Winds of Change: The Europeanization of National Foreign Policy

Maastricht European Studies Papers 2007/01 Bennet Strang
Originally being only confined to supranational first pillar developments, nobody would have
imagined applying this ‘first pillar concept’ to the second, intergovernmental, pillar (Major/
Pomorska, 2005). Whereas one could also safely conceptualize the increasing
communitarization of policy areas in the process of European integration by means of the
neofunctionalist spillover idea, such thinking seemed to be likewise inconceivable with
regards to second pillar (‘spillover’) developments 26 .
Nonetheless, Mahncke (2004) makes the case for applying the spillover concept to
developments in the intergovernmental domain 27 . The exception, however, is that states are
not passively subjected to a ‘drive’ towards increasing integration in foreign policy issues
(ibid.). Thus, there is no automatism, which is in turn suggested by neofunctionalism 28 .
There is, however, a wasteful use of this fashionable term Europeanization has become
(Torreblanca, 2001), leading to a situation in which the concept in general is expected to
“…explain processes of cultural change, new identities formation, policy change,
administrative innovation, and even modernization” (Radaelli, 2000, p. 4). It has to be
inquired whether such a demand does not result in conceptual stretching, arbitrariness and
shallowness. Due to its intergovernmental character, the foreign policy domain in particular
has only seen a rare usage of the concept 29 (Featherstone, 2003).
Despite its initially less frequent usage, the very invocation of Europeanization in
relation with foreign policy “…has reflected the evolution of EU foreign policy coordination
itself” (Featherstone, 2003, p. 10). This evolution can be accounted for by the already outlined
neofunctionalist approach and both constructivist and realist theories, which will later be
addressed (Osswald, 2005). There is, in fact, a certain evolutionary process, a ‘Brusselisation’
of foreign policy 30 going on. Even “…states jealous of their foreign policy sovereignty have
not been immune to…” (Wong, 2005, p. 145) this development. Notwithstanding, it has to be
26
An example would be the development from European Political Cooperation (EPC) to the
increasingly assertive European Foreign Policy (EFP).
27
One should, nevertheless, acknowledge and keep in mind the pitfalls associated with this
application.
28
In matters of foreign policy cooperation, the member states have always chosen and “…choose
which aspects of their foreign policy they share, and which they retain” (Manners/ Whitman, 2000, p.
266), with the majority of foreign policy issues still being dealt with by them (Mahncke, 2004). As one
might even observe a re-nationalization of foreign policy in crises (cf. Iraq War) (Mackenstein/ Marsh,
2005), it becomes even more obvious that the “…EU is far from a single entity that dictates the actions
of its member states” (p. 248).
29
As another consequence, “…cases related to EU foreign policy have not figured high in the research
agenda of Europeanization” (Torreblanca, 2001; Osswald, 2005).
30
The impact of this ‘Brusselisation’ has uncovered that some Member States’ “…notions of
specialness and…domain[es] privé[s] are more fluid concepts than was initially thought…” (Manners/
Whitman, 2000, p. 268). This very fact points at the indirect strength of Europeanization in foreign
policy affairs.
10