ESDP/ CFSP

""The establishment of the European External Action Service (EEAS)
by the Lisbon Treaty was preceded by time-consuming negotiations about the composition, organization, budget and accountability of the service. In spite of the negative views among EEAS officials concerning the actual implementation of the reforms, they displayed a surprisingly positive attitude towards the new organization and identified strongly with it. This contribution aims to explain this empirical puzzle by drawing on two different approaches to attitude formation: one based on material calculations and another one on socio-psychological factors. It shows that a narrow understanding of rationality based on short-term career-related calculations cannot account for the support that the EEAS garnered among its ranks since a majority of officials reported a negative impact in terms of careers prospects. An explanation of positive attitudes towards the EEAS thus needs to take into account a broader conception of ‘career prospects’, including other indicators such as reputation and job satisfaction. Moreover, this contribution shows how a strong identification with the European Union (EU) and a desire to make EU foreign policy work might also explain why officials profess strong support for the EEAS.""

The establishment of the EEAS represents a significant organisational, institutional and – potentially – ideational upgrade of the EU’s external relations capabilities. Intended to provide the enhanced and augmented role of the High Representative with the resources of a genuine diplomatic service, the EEAS has brought together officials and experts from the Council Secretariat, Commission and across the Member States. However, for all its promise, the life of the EEAS has so far been troubled. The process of setting up such a complex organisation has been difficult, with both the Commission and some member states placing significant obstacles in its path. This paper examines how Britain and Germany in particular have approached the establishment of the EEAS and contributed to its subsequent development, drawing on data from official documents, parliamentary transcripts and interviews conducted in each state’s foreign ministry, as well as within the key institutions in Brussels, including the EEAS. It argues that while each has supported the idea of the EEAS in theory, they view it – and seek to engage with and utilise it – in different ways, reflecting their own historic attitudes to foreign policy cooperation within the EU. This in turn suggests that the EEAS has become a new arena for inter-state competition and rivalry. The paper concludes that far from resolving long-standing questions over how to achieve more coherent EU-level foreign policy, the establishment of the EEAS reveals that finding answers to these questions remains as challenging as ever.

This book represents the first ever comprehensive study of the EU’s foreign and security policy in Bosnia. Drawing on a wealth of fresh empirical material, it demonstrates that institutions are a key variable in explaining levels of common foreign security policy (CFSP) coherence and effectiveness over time. In doing so, it also sheds new light on the role that intergovernmental, bureaucratic and local political contestation have played in the formulation and implementation of a European foreign policy. The study concludes that the EU’s involvement in Bosnia has not only had a significant impact on this Balkan country in its path from stabilisation to integration, but has also transformed the EU, its foreign and security policy and shaped the development of the EU’s international identity along the way. The book will be of great interest to researchers and students of EU politics, International Relations and Bosnian politics.

In their transitions to democracy since 1989, the post-communist countries were haunted by a so-called “simultaneity dilemma.” They faced the exceptional challenge of simultaneously accomplishing enormous political, economic, social and cultural transformations. This led some scholars to refer to an “impossibility theorem” concerning the chances of success of such complex reforms. The early provision of an official offer to enter the European Union helped to alleviate the effects of the “simultaneity dilemma.” This led to surprisingly positive results of the reform efforts in East-Central Europe. Brussels should draw lessons from its success in the new EU member states, and also provide a long-term, conditional, explicit and official membership perspective to four of the six countries of its Eastern Partnership program, namely to Moldova, Georgia, Ukraine, and Armenia.

"In  the  ongoing  debate  on  the  euro  crisis,  the  strengthening  of  democracy  in  EU  affairs  is  often
presented as a precondition for securing the adopted solutions. This has led to discussions on the role
and  place  of  parliaments  in  the  EU’s  institutional  architecture.  While  still  in  gestation,  the  Inter-
parliamentary  Conference  for  the  Common  Foreign  and  Security  Policy  has  already  succeeded  in
dealing  with  democratic  constraints  in  this  area  of  EU  activity.  The  operating  procedures  of  this
structure,  laboriously  worked  out,  can  be  instructive  for  other  potential  forums  of  parliamentary
cooperation on the EU level. "