Winds of Change: The Europeanization of National Foreign Policy

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Maastricht European Studies Papers 2007/01 Bennet Strang states in foreign affairs. This might finally lead to the de-coupling of the concepts of state and sovereignty (ibid.). Likewise, as the traditional meaning of what a ‘state’ constitutes is increasingly being challenged in the process of European integration, so is the traditional notion of state-centric sovereignty. Nonetheless, an eventual change in the meaning of the latter does not necessarily amount to the generalizing equation ‘Europeanization of foreign policy=loss of sovereignty’ (ibid.). What it gives rise to, however, is the valid question of whether one can continue to apply and stick to the modern Westphalian conception of sovereignty, considering the contemporary foreign policy making style, which is increasingly rooted in inter-state cooperation and embedded in a European framework (ibid.). Moreover, it has to be asked whether we are currently witnessing a shift to a post-Westphalian notion of sovereignty, of which the increasingly Europeanized and post-modern conduct of foreign policy might be indicative. In order to prepare the basis for answering this question, light will be shed on the nature of the concept of foreign policy in the following section. 3. At the Heart of Sovereignty – Foreign Policy The purpose of a nation’s foreign policy should be power, strength and influence in furtherance of its interests and beliefs. That purpose never changes. But the context in which it is pursued does. 6 Indeed, the context has changed, as outlined with regard to the supposed transformations of the sovereignty concept. Before focusing on the changed environment in which foreign policy is contemporarily conducted, the very concept must be addressed first. The reader will notice that the concepts of sovereignty and foreign policy are both intimately intertwined and complementary. However, what is ‘foreign policy’? There is no fast answer to this question, as there are multiple definitions, giving rise to a certain conceptual ambiguity (Carlsnaes, 2002). Choosing a definition, however, is “…crucial in circumscribing the field of investigation” (Manners/ Whitman, 2000, p. 2). On the one hand, it must be narrow enough in order to be workable, while it should also not be too narrow on the other hand (ibid.). In its simplest form, foreign policy refers to the external activities and relations of a sovereign state with other states in pursuance of its objectives in the international community (Manners/ Whitman, 2000; Mahncke, 2004; Bátora, 2005). Opting for a more sophisticated definition of the concept, one could say that 6 (Blair quoted in Haugevik, 2005, p. 7) 4
Maastricht European Studies Papers 2007/01 Bennet Strang “foreign policies consist of those actions which, expressed in the form of explicitly stated goals, commitments and/or directives, and pursued by governmental representatives acting on behalf of their sovereign communities, are directed toward objectives, conditions and actors- both governmental and non-governmental – which they want to affect and which lie beyond their territorial legitimacy [own emphasis]” 7 The mentioning of ‘sovereign communities’ in one stroke of breath with foreign policy points to the intimate linkage between both concepts, over which one will come across more often in this paper. Additionally, reference to a community reveals another aspect of foreign policy, which is related to the notion of identity each of the former has (Aggestam, 1999). Foreign policy, accordingly, “…plays a significant role in the socio-political imagination of a collective identity” (ibid.; Torreblanca, 2001). Put differently by applying Rousseau’s volonté générale concept, foreign policy can be seen as the expression of the sovereign people’s will. This reading even more emphasizes its status as the key sovereignty domain of nation-states (Hill, 2003). In the course of ‘expressing’ the popular will, policy-makers draw on the so- called politics of identity in order to “…mobilise a sense of cohesion and solidarity to legitimate the general thrust of foreign policy” (Aggestam, 1999). Following this line of thought, the so-called concept of national responsibility, which holds that statesmen are exclusively responsible for the well-being of their people 8 , would be applicable here (Jackson/ Sørensen, 2003). The definition, furthermore, contains a state-centred bias, which is typical for modern Westphalian conceptualizations of foreign policy. However, it is problematic if one wants to account for the increasingly consensual and cross-national style of contemporary post-modern foreign policy-making (Wong, 2005). According to this reasoning, the exercise of foreign policy is considered to be “…the domaine réservé of sovereign governments and therefore exclusive to states” (p. 140) 9 . This implies that foreign policy is an impermeable realm, 7 (Carlsnaes, 2002, p. 335). Additionally, one could conceptualize foreign policy as being made up of “…‘ideas or actions designed by policy makers to solve a problem or promote some change in the policies, attitudes, or actions of another state or states, in nonstate actors, in the international economy, or in the physical environment of the world’” (Wong, 2005, p. 140). The main instrument of foreign is diplomacy, which in turn can be characterized as “‘the process of dialogue and negotiation by which states in a system conduct their relations and pursue their purposes by means short of war’” (Watson quoted in Bátora, 2005, p. 46). 8 In order to live up to this (realist) obligation, statesmen are expected to have nothing else in mind but national self-interest, the protection of national security and, finally, the defence and advancement of their own people’s benefit, all of which they are morally obliged to (Jackson/ Sørensen, 2003). 9 One has to be aware of the existence of so-called national ‘ring-fenced’ domains, which states do not want to see touched upon or affected by the characteristics of Europeanization (Manners/ Whitman, 2000). 5
Page 1 and 2: Maastricht European Studies Papers
Page 5: Maastricht European Studies Papers

Winds of Change: The Europeanization of National Foreign Policy

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?