Winds of Change: The Europeanization of National Foreign Policy

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Maastricht European Studies Papers 2007/01 Bennet Strang forbidden to supranational influences (Sjursen, 2003). The associated state-centric school 10 , thus, favours the traditional realist and intergovernmental approach with states being sovereign key actors, putting a premium on self-interest and utility maximization (Wong, 2005). The European idealist school 11 , in contrast, also allows for non-state actors to play a role in foreign policy. Nonetheless, it does not fail to acknowledge that states’ foreign policies are important though, allegedly, being gradually replaced by a common European approach (ibid.). The theoretical assumptions of the state-centric school appear to be outdated, against the background of the incrementally developing European venue of foreign policy making. As “…studying foreign policy in an EU context has its particular intricacies” (Mahncke, 2004, p. 27), since multiple non-state actors are involved in a multilevel foreign policy game 12 (Sjursen, 2003), one “…must at least reflect on the possibility that the very fundament of national foreign policy is changing” (Sjursen, 1999; Biersteker, 2002). Understandably, European states have jealously tried to maintain full foreign policy autonomy (Smith, 2003), although they could not forestall that “‘…the conduct of foreign policy [has been moved] away from the old nation-state sovereignty model towards a collective endeavour, a form of high-level networking with transformationalist effects and even more potential’ [own emphasis]” 13 . The prospect of an increased foreign policy ‘potential’, i.e. greater impact, which derives from a concerted European position on foreign policy matters, is a key motivation to cooperate in this sensitive area in the first place 14 . 10 In accordance with this school, traditional foreign policy analysis is applicable and maintains that the member states remain the key actors (Manners/ Whitman, 2000). 11 To this school, transformational foreign policy analysis is attributable, which holds that the conduct of foreign policy gradually slips into the hands of supranational actors, who thereby increasingly play into this key sovereignty domain of the nation-state (Manners/ Whitman, 2000). 12 In this context, “…EU membership involves asking some difficult questions of foreign policy practices…” (Manners/ Whitman, 2000, p. 264), as for example the one about the influence of the European Commission on foreign policy-making under first pillar prerogatives, cross-pillar conflicts and delimitations of influence in external matters and eventual rival claims to external representation in Brussels by the German Länder. 13 (Hill quoted in Wong, 2005, p. 138) 14 This also relates to the motivation of small member states to amplify their voice by siding with bigger ones. Moreover, there is of course a certain conflict of interest observable, characterized on the one hand by the “…drive to act collectively on the world stage and the desire to retain national autonomy…” (Smith, 2003, p. 230), on the other. It seems appropriate to suggest that “…the Member States conduct all but the most limited foreign policies objectives inside an EU context” (Manners/ Whitman, 2000, p. 243). The “[t]he value of Political Cooperation to member governments has thus to be established and re-established as new issues and crises arise” (Wallace quoted in Hill, 1983, p. 8). 6
Maastricht European Studies Papers 2007/01 Bennet Strang 4. Foreign Policy goes Europe, or the other Way around? – The Europeanization of Foreign Policy By having highlighted the conceptual characteristics of both foreign policy and sovereignty, it has become apparent that both interlinked concepts have been subjected to and underwent substantial change. Furthermore, a basis has been provided from which one can further elaborate on the concept of Europeanization, how it is defined, its theoretical components, the advantages and disadvantages of its use and its limits. In the following section, the strands previously analyzed will, thus, be put together and both enriched and complemented with the introduction of this new concept. Moreover, the relationship between both Europeanization and globalization will be dealt with. Finally, an outlook of the impact of the former will round off the picture of theoretical elaborations substantiated with practical examples. However, before the repercussions of Europeanization on foreign policy can take center stage, on overview of the different connotations and usages of the concept has to be given first. Olsen (2003) enumerates five different dimensions in this respect. It is, thus firstly, used in reference to denote European enlargement, secondly, it is synonymous with the development of European governance institutions, thirdly, Europeanization is relied upon to characterize the worldwide export of “…European forms of political organization and governance…” (p. 334), fourthly, it can be seen as a political concept aiming at deepening European integration and, fifthly and finally, Europeanization can refer to the domestic impact of European institutions on EU member states. The term’s usage in these multiple contexts highlights that it lacks a stable definition, which, according to Olsen (2003), brings with it the question of whether the concept is useful at all. Moreover, a question which has to be asked at this point is whether foreign policy is immune to Europeanization, as member states supposedly guard this key domain of national sovereignty jealously (Wong, 2005). If this were the case, there would be no sense in studying the Europeanization of foreign policy 15 . However, i Fanés (2001) affirms that “…there is a case for studying the Europeanisation of foreign policy, despite the fact that this policy remains, by and large, at the national governments’ hands”, indeed. It, thus, becomes apparent that “…foreign policy is not a special case immune to Europeanization pressures… [emphasis in original]” (Wong, 2005, p. 137). As a consequence, the traditional modern state-centric image of regarding foreign policy (and sovereignty) as an impermeable and exclusive domain of nation-states proves to be outdated once more. This becomes even further apparent by 15 So far, “…relatively little research has been conducted on the Europeanization of national foreign policy…” (Osswald, 2005, p. 4; Smith, 2003). 7
Page 1 and 2: Maastricht European Studies Papers
Page 7: Maastricht European Studies Papers

Winds of Change: The Europeanization of National Foreign Policy

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?