Introduction
Contemporary bilateralism is a ‘dyadic relationship’ (Renard, 2015) and, as a research subject, requires methodological openness and analytical vigilance. The point of departure for this chapter is the assumption that, as the current shape of European integration does not leave much space for EU member states to operationalise their relations with one another without any reference to the EU institutional and normative framework, the concept of Europeanisation may serve as a valuable tool in researching the bilateralism within the European Union.
The European studies literature elaborates widely on the vertical processes of mutual exchanges and influences between the EU member states and the ‘Brussels centre’ (EU institutions) (Alecu de Flers & Müller, 2012; Ladrech, 2010; Moumoutzis, 2011; Moumoutzis & Zartaloudis, 2016; Pomorska, 2011; Radaelli, 2004; Saurugger & Radaelli, 2008; Smith, 2000, 2004). However, those bidirectional processes, termed ‘downloading’ and ‘uploading’ Europeanisation, do not fully capture and explain the complexity and dynamics of the EU’s governance system. Horizontal interactions between member states, which might be particularly relevant for studying bilateralism in the multilateral context, are somewhat overlooked. Very few authors have discussed this additional dimension of Europeanisation, first termed by Howell as ‘cross-loading’ (Howell, 2004: 48–49; see also Major, 2005: 181–182; Aggestam & Bicchi, 2019: 1–2).
The epistemological exploration of cross-loading Europeanisation can be somewhat complementary to academic debates on how to study bilateralism between the EU member states (My, Verchere & Bertrand, 2009; Krotz & Schild 2012, 2018; Uilenreef, 2016), as it indicates the significance of the European level with more precision. Cross-loading Europeanisation is defined in this chapter as an ‘ongoing interactive and mutually constitutive process of change linking national and European levels’ (Major, 2005: 177). It may involve the transfer of solutions and best practices between EU member states, which may occur with or without the direct involvement of supranational EU institutions.
Hence, the chapter aims to introduce horizontal Europeanisation as a tool for analysing bilateral relations between the EU member states. However, at a time of consecutive crises (financial, economic, social and migration, and now the pandemic), shrinking resources, stronger competition, rising Euroscepticism and political elites’ increasing reluctance towards further integration (Hadeed & Sus, 2020), power-based relations1 seem to prevail over communitarian coexistence as nation states once again assert their dominant position. These new developments have changed the framework for inter-system relations in favour of horizontal interaction at the expense of the supranational vertical Europeanisation process. Although states are not and have never been the only international actors, they are the key – primary – players of the system (Waltz, 1979: 93).
Having this in mind, bilateralism within the EU will be examined here through the lens of neorealist theory. Its conceptual framework reflects today’s reality, as realist terminology is once again relevant (Joseph & Wight, 2010; Skordas, 2018; Herbut & Kunert-Milcarz, 2017). When analysing relations between international actors, apart from categories such as ‘interest’ and ‘power’, realists emphasise the epistemological category of ‘interdependence’ (Waltz, 1979) or its variation, ‘dependence’, which results from a sharp asymmetry in states’ capabilities.
Europeanisation and interdependence are proposed in this chapter as explanatory independent variables to be utilised for the study of bilateralism in the context of European integration.
The chapter consists of two parts. In the first, a recapitulation and further conceptualisation of Europeanisation is offered. Since the goal is to contribute to the theoretical discussion on how to examine bilateral relations between EU member states, particular attention is paid to the horizontal cross-loading processes. The second part reflects on the importance of interdependence. Although it is a causal factor that might affect any relations between states, this chapter focuses on how it is shaped specifically by European integration.
Multidimensional Europeanisation: a tool to study bilateralism within the EU
If the cross-loading dimension of Europeanisation is to be used as a tool for studying bilateral relations, it is necessary to begin with a reflection on the nature of the European Union’s governance system as a component of a larger international system and the framework for bi- and multilateral relations among member states (Hill & Smith, 2011: 470). As European integration develops, policy-making processes in the EU evolve in a complex scheme of multi-level governance in which states interact with each other and with EU institutions in multiple forums and in a variety of ways (Bátora & Hocking, 2009: 167).The institutionalisation of cooperation at the EU level has facilitated the creation of a distinct system (Olsen, 2002: 929). A culture that sought consensus has facilitated the reaching of agreements and has constantly reproduced the system’s structures. These, in turn, have taken the form of formalised and non-formalised interactions between EU member states (Marciacq, 2012), whose number has increased significantly over time. The EU’s enlargement process has been changing the system’s structure, reshaping the constellation of alliances and ad hoc coalitions in the EU.
The system’s stability and efficiency depend on its legitimisation by its constitutive elements (member states), as manifested both in joint actions (also bilateral) and in bilateral cooperation between the member states, aiming to deepen the integration (e.g. Franco-German partnership). Conversely, contestation of the system’s norms and/or disengagement from its core activities lead to its partial or full incoherence, and possibly even deconstruction. The more countries question the norms and rules, the greater the impact of such opposition. The realisation of each alternative tremendously influences the course and dynamic of bilateralism within the EU. Whereas most examples from the history of European integration can be described as in-between options, Brexit and some member states’ positions towards recent challenges (the migration crisis and the pandemic) prove that even the extreme scenarios are entirely possible.
Even though the process of integration within the EU is very advanced, the organisation of the system’s internal structure is still very different from the hierarchical state order. In the early 1990s Waltz wrote that ‘the EC has moved so far towards unity that it cannot pull back, at least not very far … but it … has moved so far towards unity that it can go no further’ (Waltz, 1993). It seems that his assertion is even more appropriate today than at the time it was formulated. As for European integration, the easier steps were taken first, the more difficult ones took more time and the most difficult ones, related to the ceding of national sovereignty, have been left for a convenient moment – which, so far, has failed to come. Although previous crises may have spurred cooperation, the most recent disagreements among states have led to an increase in resistance to further integration.
From the structural realist’s perspective, the EU is an emanation of its member states’ will. Its structural-formative power depends on what states intend, and it is, above all, a tool used by national governments to pursue their national interests.
In the light of the above explanation, the European Union is not an actor per se. Hence, in this chapter it serves as a framework for interstate interactions rather than as an independent entity. Its governance system comprises shared norms, commonly recognised standards of behaviours and institutionalised ways of doing things, and is empowered by shared beliefs, visions and – most importantly – interests. This basic assumption shifts our attention to the ongoing debate on the nature, mechanisms and instruments of the processes occurring within the EU. This is why the next section seeks to reflect on the academic discourse around the ‘Europeanisation’ concept.
Europeanisation is both an observable process and a theoretical concept taking into account the dynamics and multidimensional nature of the phenomena to be examined. Literature on Europeanisation recognises four dimensions to the process: bottom-up (uploading); top-down (downloading); ad extra (beyond Europe); and cross-loading (between the states) (e.g. Ladrech, 2010; Radaelli, 2004; Smith, 2004).
The circular processes of Europeanisation occur in several dimensions simultaneously. The ad extra dimension corresponds to states’ activity at the global level, and downloading, uploading and – most importantly in the context of this chapter – the cross-loading dimensions refer to the processes and relations appearing within the EU.
Downloading and uploading – the vertical dimensions extensively discussed in academic literature (Featherstone & Radaelli, 2003; Howell, 2004; Major, 2005; Vink & Graziano, 2007) – involve primarily member states’ relations with EU institutions. Governments’ successful projection of national interests at the supranational level is accompanied by the establishment of increasingly advanced governance mechanisms. Naturally, this has consequences for the way bilateral relations between member states are shaped (Hill & Smith, 2011: 270–271). Reflecting the advanced stage of European integration, member states’ bilateral relations have lost some of their foreign policy nature and have, instead, become somewhat internalised. Member states’ public policies (in economics, environmental and energy policy, and also in foreign policy) have gained an important EU dimension. This is so because certain areas of bilateral relations within the EU are now regulated at the supranational level, which in turn reinforces the horizontal policy coordination across national governments. In areas where there are no relevant EU regulations, relations between member states are managed either through multilateral intergovernmental agreements or through bilateral agreements. However, these must not contradict any provisions of the acquis communautaire.
EU membership is conducive to the intensification and systematisation of contacts between member states, both logistically/organisationally and in terms of the socialisation process. Regular meetings of national representatives, particularly in the EU Council and the European Council, create a specific organisational culture characterised by a consensual, pluralistic and collective approach to decision-making. The contacts between the EU member states embedded in the EU’s system of governance may take on a bilateral or multilateral variant. Consequently, the impact and relevance of European integration for bilateralism is strengthened through continuous, intense communication and the exchange of perspectives and information, which takes place on a daily basis in the Permanent Representatives Committee, the Political and Security Committee and numerous other working groups within the EU Council (Bátora & Hocking, 2009).
Working within the EU framework, national representatives can form coalitions not only among themselves but also with certain institutions – such as, for instance, if they want to justify and legitimise their actions in the eyes of other countries, or even their own societies. By acting together, member states try to strengthen their positions vis-à-vis other actors (both states and supranational EU institutions). Thus, the varied (in terms of both form and content) dynamics of the EU system affect member states’ policies and, consequently, bilateral relations between them.
The above observation is the first step to taking a closer look at cross-loading – a horizontal policy transfer between the European Union’s member states. Although Howell suggests that cross-loading Europeanisation did not necessarily involve the European level directly and could be limited to ‘learning from and taking on other member state policies without EU involvement’ (2004: 48), it almost always entails at least some indirect influence on the part of the Union. This happens when member states use the EU’s legal and institutional framework in order to shape relations between themselves. To illustrate the situation, one may recall the provisions of the European treaties, stating that the EU Court of Justice shall have jurisdiction in any dispute between member states (Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, 2009: article 273). Alternatively, member states interacting with each other may jointly shape the structure of the EU system of governance, so that it reflects their national preferences and interests as much as possible. This happens regardless of the coalition-building practice on the occasion of negotiating the Multiannual Financial Framework.
What is more, bilateralism within the EU may stimulate or slow down the integration process. Bilateral interactions certainly have an impact on negotiations at the multilateral EU level (Pannier, 2020: 28). At the same time, the supranational agenda (such as the negotiations of budgetary issues, which put both EU institutions and member states in an intense, vertical interaction) strengthens and intensifies the ‘bilateral ties outside the formal negotiation going on in the Council in Brussels’ (Uilenreef, 2016: 440), as governments seek to coordinate their positions. Moreover, as Uilenreef highlights, information incentives received through bilateral contacts have had a crucial impact on the preferences and behaviours of member states at the EU level (Uilenreef, 2016: 441). In return, the EU’s system of governance, with its structural and operational complexity, directly or indirectly impacts the member states’ relations that occur in bilateral form.
Depending on the nature and character of bilateralism, its course and nature may lead to fairly different results. On the one hand, well-established and constructive bilateral relations embedded into larger multilateral structures result from the stabilisation of the system. Its internal coherence, in turn, enables the implementation of joint projects and tasks. It can be said that the relative stability (safety) and prosperity (welfare) of the EU favours grouping consolidation. In times of prosperity, cooperation is easier and the will to contribute to joint undertakings is greater. On the other hand, conflictual bilateral relations (between at least two major players) may block multilateral cooperation as such. Furthermore, the differing approaches to international challenges may aggravate the crisis in bilateral relations among member states and, consequently, negatively affect the prospects for developing EU policies. For instance, Berlin and Warsaw have had very different ideas on how to respond to the challenge Donald Trump’s presidency poses to Europe, the impact and course of European defence integration and arms control policies (Buras & Janning, 2018).
In the EU, the lack of unanimity in some policy areas tends to paralyse the decision-making process, or can effectively slow it down, thus preventing the achievement of goals that some states consider beneficial but others see as undesirable. One might recall two recent examples: the French-led veto on accession talks with Albania and North Macedonia in 2019 (Nielsen, 2019) and Poland’s veto (supported by Hungary, Estonia and the Czech Republic) on the European Commission’s proposal for a 2050 net zero carbon emission target (Keating, 2019). In both cases, bilateralism strongly affected states’ orientation at the EU fora. However, as Aggestam and Bicchi (2019: 2) argue, a ‘horizontal and informal pattern of cross-loading, which can acc...
