The Theory: Lead Groups and EU Foreign Policy-Making

  • Riccardo Alcaro
Chapter
First Online:
Part of the Palgrave Studies in European Union Politics book series (PSEUP)

Abstract

Lead groups such as the E3/EU team on Iran are crisis management solutions to problems the EU is incapable of addressing through its own institutions and mechanisms. A practice that finds no basis in EU treaties, lead groups invariably create an imbalance between the member states in the lead, the insiders, and those that follow, the outsiders. The compromise underlying lead groups results from an intergovernmental bargaining process that reflects an asymmetry of interest between insiders and outsiders. Yet, lead groups can only form if the terms of the ‘bargain’ between insiders and outsiders are in line with the EU identity layer of all member states. As foreign policy-making machines, lead groups not only give direction and substance to EU foreign policy, but also articulate the type and role identity of the EU and its member states as international agents.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access

References

  1. Aggestam, L. (2004). Role identity and the Europeanisation of foreign policy: A political-cultural approach. In B. Tonra & T. Christiansen (Eds.), Rethinking European Union foreign policy (pp. 81–98). Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Christiansen, T., Jørgensen, K.-E., & Wiener, A. (Eds.). (2001). The social construction of Europe. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  3. Diez, T. (2001). Speaking “Europe”: The politics of integration discourse. In T. Christiansen, K.-E. Jørgensen, & A. Wiener (Eds.), The social construction of Europe (pp. 85–100). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Diez, T. (2014). Speaking Europe, drawing boundaries: Reflections on the role of discourse in EU foreign policy and identity. In C. Carta & J. F. Morin (Eds.), EU foreign policy through the lens of discourse analysis (pp. 27–41). Farnham/Burlington: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  5. Dryburgh, L. (2008). The as a global actor? EU policy towards Iran. European Security, 17(2–3), 253–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fearon, J., & Wendt, A. (2002). Rationalism v. constructivism: A skeptical view. In W. Carlsnaes, T. Risse, & B. Simmons (Eds.), Handbook of international relations (pp. 52–72). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ginsberg, R. H. (2001). The European Union in international politics. Baptism by fire. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  8. Glarbo, K. (2001). Reconstructing a common European foreign policy. In T. Christiansen, K.-E. Jørgensen, & A. Wiener (Eds.), The social construction of Europe (pp. 140–157). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Haas, E. B. (2001). Does constructivism subsume neo-functionalism? In T. Christiansen, K.-E. Jørgensen, & A. Wiener (Eds.), The social construction of Europe (pp. 22–31). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hanau Santini, R. (2010). European Union discourses and practices on the Iranian nuclear programme. European Security, 19(3), 467–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hollis, M., & Smith, S. (1990). Explaining and understanding international relations. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  12. Hurd, I. (2008). Constructivism. In D. Snidal & C. Reus-Smit (Eds.), Oxford handbook of international relations (pp. 298–316). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Hyde-Price, A. (2000). Germany & European order. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Janning, J. (2005). Leadership coalitions and change: The role of states in the European Union. International Affairs, 81(4), 821–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Keohane, R. O. (1984). After hegemony. Cooperation and discord in the world political economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Keukeleire, S., & MacNaughtan, J. (2008). The foreign policy of the European Union. Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  17. Koremenos, B., Lipson, C., & Snidal, D. (2001). The rational design of international institutions. International Organization, 55(4), 761–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kurki, M. (2008). Causation in international relations. Reclaiming causal analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lake, D. A. (2006). Hierarchy in international relations: Authority, sovereignty, and the new structure of world politics. San Diego: UCSD.Google Scholar
  20. Larsen, H. (2004). Discourse analysis in the study of European foreign policy. In B. Tonra & T. Christiansen (Eds.), Rethinking European Union foreign policy (pp. 62–80). Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Manners, I., & Whitman, R. G. (2000). Conclusion. In I. Manners & R. G. Whitman (Eds.), The foreign policies of European Union member states (pp. 243–271). Manchester/New York: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  22. March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (2006). The logic of appropriateness. In M. Moran, M. Rein, & R. E. Goodin (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public policy (pp. 689–708). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Marcussen, M., Risse, T., Engelman-Martin, D., Knopf, H.-J., & Roscher, K. (2001). Constructing Europe? The evolution of nation-state identities. In T. Christiansen, K.-E. Jørgensen, & A. Wiener (Eds.), The social construction of Europe (pp. 101–120). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mearsheimer, J. (2010). Structural realism. In T. Dunne, M. Kurki, & S. Smith (Eds.), International relations theories (pp. 79–85). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Menon, A. (2009). Power, institutions and the limits of hierarchy: The ‘EU-3’ and Iran. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the ISA’s 50th Annual Convention “Exploring the Past, Anticipating the Future”, New York Marriott Marquis, New York. http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/3/1/3/1/8/pages313182/p313182-1.php
  26. Moravcsik, A. (1997). Taking preferences seriously: A liberal theory of international politics. International Organization, 51(4), 513–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Moravcsik, A., & Schimmelfennig, F. (2009). Liberal intergovernmentalism. In A. Wiener & T. Diez (Eds.), European integration theory (2nd ed., pp. 67–87). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Müller, H. (2004). Arguing, bargaining and all that: Communicative action, rationalist theory and the logic of appropriateness in international relations. European Journal of International Relations, 10(3), 395–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Øhrgaard, J. C. (2004). International relations or European integration: Is the CFSP sui generis? In B. Tonra & T. Christiansen (Eds.), Rethinking European Union foreign policy (pp. 28–44). Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Parsons, C. (2015). Before eclecticism: Competing alternatives in constructivist research. International Theory, 7(3), 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pijpers, A. (1991). European political cooperation and the realist paradigm. In M. Holland (Ed.), The future of European political cooperation (pp. 8–35). London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rieker, P. (2004). EU security policy: Contrasting rationalism and social constructivism. NUPI paper 659.Google Scholar
  33. Risse, T. (2009). Social constructivism and European integration. In A. Wiener & T. Diez (Eds.), European integration theory (2nd ed., pp. 144–160). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Risse, T., & Wiener, A. (2001). The social construction of social constructivism. In T. Christiansen, K.-E. Jørgensen, & A. Wiener (Eds.), The social construction of Europe (pp. 199–205). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schmidt, V. A. (2008). Discursive institutionalism: The explanatory power of ideas and discourse. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 303–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sedelmeier, U. (2003). EU enlargement, identity and the analysis of European foreign policy. Identity formation through practice. Robert Schuman Centre 2003/13, European Forum Series. Florence: European University Institute. http://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/id/1646/03_13.pdf/
  37. Snow, D. A., & Benford, R. D. (1988). Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization. In B. Klandermans, H. Kriesi, & S. Tarrow (Eds.), From structure to action: Social movement participation across cultures (pp. 197–217). Greenwich: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  38. Steans, J., Pettiford, L., Diez, T., & El-Anis, I. (2010). An introduction to international relations theory. Perspectives and themes (3rd ed.). Harlow (UK): Pearson.Google Scholar
  39. Walt, S. (1987). The origin of alliances. New York: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Waltz, K. (1979). Theory of international politics. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  41. Wendt, A. (1992). Anarchy is what states make of it: The social construction of power politics. International Organization, 46(2), 391–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wendt, A. (1998). On constitution and causation in international relations. Review of International Studies, 24(special issue), 101–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wendt, A. (1999). Social theory of international politics. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Riccardo Alcaro
    • 1
  1. 1.Istituto Affari InternazionaliRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations