chapter 22 - external policies

Question 1

4 main aspects to EU’s external relations

Answer 1

• trade
• foreign security and defense
• development
• external dimension of internal policies

Question 2

Trade

Answer 2

MS EU present united front in international trade:

• Common Customs Tariff (CCT), i.e. Common External Tariff (CET)
• Common Commercial Policy (CCP)

EU committed to liberal trade policy, but also ensuring that this is not to damaging for MS (-> special exceptions e.g.)
*sectoral sphere of EU protectionism = agriculture (although less so since WTO pressure mid-90s, vehicle industry, textiles etc.

politicization trade agenda (EU takes advanced position): labour standards, env. protection, human rights

2015 Commission communication Trade for All (core principles: effectiveness, transparancy and values -> priority trade policies and negotiations
*most attention: TTIP (with USA)

Question 3

Trade and trade-dominated agreements

Answer 3

trade agreements with almost all countries in the world, agreements have diff forms, 3 forms that are not part of dev. cooperation:
(ordered from minimalist to maximalist)

trade agreements
art.207 TFEU (obliges EU to operate a CCP)

• WTO framework: prohibit preferential agreements unless waivers are negotiated
  (stagnation WTO Doha Round)
• Lisbon Treaty listed services, intellectual property and foreign direct investment in Art.207 + gave it treaty status as exclusive EU competences
• continuing national protection: Council unanimity for decisions in sensitive areas

trade and economic cooperation agreements

• Treaty base differs per case, usually art.207 TFEU + other article(s)
• nr + scope has expanded
• since late 80s, political conditions often part of these agreements

association agreements
Art.217 TFEU

• reciprocal rights and obligations, coon action and special procedure with third countries
• categories of states that have/get this
  1. countries that have realistic prospects of EU membership (e.g. Turkey, Albania)
  2. Mediterranean states, part of EU’s Mediterranean policy (no prospect of EU membership)
  3. non-EU members of the European Economic Area (EEA): Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein

Question 4

trade - policy processes areas of tensions

Answer 4

responsibility trade agreements: Commission + Council + (since Lisbon) EP
- Lisbon -> framework for implementing CCP subject to ordinary legislative procedure + EP more negotiation and contraction power (e.g. needs to give consent)

areas with tensions:

1. power balance Council and Commission
2. different national interests and preferences -> difficulties in Council
3. disputes between Commissioners and between DGs in the Commission about where responsibilities lie
4. EP uses Lisbon-given powers to the max
5. national ratifications: usually trade agreements have regulatory, social, envir., consumer protection elements -> national ratification necessary next to Council and EP approval
   e.g. Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (with Canada): Belgium couldn’t ratify (regional assemblies French-speaking parts wouldn’t)

Question 5

how does decision-making for cooperation and association agreements differ from trade agreements?

Answer 5

1. unanimity in the Council is more common
2. more policy areas are involved (bc cooperation and association agreements have broader coverage)
3. more room for cross-policy ‘trading’ between EU actors
   (bc cooperation and association agreements have broader coverage)

Question 6

‘standard procedure’ for contracting an external trade agreement

Answer 6

art. 207 TFEU

Question 7

Foreign and Defence Policies - resources and problems with their usage

Answer 7

!all treaty provisions regarding foreign and defence policies = in TEU
TEU requires for MS to act in common when possible

There are difficulties of fully harnessing/utilising resources -> EU seen as ‘civilian’/’soft’ international power (significant influence trade, finance, env., but not in traditional/hard external policy areas)

EU foreign and defence policy resources

-MS are middle-ranking size and status
-many MS (+EU itself) have extensive diplomatic skills and experience + special international links
-France and UK are nuclear powers + occupy 2/5 permanent seats UNSC
-MS collective spending on defence only second to USA
-powerful eco. And trading capacities (IR more focused on eco.)

obstacles preventing

1. not a state: no national territory, unclear political eco., social and cultural interests
2. many MS reluctant to lose control (national influence, sov., identity)
3. some MS have special relationships with certain areas in the world + wish to maintain these
4. almost all decisions must be taken by Council consensus
5. defence policy: difff national perspectives on if a distinctive/comprehensive European defence orientation and capacity is desirable

Question 8

evolution EU’s foreign and defence policies - foreign policy

Answer 8

initially: tentative, outside Community framework cooperation
SEA: EPC was accorded own section (Title III), but no treaty status
1990s: MS recognize EU ought to do more (e.g. than occasional eco. sanctions)

why this change?

1. end Cold War + communism -> new international order (EU no longer squeezed between great powers)
   - EU looked to play a leading part in guiding and managing events
2. German reunification -> pressure to have EU foreign policy framework with firmly attached Germany
3. EU’s inadequate response to post-91 breakup Yugoslavia and subsequent hostilities in the Balkans
4. EU foreign policy will always be restricted in effectiveness if it is kept too apart from security and defence policy (has been shown repeatedly since 1990-91 Gulf War)
5. treaties -> significant advances cooperation
   - Maastricht: CFSP as pillar
   - Amsterdam: QMV possible for some CFSP policies + creation CFSP High Representative + creation Early Warning Unit
   - Nice: enabling enhanced cooperation (Amsterdam Treaty: MS can go forward if not all MS support) for implementation CFSP joint actions and common positions without military/defence implications
   - Lisbon: sought to give more coherence = High Representative for the CFSP + Commissioner for External Relations + EEAS (something like a EU Foreign Ministry)

Question 9

evolution EU’s foreign and defence policies - defence policy

Answer 9

= close to national sovereignty + MS diff defence capabilities, willingness MS to use armed force and attitudes/commitment to existing security/defence organisations (6 MS not part NATO)
-> difficult area to dev. EU inter-state cooperation/integration

from early 90s engagement security and defence policies: Gulf War + breakup Yugoslavia -> showed to help post-war stabilisation/reconstruction

conflicts Balkans -> US pressure for more burden-sharing with EU + US would take policy lead as long as EU lacked effective military operational capability)

Dec 1998: Franco-British summit in St Malo -> convergence position: called for creation stronger EU security capability within NATO framework

-> emphasis on conflict prevention and crisis management + provision creation European Rapid Reaction Force and battle groups

Lisbon Treaty:

• mutual defense clause (MS armed attack on territory -> other MS must assist)
• security and defence policy own section in TEU + emphasizing its integral part of CFSP
• renamed European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) -> Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP)

2000s: broadening view on what is necessary if the EU is to have effective security and defence policies (e.g. reflected in diverse range CSDP missions)

!big advancement CSDP, but should not be overstated: enduring/core features of e.g. intergov.,

Question 10

three types/levels of policy

Answer 10

1. soft security policy: promotion peace and security (non-military tools)
   e.g. EU enlargement, Regional Cooperation, EU special representatives to address problems in trouble spots
2. hard security policy: being prepared to use (military) capability for conflict resolution, peace-keeping, peace-monitoring
   *these operations make up the Petersberg Tasks
   - no battle groups have been deployed in practice
3. Defence policy: using military force for the defence of territory + for high security reasons
   (EU is not involved in using it and is not seeking such a capability)

Question 11

Defence policy aims

Answer 11

aims CFSP and CSDP are the same (as CSDP is part of CFSP)

-> can be found in art.21 post-Lisbon TEU (promoting peace, democr, liberty, human rights)
- policy aims only in general terms, policy documents/actors specify CFSP: e.g. European security strategy 2003 (A Secure Europe in a Better World), 2016 global strategy Shared Vision, Common Action (=move towards realism: enhancement security of the Union, investing in resilience to the East and South, promoting integrated approach to conflicts, supporting cooperative regional orders, assisting with dev. global order based on sound gov. principles)

*not in the treaty, but important aim = cultivating cooperative/stable relations and promoting democr. values in neighbouring states to the south and east

Question 12

ENP

Answer 12

European Neigbourhood Policy

• March 2003
• create zone of prosperity and friendly neigboorhoud, a ring of friends with close peaceful and cooperative relations
• aim = replace bilateral relations between EU and former Soviet states + Middle Eastern states
• no overall ENP action program,, action plans negotiated with ENP states on indv. basis

concern it was to broad to be effetive -> sub-divided:

1. Union for the Mediterranean (2008)
2. Eastern Partnership (2009)

!right now, the ring of friends more looks like a ring of fire (eg. Russian invasion of Ukraine) -> EU emphasizes stabilisation in the neighbourhood
- hopes of westernising neighbouring states haven’t been realised

Question 13

policy instruments foreign policy

Answer 13

art.25 TEU + other articles -> many policy instruments

• adopt actions and positions
• use diplomatic channels to exert political pressure
• make use of trde benefits, eco. and financial assistance, and technical, scientific, cultural and other forms of cooperation
• put together civilian, police and military missions
  *military capability only available for restricted purposes

Question 14

obstacles to the EU dev. fully fledged security and defence policy capability

Answer 14

1. MS reluctant to overdevelop security and defence policies (bc ideological, historical reasons)
2. sovereignty concerns
3. MS divided in terms of ends and means (e.g. some supported US-led invasion Iraq, others opposed it)
4. some MS don’t want to take EU security and defence policy to far given other defence options available for them (NATO, OSCE)
5. without significant increase expenditure on security and defence, EU will continue to be heavily reliant on NATO/the USA

Question 15

Policy processes CFSP/CSDP
- in general

Answer 15

distinctive features:

1. are separately provided for in the treaties
   -> role Commission not as strong as in other areas
2. are intergovernmentally based
3. rest on extensive inter-state consultations
4. have their own institutions
   - High Representative, European External Action Service EEAS)

Question 16

Policy processes CFSP/CSDP
- actors and their roles

Answer 16

European Council: identifies strategic interests, determines objectives and general guidelines for CFSP (art.26 TEU)
- also: commonly pronounces/decides on important foreign policy issues of current concern

The Council: work channeled in hierarchical structure:

1. Foreign Affairs Council = main decision-making body CFSP (makes decisions within framework of the European Council), decides with unanimity on important issues, but also often with QMV
   - if a state disagrees, it can object (-> High Representatie looks for solution, if unsuccesful, vote (QMV) to European Council (Decides by unanimity) OR it can abstain (-> not obliged to apply the decision)
2. COREPER II (committee of permanent representatives) = mainly transmission and filtering agencies between Political and Security Committee and Foreign Affairs Council
3. Political and Security Committee (PSC/COPS) = senior/ambassadorial level officials meets twice weekly: keeps track of international situation, assisting with defining FCSP policies, providing political direction on dev. military capabilities, monitoring implementation of agreed policies
   - mild institutional rivalry with COREPER
   - PSC is supported by nr specialised committees and groups:
4. Correspondents’ Group = key liaising mechanism between Foreign Minsitries, deals with business from other groups the PSC has no time to deal with
5. Working Groups = senior diplomats from MS and EEAS, most permanent, some ad hoc, some e.g. focused on specific region or theme

The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy
= member/vice-president College of Commissioners + chairs Foreign Affairs Council (except when its about trade) + is head of EEAS

European External Action Service (2011) = EU’s diplomatic service, responsible for coordination of all EU’s external policies (but does not handle all policy areas itself -> imp. to coordinate with Commission)
*majority employees recruited from Commission and Council or from national diplomatic services

CSDP bodies = CSDP and CFSP are similar, but CSDP is diff: two preparatory bodies (2001):

• European Union Military Committee (EUMC): chiefs of defence (usually their military delegates) = military advice + recommendations to PSC and High Representative + forum for military consultation and cooperation MS + evaluative and advisory tasks in crisis situations
• Military Staff of the EU (EUMS) = military personnel seconded from MS, staff are part of EEAS + work under direction of EUMC = military expertise and support for CSDP (e.g. on intelligence, situation assessments, strategic planning)

The Commission = weakened position in CFSP with creation High Representative and EEAS
powers: High Representative (is part of the Commission) + strong position when CFSP actions involve use of policy instruments (bc Council can then only act on basis Commission proposals) + specialised information and advice

The EP (Art.36 post-Lisbon TEU): largely confined too advisory, monitoring, holding-to-account roles (except under special circumstances)
= not decision-making role (only through budget control it has some role)

Delegations and missions
EU not a state -> no oversees embassies -> instead: network of external delegations (pre-Lisbon delegations of the Commission, TEU made them EU delegations), operate within framework of EEAS
*also attached to IOs

Question 17

High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy

Answer 17

Amsterdam Treaty -> High Representative for the CFSP (Javier Solana)
purpose: raising profile, giving human face + achieve cooperation

institutional limitations:

1. Commission kept an External Relations Commissioner -> uncertainties leadership positions and responsibilities Commissioner and Representatives
2. GAERC continued to be chaired by the Foreign Minister of the state holding the Council Presidency
3. High Representative had no significant independent powers

Constitutional Treaty -> Union Minister of Foreign Affairs (merging posts High Representative and Commissioner for External Relations)

Lisbon Treaty -> change in title: High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy

appointment process:

1. European Council makes nomination (if necessary by QMV), with agreement of President-designate of the Commission
2. nomination is confirmed when the whole College is approved by the EP

High Representatives of the Union: Catherine Ashton, Federica Mogherini, ….

roles: proposer, promoter, facilitator, implementer
but influence depends on role perceptions of the European Council President
!no major independent decision-makers: key policy decisions left to European Council and the Council

Question 18

development policy

Answer 18

EU MS provide ~45% all international dev. aid + EU itself additional 10%

why so much dev. aid? historical (colonial past), moral (something should be done about poverty and hunger) + economic (dev. countries ~30% EU exports + EU dependent on products as rubber, copper and uranium)

!dev. policy is conducted alongside national policies, EU no exclusive competence

recent years more attention to promoting greater cooerpation, consistency, coherence and complementarity between EU and MS policy activities

• bc sometimes strains with MS: have diff views on dev. policy issues

Question 19

development policy - policy content

Answer 19

primary objective (art.208 TFEU): reduction and eradication of poverty

2005 European Consensus on Development (joint statement EU institutions + MS) -> Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)

other values include: human rights, fundamental freedoms, democracy, rule of law

form of development:

• EU’s generalised preferences (GSP) scheme: preferential trading access to EU market to dev./vulnerable countries (reduction/removal tariffs)
  = for the worlds least developed countries (LDCs)
• food aid, emergency aid
• additional assistance and aid to countries with which it has special relations = in the form of cooperation agreements (most important: Cotonou Partnership Agreement 2000/2003, linking EU with 79 African, Caribbean and Pacific countries (ACP), focus on financial dev. and indpendence)

financing - two ways:

1. non-EDF aid is funded by the EU budget = 4% budget -> half to financial assistance non-ACP countries + half to food aid
2. EDF aid: funded by special contributions from MS

Question 20

dev. policy - policy processes

Answer 20

main actors:

• Foreign Affairs Council
• Commissioner for Development
• Development DG, EP Committee on Dev.
• diplomatic missions of dev. countries in Brussels that are accredited to the EU
• EU delegations in dev. countries

decision-making procedures depend on type of decision: is it trade only? is it the Council wanting to issue a delcaration or resolution?
*cooperation/association agreements -> Council QMV/unanimity + EP power of consent

Question 21

Cotonou Agreement

Answer 21

= most important EU agreement with policy on dev. cooperation

• signed June 200, into force April 2003
• links EU with 79 African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries
• replaced Lome Conventions (framed EU-ACP relations from 1975)
• diff from Lome system: more regionally based Economic Parntership Agreements (EPAs, rather than treating all ACPs the same) + emphasis on self-reliance + more political cooperation and conditionality
• same from Lome system: duty-free access to EU market for almost all ACP exports + schemes to stabilise export earnings + European Development Fund (EDF)

structure largely passed down from the Lome Convention -> three principal bodies:

1. Council of Ministers (members council of the EU + members Commission + member of gov. each ACP country)
   - decides on major political and policy decisions necessary under the Agreement
   - decisions by common agreement
   - meets at least once a year
2. Committee of Ambassadors (representative each EU and ACP state)
   - assists and advises the Council of Ministers + monitors implementation + supervises and coordinates work of committees and subsidiary bodies
   - meets twice annually
3. joint Assembly = MEPs and ACP members of parliament or national representatives
   - meets twice annually
   - general advisory and deliberating body

Question 22

The external dimension of internal policies

Answer 22

many internal policy areas have external elements (e.g. transport policy involves dealing with neighbouring countries on road transit arrangements)

pre-Lisbon: EU no explicit treaty powers to act as external representative in such policy areas
ECJ established EU did have implied treaty powers
-> principle of parallelism: internal law-making powers in particular policy area means it also has power to negotiate and conclude international agreements in that area
Lisbon Treaty art.216 incorporated this principle

art. 218 TFEU: procedural arrangements EU contracts external agreements on internal policy issues

!complication: often mixed competences where policy responsibilities are shared between EU and MS (EU no exclusive right to negotiate external agreements on internal policies)

-> two ways how the EU is represented and conducts international negotiations in such policy areas:

1. exclusive EU competence (e.g. fishery) = Commission sole representative and negotiator
2. mixed competence (e.g. environmental policy) = Commission represents EU interest, if there is internal division, MS can act on behalf of their MS

complex distribution of competences -> hard cooperation in international forums and negotiations -> can weaken EU influence (should not be overstated)

Question 23

the consistency and representational problems

Answer 23

increasing multidimensional character EU external policies -> coordination has become increasingly necessary

external policy consistency can be difficult for the EU bc:

1. spread of EU external relations’ interests and activities
2. diversity of actors and processes that are involved
3. differing powers EU in diff policy contexts
4. diff powers of EU actors in diff spheres of external relations
5. conflicting orientations and preferences of MS on many policy issues
6. varying levels of EU policy dev.

-> intra- and inter-institutional meetings crucial to try and maximise consistency
+ High Representative also for this purpose

consistency problem closely related to EU’s external representational problem: who speaks for Europe? (Kissinger asks)

Question 24

concluding remarks

Answer 24

• EU can be thought of as a partially constructed international actor (it can function in relation to other actors)
• EU’s international standing and influence have weakened in recent years: less normative power, declining interest of other regions in creating a common currency, sideline position in problems as collapse Arab Spring, Syrian civil war and assertiveness Russia
• modesst influence foreign and defence policies, but major influence trade policy + signficiant influence dev. policy

central question: will EU become major plaer in the foreign and defence policy fields?

• still mostly intergov.
• CFSP has been ‘Brusselised’ (institutional system), but not ‘communitarised’ (no supranational drive, decisionmaking, enforcement etc.)
• requires political will to take advantage of the capacity (e.g. defence expenditure is not used to maximum effect, it is hard to get govs. to cooperate in such sensitive policy areas)
• ! not all will is missing (e.g. now: EU MS have increasingly accepted foreign and defence policy areas as proper/legitimate matters for the EU agenda)