Multilevel Networks in European Foreign Policy

Elke Krahmann

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN:
  9781138716087
• eBook ISBN:
  9781351769266
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Business General
• Index: Business

This title was first published in 2003. Combining a critique of existing multilevel approaches with the development of a new theory and a broad range of case studies, the author of this text aims to provide new insights into contemporary foreign policy decision-making which should be of particular interest to students and scholars of European foreign and security policy and international relations theory.

1 From National Foreign Policy to Multilevel Networks

Introduction

In the 1990s a growing consensus has emerged in the analysis of foreign policy decision-making according to which it has become necessary to move from single-level approaches in international relations and foreign policy analysis towards a theoretical integration of the domestic, transnational and international levels of analysis (Müller and Risse-Kappen, 1993: 47). The call for multilevel approaches originates from the observation that foreign policy decision-making in Europe and North America has become increasingly integrated since the Second World War. As a consequence, it has been suggested that governments are unable to unilaterally control their foreign or even domestic affairs, as presumed by single-level models of foreign policy decision-making. Conversely, foreign policy making appears to be influenced by a broad variety of public and private actors at the national, transnational and international levels of analysis.

Several analytical frameworks have been proposed which combine different levels of analysis. Specifically in Europe, where the trend towards a fusion of decision-making processes has been recognized in the context of the European Union (EU), multilevel approaches have become increasingly popular. However, many of these models apply only to the specific context of EU institutions. Indeed, some authors have argued that the integrated foreign policy making process among EU member states differs from transnational and international decision-making in other contexts and, therefore, requires a distinct theoretical approach (Hill and Wallace, 1996).

The aim of this book is to propose and demonstrate the utility of a multilevel theory of European foreign policy which goes beyond the analysis of the European Union. In particular, it seeks to illustrate that European foreign policy cannot be fully understood without consideration of Europe's relations with the United States and other international organizations engaged in Europe, such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE ) or the United Nations (UN).

In exploring how such a multilevel theory of contemporary European foreign policy might be conceived, this book argues that this approach should meet several criteria. First, the theory should be able to analyse the increasing number and diversity of foreign policy actors engaged in European foreign policy. In order to do so, it should integrate the national, transnational and international levels of analysis. Second, it should recognise that key European foreign policy decisions are not only made by national governments, but increasingly also by international organizations. The latter might usually be preceded by national decisions, but the relationship between national and international policies is more complex with multilateral negotiations influencing national decisions and vice versa. Third, a theory of Europan foreign policy making should move beyond the description of European politics towards the explanation of processes and outcomes. Specifically, it should offer testable hypotheses concerning the behaviour of actors across levels of analysis and their impact on national and international policies.

In the following this chapter will suggest that the British policy network approach (Rhodes, 1986) in particular offers a suitable basis for the development of a multilevel theory of European foreign policy. Not only has this network approach emerged from the analysis of the relations between a variety of public and private actors, it has also been successfully applied to the study of decision-making at the national, transnational and international levels (Marsh, 1998; Benington and Harvey, 1998; Gummett and Reppy, 1990). However, this book proposes several modifications to the British policy network approach. In particular, it suggests a new way of combining the structural analysis of policy networks with rational choice theory.

The utility of the proposed multilevel network theory is subsequently examined in three case studies. The first case study analyses national and international foreign policy decision-making within the context of the European Union. Specifically, it studies the reduction of German controls for goods with civil and military applications (dual-use) during the European negotiations for common dual-use export regulations between 1992 and 1995. The second case study examines how European foreign policies are influenced by its relations within the transatlantic community, such as with the United States of America (US) and NATO. Specifically, it analyses the British decision to support the United States' drive for air strikes to protect UN safe havens in Bosnia in spring 1993. The final case study investigates to what degree the making of national defence policy is increasingly affected by the integrated multilevel European foreign policy network. In particular, this study examines the British abolition of its tactical air-to-surface missile (TASM) programme in 1993. In the conclusion, this book draws together the findings from the three case studies in order to assess the proposed multilevel network theory and its ability to provide new insights into the making of contemporary European foreign policy.

What is European Foreign Policy?

Before one can examine how foreign policies are made in contemporary Europe, it is necessary to define what is meant by European foreign policy. Typically European foreign policy has been understood as 'the sum of what the EU and its member states do in international relations' (Hill, 1998; 18). However, as the above has contended, European foreign policy cannot easily be reduced to the EU. Not only are the policies of EU member states and those of the European Union influenced by the United States and vice versa, but also there are key European foreign policy decisions taken and implemented by a broad range of national and multinational institutions, including the United Nations and NATO. This book, therefore, employs a different definition of European foreign policy which pertains to the decisions and actions of core European states and their multilateral organizations which are primarily concerned with the welfare of the region. The number of these core European states is constantly expanding. However, they are most easily defined by the overlapping membership of the European Union and NATO.

In addition, the question arises: what is meant by foreign policy? If contemporary foreign policy making is influenced by public and private actors at various levels of analysis, traditional notions of foreign policy as high politics, i.e. decisions involving heads of state, foreign secretaries and foreign office staff, are not sufficient to define the concept. Not only do a variety of actors participate in the decision-making process, but also the authority over the affairs among states has been increasingly transferred to organizations beyond national governments. It is therefore helpful to distinguish between foreign affairs and foreign policy decisions. While foreign affairs can be defined as the political deliberations and actions of public and private actors across national boundaries, the term foreign policy will be reserved here to denote authoritative political choices of action or legislative regulation at the national and international level which are directed to some actual or potential sphere outside the jurisdiction of the state polity (Kingdon, 1984).

The focus of this book on foreign policy decision-making derives from both empirical and theoretical concerns. Empirically, the emphasis on public decision-making builds on the observation that governments continue to hold a unique position with regard to the legitimate control over transnational and international affairs. In so far as international organizations have replaced them in determining authoritative political choices, they have done so on the basis of national policies - or the lack thereof (Mann, 1993). Indeed, most international organizations continue to subject themselves to the authority of national governments by providing member states with a veto - a feature which will be examined in more detail in the following chapters. Theoretically, the normative implications of the question to what degree and how European foreign policies are determined by national or international actors, places governments at the centre of this study. The aim of this book is not only to provide a better understanding of multilevel foreign policy processes, but also to provide an answer to the question of who controls European foreign policy.

Foreign Policy Decision-Making in the 1990s

The consensus that foreign policy decision-making cannot be adequately grasped by single-level analysis builds on a broad range of studies observing changes in the nature of the political process over the past decades. These studies widely agree that contemporary foreign policy decision-making processes in Europe and, more broadly, in the transatlantic community are characterized by three features: the increasing multiplicity, diversity and interdependence of foreign policy actors. It is difficult to assess the degree to which these three aspects have changed over the past decades. Interdependence among industrialized nations has been observed since the late 1960s (Cooper, 1972; Wallace, Wallace and Webb, 1977). At the time academics argued that the ability of governments to control their relations with other states was being curtailed by the economic integration associated with the emergence of multinational corporations and the European Economic Community. However, most scholars concluded that national governments maintained their decision-making power in the area of foreign and defence policy (Frankel, 1963; Keohane and Nye, 1989).

Since then much has changed. In particular the 1990s have seen a progressive transformation of European foreign policy decision-making. One feature has been the deepening and acceleration of the development towards greater multiplicity, diversity and interdependence of foreign policy actors in Europe and North America. In addition to economic developments, the end of the Cold War has led to greater integration in foreign and security policy. Expectations that foreign policies would be re-nationalized in the absence of the constraints of bipolarity (Mearsheimer, 1990; Waltz, 1993) have been disconfirmed. Contrary to the argument that European integration and the closeness of transatlantic relations relied on the specific conditions of the superpower competition, the EU and NATO not only continue to exist, but are in fact expanding their functional and geographical scope. The following examines each aspect in turn to illustrate that the trend towards greater multiplicity, diversity and interdependence among foreign policy actors at various levels appears has strengthened rather than reversed over the past decade.

Multiplicity

The notion of multiplicity commonly refers to the observation that the number of actors which are able to influence the foreign policy process and its outcomes has steadily grown over the past 50 years. Traditionally foreign and security policy appeared to be a distinct area of decision-making which predominantly involved heads of state, foreign and defence ministers and their respective ministries. Where the necessity arose to regulate transnational and international dealings, they were channelled through these two ministries. Today most governmental agencies within Europe conduct their daily foreign affairs directly with their respective counterparts in other countries. In the area of security policy, they are complemented by close formal and informal relations with the US through the UN, NATO and the OSCE as well as a large number of bilateral contacts.

However, the dispersion of influence in international relations has not been limited to governmental departments. Private actors directly participate in foreign policy decision-making because of transnational business interests or international causes, such as the protection of the environment and human rights. Transnational mergers have created an increasing number of multinational corporations which by means of their internal structure engage in international relations. Even in the armaments sector, national industries are increasingly the exception (Walker and Willett, 1993). Morever, nongovernmental organizations have become regular actors in international relations. Valued as providers of information and services, as in the case of the International Red Cross, or feared as critics of governmental action, as in the case of Greenpeace or Amnesty International, non-governmental organizations have gained access to foreign policy making processes.

Furthermore, a range of international organizations has been created which function not only as fora for intergovernmental coordination but, due to their authority and staff, have often developed independent means and interests in international affairs. The density of these organizations in European foreign and security policy has increased steadily since the Second World War. It gained new impetus in the 1990s with the proliferation of international regimes and organizations in response to the perceived volatility generated by the end of the bipolar structure. Specifically, the North Atlantic Cooperation Council (NACC), its successor the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council. (EAPC) and the Partnership for Peace (PfP) were set up in order to establish security cooperation with Central and Eastern European states after the dissolution of the Warsaw Treaty Organization. Moreover, the functional and geographical scope of existing international organizations has been enlarged. NATO has been transformed from a collective defence organization into one of cooperative security. With or without the explicit mandate of the UN or the OSCE, the new NATO is able to conduct peacekeeping or peace-enforcing missions out-of-area, i.e. outside the territory of its member states. Moreover, at the 50^th Anniversary of NATO on 16 March 1999, three former Warsaw Pact members, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland, joined NATO. Further applications for accession have been submitted by Albania, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

Similar developments have characterized the European Union and its former defence arm, the Western European Union (WEU), where many former Warsaw Pact members accepted associated partnerships. Furthermore, shortly after the NATO decision, the WEU too offered its resources for UN and OSCE out-of-area missions. In addition, Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia and Slovenia as well as Cyprus, Malta and Turkey are seeking EU memberships. At the same time, the Conference for Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) has developed from a forum for security negotiations into a regional organization under the UN charter, the OSCE. Its new tasks include amongst others the legitimization and monitoring of peace missions in the Euro-Atlantic area.

Diversity

The above enumeration indicates the second feature of European foreign policy: the actors involved are highly diverse. They not only cross the public-private divide, but also levels of analysis. The actors which participate in contemporary foreign policy decision processes are located at the national, transnational and international arenas. Although it can be argued that diverse actors have been engaged in foreign affairs at all times, the nature of their involvement has changed. As a consequence of functional differentiation within and across national borders, a broad range of actors have become affected by, and able to influence, authoritative decision-making with regard to foreign relations.

In particular, the taking on of governmental functions by private actors has increased their ability to influence foreign policies, not only in the area of trade, but also national and international security. Since the latter has been, until recently, a preserve of national governments, it shows specifically the new degree to which actors in foreign policy making have diversified. In the conflict in the former Yugoslavia, for instance, private actors participated as arms suppliers or mercenaries on the side of the warring factions and in the form of numerous charities which delivered humanitarian support while safeguarded by NATO troops on the side of the international peacekeeping mission. With their increased involvement in foreign relations, these actors also have growing influence over the European foreign policy decision-making process.

A similar transfer of governmental functions to the international level has increased diversity of foreign policy actors among international organizations. Thus, the end of the Cold War has seen a proliferation of new institutions which has enhanced the role of existing actors in foreign policy decision-making and introduced new ones. The transformation of the Conference of Security and Cooperation in Europe into an organization with a secretariat and permanent staff is one case; PfP and NACC are other examples. Moreover, after a period of perceived stagnation, the Maastricht and Amsterdam Treaties have significantly enlarged the authority of the EU not only in economic and monetary policy, but also in foreign relations with the establishment of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) framework and, now, a European army.

The deepening of international institutions has been matched by a trend towards the widening of their memberships. Although the first candidates for EU accession have been Western European states, namely Austria, Finland and Sweden, many Central and Eastern European states have applied for accession. NATO has already accepted new members in Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary and is set to invite more countries at its summit in Prague in 2002. Increasing diversity of foreign policy actors, therefore, can be noted within and without international organizations. Most notably within Europe, the widening towards Eastern Europe, has led to greater differences among the member states, and thus, regular actors in European foreign policy making, in economic, political, social and military terms. Externally, the institutionalization of international relations has created new organizational actors.

Interdependence

The result of the functional differentiation between governmental departments, public and private actors and international organizations described above has been increasing interdependence among a variety of foreign policy actors in the 1990s. Actors within and across national boundaries depend to a larger degree on each other's resources for the fulfilment of their needs and functions. Moreover, foreign policy decision-making and implementation has come to rely on contributions from a large number of actors.

In the private sector, increasing interdependence has been the result of specialization in production on one hand and global marketing on the other. In the public sector, governments have increasingly been willing to accept the interdependence that comes with multinational economic and political collaboration as well as public-private partnerships. A particular example in the area of foreign policy making has been the growth of cooperation in armaments research and development, which has previously been identified with national sovereignty. Not only have national armaments industries lost their military rationale if national defence and international interventions depend on the cooperation of allies, but it has also become more difficult to defend high military spending politically and economically if it is less costly to buy weapons from allied countries or to collaborate in arms production. However, as governments sell national armaments industries to private actors, accept transnational mergers of procurement companies and favour international cooperation in the development and production of weapons, national defence policy becomes more vulnerable to transnational and domestic influence (Guay, 1998; Wulf, 1993).

In addition, transnational and international interdependence has increased as a result of the functional and regional enlargement of international organizations. In particular in the area of security policy, interdependence has reached new levels in recent years. One reason for this has been the progressive decline in national defence budgets. Since the end of the Cold War, popular demands for a peace dividend have further reduced national defence capabilities to the degree that large scale interventions and national defence rely on multilateral cooperation (Smith, 1993). International peacekeeping missions, such as in the former Yugoslavia or in Afghanistan, thus typically involve troops from more than ten countries.

Multilevel Approaches in Foreign Policy Analysis

As a consequence of the transformation of the foreign policy decision-making in Europe and North America, a number of theories have been developed which seek to analyse the growing interconnectedness among foreign policy actors at different levels. In particular, three approaches should be noted: transnationalism, the two-level game and network models. Each approach has ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Figures
• List of Tables
• Preface
• List of Abbreviations
• 1 From National Foreign Policy to Multilevel Networks
• 2 Multilevel Network Theory
• 3 European Union: The Dual-Use Control Agreement
• 4 Transatlantic Community: Air Strikes in Bosnia
• 5 United Kingdom: The Tactical Air-to-Surface Missile
• 6 Conclusion
• Appendix
• Bibliography
• Index