Abstract
During the first decade of the 21st century, the EU is set to enlarge to up to ten East European countries: Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. EU enlargement has been agreed because it is believed that this will ensure security and stability in Eastern Europe. Yet enlargement will fundamentally alter the Union itself: along with the creation of an Economic and Monetary Union, it is the biggest challenge facing the Union.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Brian White, ‘Analysing Foreign Policy: Problems and Approaches’, in Michael Clarke and Brian White, eds, Understanding Foreign Policy: The Foreign Policy SystemsApproach (Aldershot: Edward Elgar, 1989), p. 1.
See the definition in Michael Smith, ‘The European Union, Foreign Economic Policy and the Changing World Arena’, Journal of European Public Policy, vol. 1, no. 2, Autumn 1994, p. 287.
David Allen, ‘Conclusions: The European Rescue of National Foreign Policy?’, in Christopher Hill, ed., The Actors in Europe’s Foreign Policy (London: Routledge, 1996), p. 303.
See Christopher Hill, ‘The Capability-Expectations Gap, or Conceptualizing Europe’s International Role’, Journal of Common Market Studies, vol. 31, no. 3, September 1993, pp. 315–18.
As Gunnar Sjöstedt defines international actorness, in The External Role of the European Community (Westmead: Saxon House, 1977), p. 15.
Another such case is the common policy towards Central America. See Hazel Smith, European Union Foreign Policy and Central America (London: Macmillan, 1995).
Eberhard Rhein, ‘The Community’s External Reach’, in Reinhardt Rummel, ed., Toward Political Union: Planning a Common Foreign and Security Policy (Boulder: Westview, 1992), p. 36.
Justice and home affairs matters (discussed in the third pillar of the Maastricht Treaty) could also have foreign policy implications, but ‘output’ from the third pillar is still rather limited.
The three European Communities are the European Coal and Steel Community (or ECSC, established in 1952), the European Atomic Energy Community (or Euratom, established in 1958) and the most important, the European Economic Community (or EEC, established in 1958). In some usages of the term, ‘European Community’ has implied all three Communities.
The ECSC and Euratom have similar powers, but only Euratom can conclude association agreements with third parties. D. Lasok and J. W. Bridge, Law and Institutions of the European Communities (London: Butterworths, 1991), pp. 60–1.
During negotiations, the Commission consults with a special committee (the ‘article 113 committee’) of government officials. See Rohini Acharya, Making Trade Policy in the EU, Discussion Paper 61 (London: Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1996).
Iain MacLeod, Ian Hendry, and Stephen Hyett, The External Relations of the European Communities: A Manual of Law and Practice (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), Chapter 18.
Two previous attempts to establish a framework for making European foreign policy had failed: the European Defence and Political Communities in the early 1950s, and the Fouchet Plans in the 1960s. See Nuttall, European Political Co-operation, Chapter 2, for an account of EPC’s origins.
See ‘First Report of the Foreign Ministers to the Heads of State and Government of the Member States of the European Community of 27 October 1970 (Luxembourg Report)’, in European Political Cooperation (Bonn: Press and Information Office of the Federal Government, 1982), p. 31.
Renaud Dehousse and Joseph H. H. Weiler, ‘EPC and the Single Act: From Soft Law to Hard Law?’, in Martin Holland, ed., The Future of European Political Cooperation: Essays on Theory and Practice (London: Macmillan, 1991), p. 124.
Michael E. Smith, The ‘Europeanization’ of European Political Cooperation: Trust, Transgovernmental Relations, and the Power of Informal Norms, Center for German and European Studies Working Paper 2.44 (Berkeley: University of California, 1996), p. 42.
See Simon Nuttall, ‘Interaction between European Political Cooperation and the European Community’, Yearbook of European Law, no. 7, 1987.
The WEU is also to be developed as the European pillar of NATO. This satisfied those who wanted to develop the WEU as the European defence organization, and those who argued for NATO’s continuing predominance. See Anand Menon, Anthony Forster and William Wallace, ‘A Common European Defence?’, Survival, vol. 34, no. 3, Autumn 1992.
See, for example, Hans van den Broek, ‘Why Europe Needs a Common Foreign and Security Policy’, European Foreign Affairs Review, vol. 1, no. 1, July 1996.
On foreign policy models, see Michael Clarke, ‘Foreign Policy Analysis: A Theoretical Guide’, in Stelios Stavridis and Christopher Hill, eds., Domestic Sources of Foreign Policy: West European Reactions to the Falklands Conflict (Oxford: Berg, 1996).
On the literature, see Jeremy Richardson, ‘Interests, Ideas and Garbage Cans of Primeval Soup’, in Jeremy Richardson, ed., European Union: Power and Policy-Making (London: Routledge, 1996), and Thomas Risse-Kappen, ‘Exploring the Nature of the Beast: International Relations Theory and Comparative Policy Analysis Meet the European Union’, Journal of Common Market Studies, vol. 34, no. 1, March 1996.
According to the mainstream definition, cooperation occurs ‘when actors adjust their behavior to the actual or anticipated preferences of others, through a process of policy coordination’. Robert Keohane, After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984), p. 51. Integration goes further, bringing states more closely together. See Paul Taylor, ‘A Conceptual Typology of International Organization’, in A. J. R. Groom and Paul Taylor, eds, Frameworks for International Co-operation (London: Pinter, 1990).
For a useful review of various concepts and approaches used to conceptualize EU foreign policy, see Roy Ginsberg, ‘Concepts of European Foreign Policy Revisited: Narrowing the Theoretical Capability-Expectations Gap’, paper presented at the European Community Studies Association conference, Seattle, May 1997 (cited with author’s permission).
The seminal neorealist work is Kenneth Waltz, Theory of International Politics (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1979). See also Joseph Grieco, Cooperation Among Nations: Europe, America, and Non-Tariff Barriers to Trade (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1990), and John J. Mearsheimer, ‘Back to the Future: Instability in Europe after the Cold War’, International Security, vol. 15, no. 1, Summer 1990.
Alfred Pijpers argues that the member states agreed only to modest foreign policy cooperation because they did not want to create a‘third force’ challenging the Cold War balance of power. ‘European Political Cooperation and the Realist Paradigm’, in Holland, ed., Future. Peter van Ham considers that neorealism is ‘powerful in explaining the origins and initial development of the European Community and it has proved helpful in analysing the EC’s economic and political relations with the “Other Europe”.’ The EC, Eastern Europe and European Unity: Discord, Collaboration and Integration Since 1947 (London: Pinter, 1993), pp. 205–6.
See Robert Keohane, ‘Neoliberal Institutionalism: A Perspective on World Politics’, in Robert Keohane, International Institutions and State Power (Boulder: Westview Press, 1989).
As Mancur Olson noted: unless the number of individuals in a group is quite small, or unless there is coercion or some separate incentive to make individuals act in their common interest, rational, self-interested individuals will not act to achieve their common or group interests. In The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971), p. 2.
See Robert Keohane and Stanley Hoffmann, ‘Institutional Change in Europe in the 1980s’, and Andrew Moravscik, ‘Negotiating the Single European Act’, both in Robert Keohane and Stanley Hoffmann, eds, The New European Community: Decisionmaking and Institutional Change (Boulder: Westview Press, 1991); and Andrew Moravscik, ‘Preferences and Power in the European Community: A Liberal Intergovernmentalist Approach’, Journal of Common Market Studies, vol. 31, no. 4, December 1993.
Stanley Hoffmann, ‘Obstinate or Obsolete? The Fate of the Nation-State and the Case of Western Europe’, Daedalus, Summer 1966, especially pp. 881–2.
See Paul Taylor, The European Union in the 1990s (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), pp. 77–97, and ‘The European Community and the State: Assumptions, Theories and Propositions’, Review of International Studies, vol. 17, no. 2, April 1991.
Joseph Weiler and Wolfgang Wessels, ‘EPC and the Challenge of Theory’, in Alfred Pijpers, Elfriede Regelsberger and Wolfgang Wessels, eds, European Political Cooperation in the 1980s: A Common Foreign Policy for Western Europe? (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1988), pp. 243–58.
This is one of three ‘decision styles’, distinguished by Fritz Scharpf. The other two are ‘bargaining’, or the appeal to the participants’ selfinterest and resort to incentives and ‘confrontation’, or appeal to the interests of the dominant actor or coalition and resort to coercion as the ultimate sanction. In ‘The Joint-Decision Trap: Lessons from German Federalism and European Integration’, Public Administration, vol. 66, no. 3, Autumn 1988, pp. 258–9.
Andrew Hurrell, ‘International Society and the Study of Regimes: A Reflective Approach’, in Volker Rittberger, ed., Regime Theory and International Relations (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), p. 67.
See Helen Milner, ‘International Theories of Cooperation among Nations: Strengths and Weaknesses’, World Politics, vol. 44, no. 3, April 1992.
Robert D. Putnam, ‘Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games’, International Organization, vol. 42, no. 3, Summer 1988. Simon Bulmer has argued that such an approach should be used to analyze EPC, in ‘Analysing European Political Cooperation: The Case for Two-Tier Analysis’, in Holland, ed., Future.
Alexander Wendt, ‘Collective Identity Formation and the International State’, American Political Science Review, vol. 88, no. 2, June 1994, p. 384.
Joseph Nye, ‘Neorealism and Neoliberalism’, World Politics, vol. 40, no. 2, January 1988, p. 246.
Wayne Sandholtz, ‘Choosing Union: Monetary Politics and Maastricht’, International Organization, vol. 47, no. 1, Winter 1993, p. 3.
Alexander Wendt, ‘Anarchy is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics’, International Organization, vol. 46, no. 2, Spring 1992, p. 393. See also: Ronald L. Jepperson, Alexander Wendt and Peter J. Katzenstein, ‘Norms, Identity, and Culture in National Security’, and Paul Kowert and Jeffrey Legro, ‘Norms, Identity, and Their Limits: A Theoretical Reprise’, both in Peter J. Katzenstein, ed., The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996).
Ole Waever, ‘Identity, Integration and Security: Solving the Sovereignty Puzzle in E.U. Studies’, Journal of International Affairs, vol. 48, no. 2, Winter 1995, pp. 419–20, 429.
See Karl Deutsch et al., Political Community and the North Atlantic Area: International Organization in the Light of Historical Experience (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957), and Taylor, Limits, Chapter 1.
Ernst Haas, The Uniting of Europe: Political, Economic and Social Forces 1950–1957 (London: Stevens and Sons, 1958), pp. 311–13.
Ibid., pp. 490–527. Jacques Delors has called this the ‘Community method’. See Charles Grant, Delors: Inside the House that Jacques Built (London: Nicholas Brealey, 1994), p. 224.
Leon Lindberg, The Political Dynamics of European Economic Integration (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1963), pp. 74–6.
Philippe de Schoutheete, La Cooperation Politique Européenne (Brussels: Editions Labor, 1980), p. 118.
Panayiotis Ifestos, European Political Cooperation: Towards a Framework of Supranational Diplomacy? (Aldershot: Avebury, 1987), pp. 136–7.
Ernst Haas, ‘Turbulent Fields and the Theory of Regional Integration’, International Organization, vol. 30, no. 2, Spring 1976.
See Ernst Haas and Edward Thomas Rowe, ‘Regional Organizations in the United Nations: Is There Externalization?’, International Studies Quarterly, vol. 17, no. 1, March 1973, p. 6.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2004 Karen E. Smith
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Smith, K.E. (2004). Conceptualizing EU Foreign Policymaking. In: The Making of EU Foreign Policy. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230536784_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230536784_1
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-4039-1718-8
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-53678-4
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)