Advertisement

Introduction: Gatekeepers and Boundary-Spanners — Thinking about Foreign Ministries in the European Union

  • Brian Hocking
Part of the Studies in Diplomacy and International Relations book series (SID)

Abstract

Observers of foreign ministries and the systems of diplomatic representation over which they preside have reached very different conclusions as to their role and significance in the rapidly shifting patterns of world politics. On the one hand, there are those who argue that the critical functions that these institutions perform remain in essence unaltered. The implication of this interpretation is that the traditional state-centred diplomatic machinery of representation, intelligence-gathering and communication remains as it has traditionally been portrayed: a key institution of the international system and a major resource through which governments pursue their policy objectives.1 A contrary view, however, asserts that the twin forces of globalisation and regionalisation are challenging governments and have dramatically diminished the significance of these traditional instruments of diplomacy. Consequently, the role of the foreign ministry (FM) has become increasingly marginalised in the face of both internal and external pressures.

Keywords

European Union Member State Foreign Policy International Policy European Union Member State 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    G. Berridge, Diplomacy: Theory and Practice (London: Prentice Hall/Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1995) ch. 2; A. James, ‘Diplomacy and international society’, International Relations, 6(6), 1980.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    D. Rometsch and W. Wessels, ‘European Union and national insitutions’, in D. Rometsch and W. Wessels (eds), The European Union and Member States: Towards Institutional Fusion? (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1996) pp. 330–1.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    C. Hill and W. Wallace, ‘Introduction: Actors and Actions’, in C. Hill (ed.), The Actors in Europe’s Foreign Policy (London: Routledge, 1996) p. 5.Google Scholar
  4. 5.
    S. Duke, ‘Diplomacy without a corps: training for external representation’, DSP Discussion Papers, No. 76 (Leicester: Centre for the Study of Diplomacy, 2001).Google Scholar
  5. 6.
    See Z. Steiner, The Times Survey of Foreign Ministries of the World (London: Times Books, 1982)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    B. Hocking (ed.), Foreign Ministries: change and adaptation (London: Macmillan — now Palgrave Macmillan, 1999).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    For discussions on the diplomatic studies literature, see: L. Reychler, Patterns of Diplomatic Thinking: a Cross-national Study of Structural and Social-Psychological Determinants (New York: Praeger, 1979)Google Scholar
  8. 7.
    P. Sharp, ‘For diplomacy: representation and the study of international relations’, International Studies Review, 1(1), 1999Google Scholar
  9. 7.
    C. Jönsson, ‘Bargaining, negotiation and diplomacy: a research overview’, DSP Discussion Papers, No. 63 (Leicester: Centre for the Study of Diplomacy, 2000)Google Scholar
  10. 7.
    K. E. Jorgensen, ‘Modern European diplomacy: a research agenda’, DSP Discussion Papers, No. 31 (Leicester: Centre for the Study of Diplomacy, 1997)Google Scholar
  11. 7.
    B. Hocking, ‘Catalytic diplomacy: beyond “newness” and “decline”’, in J. Melissen (ed.), Innovation in Diplomatic Practice (Basingstoke: Macmillan — now Palgrave Macmillan, 1999).Google Scholar
  12. 8.
    For a discussion of this in the context of multilateral diplomacy, see: R. O’Brien et al., Contesting global governance: multilateral economic institutions and global social movements (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000). On the relationship between diplomats and NGOs, see: A. F. Cooper and B. Hocking, ‘Governments, non-governmental organizations and the re-calibration of diplomacy’, Global Society, 14 (3), 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 9.
    P. B. Evans, H. K. Jacobson and R. D. Putnam (eds), Double-Edged Diplomacy: International Bargaining and Domestic Politics (Berkeley, Cal.: University of California Press, 1993).Google Scholar
  14. 11.
    K. Hanf and B. Soetendorp (eds), Adapting to European Integration: small states and the European Union (London: Longman, 1998) p. 2.Google Scholar
  15. 13.
    J. Richardson, Preface in Y. Mény, P. Muller and J.-L. Quermonne, Adjusting to Europe: the Impact of the European Union on National Institutions and Policies (London: Routledge, 1996).Google Scholar
  16. 15.
    S. Bulmer and M. Burch, ‘Organizing for Europe: Whitehall, the British State and the European Union’, Public Administration, 76, Winter 1998, pp. 601–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hanf and Soetendorp, p. 7. Their reference is to E. Haas, When Knowledge is Power (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    I. Manners and R. G. Whitman, The Foreign Policies of European Union Member States (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2000) p. 261.Google Scholar
  19. 21.
    G. Wiseman, ’ “Polylateralism” and new modes of global dialogue’, DSP Discussion Papers, No. 59 (Leicester: Centre for the Study of Diplomacy, 1999) p. 15.Google Scholar
  20. 22.
    H. Kramer and E. Quendler, ‘The role of diplomacy and foreign ministries in the “new political architecture” of Europe after 1989 — the case of Austria’, Second Pan-European Conference on International Relations, Paris 13–16 September 1995, p. 5.Google Scholar
  21. 25.
    See, for example, C. Jönsson et al., ‘Negotiations in networks in the European Union’, International Negotiation, 3 (3), 1998, pp. 319–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 25.
    E R. Pfetsch, ‘Negotiating the European Union: a negotiation-network approach’, International Negotiation, 3 (3), 1998, pp. 293–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 26.
    W. Coleman and A. Perl, ‘Internationalized policy environments and policy network analysis’, Political Studies, 47 (4), 1999, pp. 701–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 27.
    S. Keukeleire, ‘The European Union as a Diplomatic Actor’, DSP Discussion Papers, No. 71 (Leicester: Centre for the Study of Diplomacy, 2000) p. 25.Google Scholar
  25. 28.
    B. Kohler-Koch, ‘Network governance within and beyond an enlarging EU’; paper presented at the International Political Science Association conference, Quebec City, August 2000.Google Scholar
  26. 30.
    A. Blair, ‘Permanent Representations to the European Union’, DSP Discussion Papers, No. 68 (Leicester: Centre for the Study of Diplomacy, 2000)Google Scholar
  27. 30.
    J. Lewis, ‘Diplomacy in Europe’s polity: socialization and the EU Permanent Representatives’; paper presented at the International Studies Convention, Chicago, February 2001. For a practitioner’s view, see D. Bostock, ’Coreper Revisited’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 40 (2), June 2002.Google Scholar
  28. 31.
    M. Bruter, ‘Diplomacy without a state: the external delegations of the European Commission’, Journal of European Public Policy, 6(2), 1999; T. Bale, ’The expectations-capability gap? Studying EU diplomatic co-operation in third countries’; paper presented to the ECSA sixth biennial international conference; Pittsburgh, June 1999.Google Scholar
  29. 33.
    See, for example, B. Hocking and M. Smith, Beyond Foreign Economic Policy: the United States, the Single European Market and the Changing World Economy (London: Pinter, 1997).Google Scholar
  30. 35.
    B. G. Peters, ‘Managing horizontal government: the politics of coordination’, Public Administration, 76 (2), 1998, p. 306.Google Scholar
  31. 36.
    I have developed this point in B. Hocking, ‘Foreign ministries: the myth of the gatekeeper’, paper presented at the 38th International Studies Association Convention, Toronto, March 1997.Google Scholar
  32. 38.
    C. K. Ansell and S. Weber, ‘Organizing international politics: sovereignty and open systems’, International Political Science Review, 20 (1), 1999, pp. 73–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 39.
    Scholte, for example, regards transboundary activity as the defining quality of globalisation. See: J. A. Scholte, ‘Global capitalism and the state’, International Affairs, 73(2), 1997, p. 431.Google Scholar
  34. 42.
    A. K. Henrikson, ‘Diplomacy for the 21st century: “re-crafting the old guild”’, Wilton Park Occasional Paper 1, 1997.Google Scholar
  35. 46.
    J. N. Rosenau, ‘States, sovereignty and diplomacy in the information age’, Virtual Diplomacy Series No. 5 (Washington DC: United States Institute of Peace, February 2000) pp. 12–13.Google Scholar
  36. 47.
    M. P. C. M. Van Schendelen (ed.), National Public and Private EC Lobbying (Aldershot: Dartmouth, 1993) p. 277.Google Scholar
  37. 48.
    Karvonen and Sundelius, p. 82. Amongst the literature on coordination see L. Metcalfe, ‘International policy coordination and public management reform’ International Institute of Administrative Sciences, Second International Conference, Toluca, 27–30 July 1993Google Scholar
  38. 48.
    D. Spence, ‘The coordination of European policy by member states’, in M. Westlake (ed.), The Council of the European Union (Cartermill, 1995) pp. 353–72Google Scholar
  39. 48.
    H. Kassim, B. Guy Peters and V. Wright, The National Co-ordination of EU Policy: the Domestic Level (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Brian Hocking 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brian Hocking

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations