chapter 22 - external policies Flashcards
4 main aspects to EU’s external relations
- trade
- foreign security and defense
- development
- external dimension of internal policies
Trade
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)
Trade and trade-dominated agreements
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
trade - policy processes areas of tensions
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:
- power balance Council and Commission
- different national interests and preferences -> difficulties in Council
- disputes between Commissioners and between DGs in the Commission about where responsibilities lie
- EP uses Lisbon-given powers to the max
- 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)
how does decision-making for cooperation and association agreements differ from trade agreements?
- unanimity in the Council is more common
- more policy areas are involved (bc cooperation and association agreements have broader coverage)
- more room for cross-policy ‘trading’ between EU actors
(bc cooperation and association agreements have broader coverage)
‘standard procedure’ for contracting an external trade agreement
art. 207 TFEU
Foreign and Defence Policies - resources and problems with their usage
!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
- not a state: no national territory, unclear political eco., social and cultural interests
- many MS reluctant to lose control (national influence, sov., identity)
- some MS have special relationships with certain areas in the world + wish to maintain these
- almost all decisions must be taken by Council consensus
- defence policy: difff national perspectives on if a distinctive/comprehensive European defence orientation and capacity is desirable
evolution EU’s foreign and defence policies - foreign policy
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?
- 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 - German reunification -> pressure to have EU foreign policy framework with firmly attached Germany
- EU’s inadequate response to post-91 breakup Yugoslavia and subsequent hostilities in the Balkans
- 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)
- 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)
evolution EU’s foreign and defence policies - defence policy
= 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.,
three types/levels of policy
- 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 - 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 - 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)
Defence policy aims
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
ENP
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:
- Union for the Mediterranean (2008)
- 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
policy instruments foreign policy
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
obstacles to the EU dev. fully fledged security and defence policy capability
- MS reluctant to overdevelop security and defence policies (bc ideological, historical reasons)
- sovereignty concerns
- MS divided in terms of ends and means (e.g. some supported US-led invasion Iraq, others opposed it)
- some MS don’t want to take EU security and defence policy to far given other defence options available for them (NATO, OSCE)
- without significant increase expenditure on security and defence, EU will continue to be heavily reliant on NATO/the USA
Policy processes CFSP/CSDP
- in general
distinctive features:
- are separately provided for in the treaties
-> role Commission not as strong as in other areas - are intergovernmentally based
- rest on extensive inter-state consultations
- have their own institutions
- High Representative, European External Action Service EEAS)