Winds of Change: The Europeanization of National Foreign Policy

Maastricht European Studies Papers 2007/01 Bennet Strang
considering, firstly, “…competing centres of influence…” (Manners/ Whitman, 2000, p. 244)
in the European post-modern setting, which, secondly, are at the heart of and contribute to the
increasing blurring of the previously clear demarcation of what constitutes the ‘domestic’ and
the ‘foreign’ sphere 16 even in high politics, i.e. foreign policy 17 (Sjursen, 1999; Manners/
Whitman, 2000; Wong, 2005). Before elaborating upon the facets of the Europeanization of
foreign policy in-depth, an attempt to define this phenomenon has to be made first.
4.1 Defining ‘Europeanization of Foreign Policy’
“‘Europeanization’…can be a useful entry-point for greater understanding of important
changes occurring in our politics and society. The obligation of the researcher is to give it a
precise meaning” 18
Attributing a ‘precise meaning’ to Europeanization of foreign policy is, indeed, not such an
easy task as it appears to be at first sight, since there is no common definition (Smith, 2003).
It is pivotal not to equate the perception of the Europeanization of ‘less sensitive’ policy areas
with the degree and characteristics of the same phenomenon in the field (and special case) of
foreign policy. Thus, member states will not readily agree to a transfer of competences and,
thereby, sovereignty to Brussels in this prestigious domain (Sjursen, 2003), as they probably
would and have more easily done in low politics areas 19 , such as environmental policy.
Nonetheless, the features Europeanization processes of both low and high politics have in
common are incrementalism, the concern about domestic adaptation to EU decision-making,
norms and atmosphere 20 and “…the political and policy changes caused by the impact of
16 This is to say that due to the Europeanization process, European policy is nowadays increasingly
perceived of as being part of domestic policy, leading to a situation in which it “…is no longer
possible to make a clear distinction between European foreign and domestic policy…” (Manners/
Whitman, 2000, p. 44).
17 However, the Europeanization of foreign policy can at this point in the paper already be said to
represent a special case, as it is “…not just another public policy” (Torreblanca, 2001) area in which
Europeanization takes place. This view will further manifest itself in the course of the paper.
18 (Featherstone, 2003, p. 3)
19 Even in the field of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), which can be seen both as an
expression of concerted action in the sensitive foreign policy domain and “…a process of
‘Europeanisation’ of foreign policy…” (Sjursen, 2003, p. 15), member states still vigorously affirm
their central decision-making prerogatives by having subjected CFSP decision-making to
intergovernmental unanimity. Thus, the perception of Europeanization of foreign policy as being a
vertical and hierarchical top-down process embedded in a principal-agent structure (de Flers, 2005) is
considered by member states to be absolutely beyond the pale. This, in turn, does not neglect the
CFSP’s transformative impact on their foreign policies, which is limited as far as the socialization of
policy makers in a European sense is concerned, inter alia inhibiting “…the EU to act decisively”
(Manners/ Whitman, 2000, p. 80; Sjursen, 2003; de Flers, 2005)
20 One of the earliest definitions of Europeanization has been put forward by Ladrech, accounting for it
as “…‘a process reorienting the direction and shape of politics to the degree that EU political and
8