to analyse European integration. But, as we argue in this article, there may be considerable value in adding the English School to the canon of approaches to European integration studies in order to contextualize European integration both historically and internationally. The concepts of international society, world society and empire in particular may be used to reconfigure the current debate about the nature of EEl governance and to compare the EU to other regional international systems, as well as to reconceptualize the EU's international role, and in particular the EU's power to influence affairs beyond its formal membership borders. Conversely, analysing the EU with the help of these English School concepts may also help to refine the latter in the current attempts to reinvigorate the English School as a research programme.
... such mechanisms would have to affect the attitudes, expectations, and interpretations of the public at large, regardless of whether or not outside agencies intend to produce this effect, and independent of the strategies and calculations of those holding political power within. (Whitehead 1996b: 6) 'Contagion' and 'snowballing' therefore describe phenomena that require a certain level of regional proximity and 'it should never be forgotten that relatively neutral transmissions of information may just as well serve to promote an anti-democratic as a pro-democratic contagion' (Whitehead 1996b: 8 Edwards and Nuttall 1994;Fraser 1996;Hill and Wallace 1996;Holland 1995a;Pijpers 1991;Morgan 1994;Regelsberger and Wessels 1996;Regelsberger et al. 1997;Winn 1997;and Cameron 1998. More recently, see Bretherton and Vogler 2005. 4 Since the September 11th attacks, a number of scholars have been investigating the intersection between the second and third pillar (Monar 2004;Rees 2005). ...
Since the end of the Cold War, the promotion of democracy has occupied centre stage in global politics and in the academic debate on international relations. Governments, intergovernmental agencies, and international donors have invested significant resources towards supporting the democratic consolidation of fledgling democracies. The European Union (EU), which is the largest aid donor in the world, has been no exception to this trend. This book focuses on the development aid provided by the EU to the South African democracy during its first ten years of life. EU Democracy Aid is the first book to empirically analyse the EU policy towards South Africa, which has been the most longstanding and comprehensive European democracy promotion initiative in a single country and an important test-bed for the EU's effectiveness and credibility as a global democracy promoter. Building on the EU's declared goal to promote democracy 'from below', this study explores the potential of micro-level projects aimed at 'deepening' democracy through grassroots civil society organizations operating in marginalized communities, where abusive and authoritarian practices often outlive the advent of democracy. It will be of interest to students and scholars of civil society, democracy, economics , development studies, European Union studies, political sociology, and international relations.
A foreign policy such as neutrality can be analyzed in at least two ways: as a doctrine underlying and justifying the pursuit of a particular kind of foreign policy; or with reference to the substance of interstate political actions in real time and space. Quite obviously it makes a significant difference which of these approaches one chooses, since the former refers to a cognitive realm populated exclusively by logical entities — what Karl Popper called the world of ideas to distinguish it from both the inanimate and psychological worlds — whereas the latter focuses on an empirical and dynamic reality containing actors, structures and ideas.
The orthodoxy of IR has been that peace and conflict studies deals only with specific instances of mediation, conflict resolution, conflict transformation, or peacebuilding, and that the broader questions of order, norms, structures, power, and international organisation and governance were best left to ‘international theorists’. This of course, is indicative of mainstream IR theory’s tendency towards reductionism (though at the same time it has quietly adopted many of peace and conflict theory’s approaches).1 Despite this, what has emerged from peace and conflict studies was the gradual extension of the subdiscipline to include areas such as human rights, development, reconstruction, gender, humanitarian assistance, international organisations (IOs), agencies, international financial institutions (IFIs), non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and non-state actors. In addition broader approaches to peacebuilding emerged, as well as research methods such as ethnography, in order to understand violence, conflict, war, and peace from the perspective of grass roots directly affected and not just from the perspective of states and elites. In this sense, it might be said that peace and conflict studies has been in advance of the orthodoxy of IR and more in line with its critical wings.
Responding to a toast delivered at the Harvard Commencement in 1884, Supreme Court Judge Oliver Wendell Holmes stated: Behind every scheme to make the world over, lies the question: what kind of world do we want.
The European Union is characterised by its pillar system. The coexistence of the supranational first pillar, on the one hand,
and the intergovernmental second and third pillars, on the other hand, gives rise to a number of legal uncertainties particularly
in areas with overlapping competences. The Treaties do not provide for a clear demarcation of competence between the European
Community and the European Union. Hence the question arises whether the choice between Community instruments and those of
the intergovernmental pillars remains totally free and therefore left to the discretion of the Council. The objective of this
article is to identify a system of rules or guidelines determining the choice between Community and intergovernmental instruments.
Special considerations will be dedicated to consequences for the European Union’s external activities.
Ondanks het inmiddels tienjarig bestaan van de Europese Unie, roept haar status binnen de internationale rechtsorde nog steeds veel vragen op. De aard van deze vragen hangt veelal samen met de wijze waarop de Unie wordt geduid. Is men aanhanger van de these dat de Europese Unie slechts een virtueel kader is dat aan de lidstaten van de Europese Gemeenschappen de mogelijkheid biedt om ook op andere terreinen samen te werken, dan zal men geneigd zijn een rechtsstatus van de Unie als zodanig te ontkennen. Voelt men zich daarentegen meer aangetrokken tot het idee van een samensmelting van de oorspronkelijke Gemeenschappen tot een nieuwe entiteit die ook enkele nieuwe samenwerkingsterreinen tot haar bevoegdheden mag rekenen, dan heeft de Unie de plaats van de Gemeenschappen in de internationale rechtsorde overgenomen. Het zal niet verbazen dat er tussen deze twee extreme posities nog enkele varianten zitten.
Dit preadvies beoogt inzicht te geven in het denken over de positie van de Europese Unie binnen de internationale rechtsorde, zoals dat zich sinds de oprichting van de Unie heeft voltrokken. Het richt zich met nadruk op de Europese Unie en niet op de Europese Gemeenschappen,1 waarvan de volkenrechtelijke positie al sinds de jaren zestig in talrijke onderzoeken aan de orde is geweest.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.