1 EU Foreign Policy Integration
Why does European Union (EU) 1 member states and institutions’ engagement in integrated efforts in foreign and security policies follow different patterns? Under which conditions can the High Representative (HR) of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy 2 become a key figure in fostering integrated policies among EU member states and institutions? And is the current EU foreign and security policy’s institutional framework suitable to guarantee the effectiveness and the legitimacy of EU policies? These are the fundamental questions to which the study presented in this book is devoted. At a time when the international arena is shifting from a multilateral system, based on the existence of different blocs and groups of powers, to a multipolar one, putting the Western model of development itself under discussion (Laïdi 2014), the EU stands out as a unique international actor. In principle, such a unique actor has a wide range of instruments and resources to play a leading role in this transition. Nonetheless, in recent years, the EU has been witnessing a series of crises that have put its existence into question, for the first time in its long history (Lefkofridi and Schmitter 2014). Against the backdrop of these centrifugal processes, disintegration—epitomized by BREXIT (Chopin and Lequesne 2016)—is now a chief concern for the EU, as well as a central topic in most recent academic debates (see Jones 2018; Oliver 2017; Rosamond 2016).
EU foreign and security policy is only one of the policy sectors where multiple crises broke out after the coming into force of the Lisbon Treaty (December 2009, LT). These past years, the EU has also engaged with the euro crisis and with a dramatic inflow of migrants and refugees, reaching its apex in 2015 (Connor 2016), with a record of tensions regarding its ineffective—or late—response on both fronts (Fabbrini 2015). Nevertheless, EU foreign policy deserves special analysis. Not only because a series of political and military conflicts arisen at the EU borders is generating pressure to formulate more efficient foreign and security policies, but also because the innovations of the EU foreign policy-making construction, including the reshaping of the HR’s post, were considered strategic features of the 2009 legal text (Piris 2012). Thanks to this restructuring the EU should have finally achieved a more united and powerful voice in the world, and a more effective apparatus for supporting it (Fabbrini 2014). Yet, it is a widespread opinion that the results of the post-Lisbon EU foreign and security policy have so far been poor. Furthermore, foreign and security policy is directly related to many dimensions of the existential crisis (Menéndez 2013) the EU is currently experiencing and that are “putting European integration at risk” (Fabbrini 2016, p. 13). In this respect, one has only to think of the dramatic growth, between 2014 and 2017, of applications for asylum from areas in the EU neighbourhood where recent crises have occurred, namely from Ukraine (Connor 2016) as well as from Libya and Syria (Eurostat 2016, 2017; Frontex 2017).
Through a broad conceptualization of EU foreign and security policy including both the supranational and the intergovernmental aspects of this policy area, this book intends to offer an analysis of how different patterns of integrated modes of governance have developed and consolidated in two potentially highly divisive foreign policy cases in the post-Lisbon era, namely Kosovo and Ukraine. This is done with specific attention to the role of the HR. In light of the track record of the past and considering the increase in quantity and complexity of the challenges ahead posed by international and transnational threats, there is a strong functional argument for rationalizing and improving enhanced cooperation among EU member states and institutions in foreign and security policy (see Tocci 2016). At the same time, given that “cooperation over security matters” is generally considered to be “more problematic” than in other areas of EU activity (Menon 2010, p. 85) developing theoretical discussions on the integration of foreign policy conceptualized in a broad manner could increase not only our comprehension of the integration of core state powers (Genschel and Jachtenfuchs 2014), but of the entire European integration process (Menon 2012).
2 Contribution to the Literature
Even though the EU seems to be less and less able to respond to a variety of external challenges, EU foreign and security policy has been largely neglected as a field of study (Menon 2012). Against this backdrop, the book develops an original model for the study of the nature and development of EU foreign and security policy by means of a strategic choice approach. By doing so, it offers a rigorous empirical assessment of the post-Lisbon institutional dynamics and of their effects on the governance of EU foreign and security policy on Kosovo and on Ukraine with specific attention to the role of the HR. Therefore, its contribution is particularly valuable for the scholarly literature on EU foreign and security policy, on EU external relations, on international relations more in general, and on EU integration and politics. Hence, the volume connects the traditional literature on foreign policy and on EU integration to its most recent developments. At the same time, the book contributes to the empirical understanding of two EU policies that have recently been at the centre of the debate among scholars, policy analysts and practitioners, namely the EU enlargement towards the Western Balkans and the EU Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) and Eastern Partnership (EaP).
The book is innovative for the most recent scholarly literature on EU institutions and on the governance in foreign and security policy. In contrast to Dijkstra (2013), who only focuses on EU Commission bureaucracies and on institutional developments in common security and defence policy (CSDP), this study conveys a comprehensive understanding of delegation decisions to EU foreign and security policy broadly defined. Concerning the HR, the book complements the volume edited by Müller-Brandeck-Bocquet and Rüger (2011), which was published only one year after the beginning of Catherine Ashton’s tenure and contains mostly speculative assumptions over the HR under the LT. Rather than examining the impact of the HR and of the European External Action Service (EEAS) on the lack of continuity, of coherence and of leadership in EU foreign and security policy as Smith et al. (2015) do, the focus of this volume is more specific, and lays on the influence of the HR on integrated modes of governance in this policy field. Finally, by taking into consideration and examining the mandates of two different post-holders within two policy frameworks through a comparative approach, this book casts light over the HR’s role by means of an analysis, underpinned by more external validity than the one offered in the volume edited by Wilga and Karolewski (2014).
Concerning studies on foreign and security policy, this volume would also complement the following most recent scholarly contributions. Unlike Dragneva-Lewers and Wolczuk’s study on Ukraine’s relationship with the EU and Russia (2015), this book proposes an examination of the institutional functioning of EU foreign and security policy towards Ukraine. With an analysis of the HR’s role in leading EU foreign and security policy on Kosovo, it offers a more specific and in-depth study than Keil and Arkan’s (2015) broad overview of the EU enlargement’s impact on fragile Western Balkan states. Instead of concentrating on the compliance patters of Western Balkan governments to EU demands as Noucheva (2012) does, this volume also examines whether and to which extent the HR and the EEAS have been able to exploit such compliance by linking Serbia’s accession perspective into the EU to the normalization of Belgrade’s relationship with Pristina. Finally, this book acknowledges the relevance of the concept of “shared neighbourhood” put forth by Simão and Piet (2016) and adopts it to assesses whether and under which conditions the behaviour of third actors can serve as a causal factor and provide functional pressure on EU member states and institutions’ preferences.
As for the broader literature on EU integration and politics, the study joins the effort recently undertaken by a number of scholars to theorize and analyse the engagement of EU member states and institutions to integrated practices in foreign and security policy. The proponents of the recent strand of literature dubbed as the new intergovernmentalist approach (Bickerton et al. 2014, 2015b; Puetter 2014) claim that under certain circumstances deeper integration can be achieved in key areas of EU activity without greater supranationalization (Dehousse 2011). These key areas generally correspond to traditional core state powers (Genschel and Jachtenfuchs 2014) and inevitably include foreign and security policy. Studies conducted through the lenses of these theories have resulted in contradictory results concerning the explanatory var...