Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Introduction

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy in Germany and the UK

Part of the book series: New Perspectives in German Political Studies ((NPG))

  • 518 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter sets out the main theoretical arguments in the book. It examines how key components of constructivism have inspired a new supranationalist theoretical analysis that CFSP has been responsible for a profound transformation not just in how member states make foreign policy, but in the interests and preferences that underpin this. This book does not dispute that member states have had to adapt to the requirements and pressures of CFSP. However, it argues that new supranationalist theorising pays insufficient attention to the national level. Thus, change remains rooted in national-level institutions and processes that give states the capacity to ‘play the game’ and are crucial in enabling them to act strategically in their engagement with the CFSP.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The pillar system consisted of Community policy in Pillar 1, CFSP in Pillar 2 and Pillar 3 for co-operation in Justice and Home Affairs, which like CFSP was also intergovernmental.

  2. 2.

    Interview, Auswärtiges Amt, Berlin, 2012 (GO6).

  3. 3.

    This group includes Trade, Transport, International Cooperation and Development, European Neighbourhood Policy, Enlargement, Humanitarian Aid and Crisis Management, and Migration, Home Affairs and Citizenship.

  4. 4.

    Prior to 2009 and the entering into force of Lisbon, foreign affairs were dealt with by the General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC) which has now been split, although traditionally the two bodies meet on the same day, one after the other.

  5. 5.

    COREPER is itself divided into two: COREPER I which meets at Deputy Permanent Representative level and tends to focus on what pre-Lisbon would have been characterised as Pillar 1 Community policy; and CO REPER II which meets at Permanent Representative level and deals with foreign affairs, economics affairs, JH A, etc.

  6. 6.

    Official Journal of the European Communities (2001) Council Decision of 22 January 2001 setting up the Political and Security Committee—Annex (2001/78/CFSP), available at: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/l_02720010130en00010003.pdf.

  7. 7.

    Interview, German Permanent Representation, Brussels, 2017.

Bibliography

  • Allen, D. (1998) ‘“Who Speaks for Europe?”: The Search for an Effective and Coherent External Policy’. In Peterson, J. and Sjursen, H. (eds.) A Common Foreign Policy for Europe? Competing Visions of the CFSP (London: Routledge).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bátora, J. (2005) ‘Does the European Union Transform the Institution of Diplomacy?’. Journal of European Public Policy, 12(1), pp. 44–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beyers, J., and Dierickx, G. (1998) ‘The Working Groups of the Council of the European Union: Supranational or Intergovernmental Negotiations?’. Journal of Common Market Studies, 36(3), pp. 29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bulmer, S. and Lequesne, C. (2002) ‘New Perspectives on EU-Member State Relationships’. Questions de recherche/Research Questions, Centre d’études et de recherches internationales (CERI-Sciences Po/CNRS).

    Google Scholar 

  • Charillon, F. and Wong, R. (2011) ‘France—Europeanization by Default?’. In Wong, R. and Hill, C. (eds.) National and European Foreign Policies—Towards Europeanization? (London and New York: Routledge).

    Google Scholar 

  • Christiansen, T., Jorgensen, K.E. and Wiener, A. (1999) ‘The Social Construction of Europe’. Journal of European Public Policy, 6(4), pp. 528–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daehnhardt, P. (2011) ‘Germany in the European Union’. In Wong, R. and Hill, C. (eds.) National and European Foreign Policies—Towards Europeanization (London and New York: Routledge).

    Google Scholar 

  • Dagand, S. (2008) ‘The Impact of the Lisbon Treaty on CFSP and ESDP’. European Security Review, 37, pp. 5–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duchêne, F. (1973) ‘The European Community and the Uncertainties of Interdependence’. In Kohnstamm, M. and Hager, W. (eds.) A Nation Writ Large? Foreign Policy Problems before the European Community (London: Macmillan).

    Google Scholar 

  • Duke, S. (2005) ‘The Linchpin COPS: Assessing the Workings and Institutional Relations of the Political and Security Committee’. Working Paper 2005/W/05 (European Institute of Public Administration).

    Google Scholar 

  • Duke, S. and Vanhoonacker, S. (2006) ‘Administrative Governance in the CFSP: Development and Practice’. European Foreign Affairs Review, 11, pp. 163–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Egeberg, M. (1999) ‘Transcending Intergovernmentalism? Identity and Role Perceptions of National Officials in EU decision-making’. Journal of European Public Policy, 6(3), pp. 456–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galloway, D. (1999) ‘Common Foreign and Security Policy: Intergovernmentalism Donning the Mantle of the Community Method’. In Westlake, M. (ed.) The Council of the European Union, 2nd Edition (London: Cartermill).

    Google Scholar 

  • Glarbo, K. (1999) ‘Wide-awake Diplomacy: Reconstructing the Common Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union’. Journal of European Public Policy, 6(4), pp. 634–651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gostyńska-Jakubowska, A. and Odendahl, C. (2017) ‘A Flexible EU: A New Beginning or the Beginning of the End?’ CER Insight. Centre for European Reform, 18 May.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gross, E. (2009) The Europeanization of National Foreign Policy: Continuity and Change in European Crisis Management (Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes-Renshaw, F. and Wallace, H. (2006) The Council of Ministers (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Heisenberg, D. (2005) ‘The Institution of ‘Consensus’ in the European Union: Formal Versus Informal Decision-making in the Council’. European Journal of Political Research, 44(1), pp. 65–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, C. (1993) ‘The Capability-Expectations Gap, or Conceptualizing Europe’s International Role’. Journal of Common Market Studies, 31(3), pp. 305–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, C. (1998) ‘Closing the Capabilities-Expectations Gap?’. In Peterson, J. and Sjursen, H. (eds.) A Common Foreign Policy for Europe? Competing Visions of the CFSP (London: Routledge).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann, S. (1966) ‘Obstinate or Obsolete? The Fate of the Nation-state and the Case of Western Europe’. Daedalus, 95(3), pp. 862–915.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howorth, J. (2009) ‘The Case for a European Grand Strategy’. Europe: A Time for Strategy. Egmont Paper, No. 27, pp. 15–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howorth, J. (2014) Security and Defence Policy in the European Union, 2nd Edition (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hurd, D. (1981) ‘Political Co-operation’. International Affairs, 57(3), pp. 383–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hurd, D. (1994) ‘Developing the Common Foreign and Security Policy’. International Affairs, 70(3), pp. 421–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Juncos, A. and Pomorska, K. (2006) ‘Learning the Ropes and Embracing the Rules: CFSP Institutions as Arenas for Learning and Strategic Socialisation’. Working Paper No. 70, Observatori de Politica Exterior Europea, pp. 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Juncos, A. and Pomorska, K. (2008) ‘Does Size Matter? CFSP Committees after Enlargement’. Journal of European Integration, 30(4), pp. 493–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kagan, R. (2004) Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World Order (London: Atlantic Books).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kajnč, S. (2011) ‘Slovenia: Searching for a Foreign Policy Identity via the EU’. In Wong, R. and Hill, C. (eds.) National and European Foreign Policies—Towards Europeanization (London and New York: Routledge).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kassim, H. (2000a) ‘The United Kingdom’. In Kassim, H., Peters, B. and Wright V. (eds.) The National Co-ordination of EU Policy: The Domestic Level (Oxford: OUP).

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kassim, H. (2000b) ‘Conclusion: Confronting the Challenge’. In Kassim, H., Peters, B. and Wright, V. (eds.) The National Co-ordination of EU Policy: The Domestic Level (Oxford: OUP).

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kassim, H. and Menon, A. (2010) ‘“Bringing the Member States Back’. In The Supranational Orthodoxy, Member State Resurgence and the Decline of the European Commission Since the 1990s”. ECPR Fifth Pan-European Conference, 23–26 June, Porto, ECPR.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kassim, H. and Peters, B. (2001) ‘Conclusion: Co-ordinating National Action in Brussels—A Comparative Perspective’. In Kassim, H., Menon, A., Peters, B. and Wright, V. (eds.) The National Co-ordination of EU Policy: The European Level (Oxford: OUP).

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kassim, H., Peters, B. and Wright, V. (eds.) (2000) The National Co-ordination of EU Policy: The Domestic Level (Oxford: OUP).

    Google Scholar 

  • Katzenstein, P.J. (1996) The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics (New York: Columbia University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Keukeleire, S. and Delreux, T. (2014) The Foreign Policy of the European Union, 2nd Edition (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Keukeleire, S. and MacNaughtan, J. (2008) The Foreign Policy of the European Union (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, J. (1998) ‘Is the ‘Hard Bargaining’ Image of the Council Misleading? The Committee of Permanent Representatives’. Journal of Common Market Studies, 36(4), pp. 479–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, J. (2000) ‘The Methods of Community in EU Decision-making and Administrative Rivalry in the Council’s Infrastructure’. Journal of European Public Policy, 7(2), pp. 261–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, J. (2005) ‘The Janus Face of Brussels: Socialization and Everyday Decision Making in the European Union’. International Organization, 59(4), pp. 937–971.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, J. (2010) ‘Strategic Bargaining, Norms and Deliberation’. In Naurin, D. and Wallace, H. (eds.) Unveiling the Council of the European Union—Games Governments Play in Brussels (Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lieb, J. and Maurer, A. (2008) ‘Creating the European External Action Service’. SWP Comments (Berlin: Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik).

    Google Scholar 

  • Major, C. (2005) ‘Europeanisation and Foreign and Security Policy—Undermining or Rescuing the Nation State?’ Politics, 25(3), pp. 175–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menon, A. (2008) ‘Security Policy and the Logic of Leaderlessness’. In Hayward, J. (ed.) Leaderless Europe (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Menon, A. and Wright, V. (1998) ‘The Paradoxes of ‘Failure’: British EU Policy Making in Comparative Perspective’. Public Policy and Administration, 13(4), pp. 46–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moravcsik, A. (1993) ‘Preferences and Power in the European Community: A Liberal Intergovernmentalist Approach’. Journal of Common Market Studies, 31(4), pp. 473–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moravcsik, A. (1998) The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State Power from Messina to Maastricht (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller-Brandeck-Bocquet, G. (2002) ‘The New CFSP and ESDP Decision-Making System of the European Union’. European Foreign Affairs Review, 7(3), pp. 257–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naurin, D. and Wallace, H. (eds.) (2010) Unveiling the Council of the European Union: Games Governments Play in Brussels (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan).

    Google Scholar 

  • Nuttall, S. (1992) European Political Cooperation (Oxford: Clarendon Press).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nuttall, S. (2000) European Foreign Policy (Oxford: OUP).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, C. (2010) ‘Constructivism and Interpretive Theory’. In Marsh, D. and Stoker, G. (eds.) Theory and Methods in Political Science, 3rd Edition (Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan).

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters, B. and Pierre, J. (eds.) (2003) Handbook of Public Administration (London: SAGE Publications).

    Google Scholar 

  • Pierson, P. (1996) ‘The Path to European Integration: A Historical Institutionalist Analysis’. Comparative Political Studies, 29(2), pp. 123–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollack, M.A. (1996) ‘The New Institutionalism and EC Governance: The Promise and Limits of Institutional Analysis’. Governance, 9(4), pp. 429–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pomorska, K. (2011) ‘Poland: Learning to Play the Brussels Game’. In Wong, R. and Hill, C. (eds.) National and European Foreign Policies—Towards Europeanization (London and New York: Routledge).

    Google Scholar 

  • Pomorska, K. and Wright, N. (2013) ‘Europeanization and the Common Foreign and Security Policy’. In Bretherton, C. and Mannin, M. (eds.) The Europeanisation of European Politics (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan), pp. 151–163.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Quaglia, L., De Francesco, F. and Radaelli, C.M. (2008) ‘Committee Governance and Socialization in the European Union’. Journal of European Public Policy, 15(1), pp. 155–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radaelli, C. (2003) ‘The Europeanization of Public Policy’. In Featherstone, K. and Radaelli, C.M. (eds.) The Politics of Europeanization (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 27–56.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Radaelli, C.M. and Pasquier, R. (2007) ‘Conceptual Issues’. In Graziano, P. and Vink, M.P. (eds.) Europeanization: New Research Agendas (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan).

    Google Scholar 

  • Rieker, P. (2009) ‘The EU: A Capable Security Actor? Developing Administrative Capabilities’. Journal of European Integration, 31(6), pp. 703–719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Risse, T. (2004) ‘Social Constructivism and European Integration’. In Wiener, A. and Diez, T. (eds.) European Integration Theory (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruggie, J.G. (1995) ‘The False Premise of Realism’. International Security, 20(1), pp. 62–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruggie, J.G. (1997) ‘The Past as Prologue?: Interests, Identity, and American Foreign Policy’. International Security, 21(4), pp. 89–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruggie, J.G. (1998) Constructing the World Polity—Essays on International Institutionalization (London and New York: Routledge).

    Google Scholar 

  • Rupnik, J. (ed.) (2011) The Western Balkans and the EU: The Hour of Europe, Chaillot Papers 126, June (Paris: European Union Institute for Security Studies).

    Google Scholar 

  • Scharpf, F.W. (1988) ‘The Joint-Decision Trap: Lessons from German Federalism and European Integration’. Public Administration, 66(3), pp. 239–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Searle, J. (1995) The Construction of Social Reality (London: Allen Lane/The Penguin Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjursen, H. (2011) ‘Not so Intergovernmental After All? On Democracy and Integration in European Foreign and Security Policy’. Journal of European Public Policy, 18(8), pp. 1078–1095.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M.E. (2004) Europe’s Foreign and Security Policy: The Institutionalization of Cooperation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Spence, D. (1999) ‘The Co-ordination of European Policy by Member States’. In Westlake, M. (ed.) The Council of the European Union, 2nd Edition (London: Cartermill).

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone Sweet, A., Fligstein, N. and Sandholtz, W. (2001a) ‘The Institutionalization of European Space’. In Stone Sweet, A, Sandholtz, W. and Fligstein, N. (eds.) The Institutionalization of Europe (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Stone Sweet, A. and Sandholtz, W. (1997) ‘European Integration and Supranational Governance’. Journal of European Public Policy, 4(3), pp. 297–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone Sweet, A. and Sandholtz, W. (eds.) (1998) European Integration and Supranational Governance (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone Sweet, A., Sandholtz, W. and Fligstein, N. (eds.) (2001b) The Institutionalization of Europe (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Tojé, A. (2008a) ‘The Consensus–Expectations Gap: Explaining Europe’s Ineffective Foreign Policy’. Security Dialogues, 39(1), pp. 121–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tojé, A. (2008b) ‘The European Union as a Small Power, or Conceptualizing Europe’s Strategic Actorness’. Journal of European Integration, 30(2), pp. 199–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tonra, B. (2001) The Europeanisation of National Foreign Policy: Dutch, Danish and Irish Foreign Policy in the European Union (Aldershot: Ashgate).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, W. (1983) ‘Introduction: Cooperation and Convergence in European Foreign Policy’. In Hill, C. (ed.) National Foreign Policies and European Political Cooperation (London: George Allen & Unwin).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wendt, A. (1992) Social Theory and International Politics (New York: Cambridge University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wendt, A. (1994) ‘Collective Identity Formation and the International State’. American Political Science Review, 88(2), pp. 384–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wendt, A. (1999) Social Theory of International Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, R. (2005) ‘The Europeanization of Foreign Policy’. In Hill, C. and Smith, M. (eds.) International Relations and the European Union (Oxford: OUP).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wong, R. (2007) ‘Foreign Policy’. In Graziano, P. and Vink, M.P. (eds.) Europeanization: New Research Agendas (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wong, R. and Hill, C. (eds.) (2011) National and European Foreign Policies—Towards Europeanization (London and New York: Routledge).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, V. (1996) ‘The National Co-ordination of European Policy-Making: Negotiating the Quagmire’. In Richardson, J. (ed.) European Union: Power and Policy-Making (London: Routledge).

    Google Scholar 

  • Zürn, M. and Checkel, J.T. (2005) ‘Getting Socialized to Build Bridges: Constructivism and Rationalism, Europe and the Nation-State’. International Organization, 59(4), pp. 1045–1079.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Bibliography—Official Documents

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science, University College London, London, UK

    Nicholas Wright

Authors
  1. Nicholas Wright
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Wright, N. (2019). Introduction. In: The EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy in Germany and the UK. New Perspectives in German Political Studies. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93470-9_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation