The Role of the European External Action Service in the External Dimension of the Area of Freedom Security and Justice

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mauro Gatti
2011 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 453-480 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Thym

European Union – Common Foreign and Security Policy – Changes with the abolition of the pillar structure by the Lisbon Treaty – Common Security and Defence Policy – Executive order of the EU – Between supranationalism and intergovernmentalism – The role of the High Representative – Joint political leadership – The European External Action Service as an administrative infrastructure – Constitutionalisation of foreign affairs


2009 ◽  
pp. 37-46
Author(s):  
Giuliana Laschi

- The EEC doesn't have a proper foreign policy, so the international dimension of the Community has grown on a sui generis foreign policy, in which doesn't always coexist community and national interests. Given the intergovernmental nature of the external issues of the EEC, on international policy of the Community has been relevant the member states and their individual action in foreign policy. The international role of the EEC was not produced by overall political choices, but rather from external action of internal policies. Action that often produces and has produced incoherent results between the European policies of agriculture, trade and development cooperation, which are often in conflict with each other and thus threaten to undermine their potential positive effects. The policies analysed in historical perspective are able to outline not only the inside action of the Community as expression of the composition of national positions, but also the international aims of the EEC, even in the absence of a proper foreign policy.Parole chiave: Politiche della CEE, Studi storici sulla CEE, Politica agricola comune, Politica estera della CEE, Cooperazione allo sviluppo della CEE, Politiche incoerenti EEC Policies, EEC Historical Perspective, Common Agricultural Policy, EEC Foreign Policy, EEC Development Policy, EEC Incoherent Policies


Author(s):  
Jan Wouters ◽  
Michal Ovádek

This chapter studies the role of human rights in EU development policy. The place of human rights in development policy was solidified at the constitutional level with the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, which made the promotion of human rights in all EU external action a legal obligation. As a result, different institutional mechanisms, thematic guidelines, and dedicated instruments and strategies have been put in place to consolidate a comprehensive operational framework aimed at ensuring that EU development programs advance human rights worldwide coherently and consistently. EU development policy is a shared competence, which means that both the EU and its Member States are entitled to act within this domain, as long as national actions do not undermine EU laws and positions. The sharing of competences, however, makes it more difficult for the EU to live up to the commitment of coherent and consistent promotion of human rights. In any case, substantial amount of coordination between the EU and the Member States is required in order to deliver coherence in development policy. However, the role of the EU as a normative leader in development cooperation remains subject to a multitude of long-standing criticisms and various evaluations of EU human rights policy point to a series of mixed results and missed opportunities.


2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 26-48 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hrant Kostanyan

By applying the rational choice principal–agent model, this article examines the European Union member states’ principal control of the European External Action Service (eeas) agent. More specifically, the article applies mechanisms of agency monitoring, control and sanctions that are inherent in the principal–agent model to analyse the establishment and functioning of the eeas. These mechanisms aim to ensure the eeas’s compliance with its mandate, thereby curtailing its ability to pursue own objectives that are independent from the principal. The findings reveal that the eeas is tightly controlled by the eu member states. Moreover the European Commission has tools to exercise horizontal checks vis-à-vis the eeas. The application of the principal–agent model to control the eeas is not without its limits. The model falls short of conceptualizing the role of the European Parliament, which remains an outlier to this model.


Author(s):  
Wolfgang Wessels ◽  
Linda Dieke

The observer´s first impression of the European Council is one of tired European Union (EU) leaders who, after dramatic late-night sessions, try to explain ambiguous compromises on key issues of European policies to their media audiences. From a researcher’s perspective, however, there are still many blank areas—a matter resulting from the various obstacles of analyzing this EU institution. The relevance of the European Council’s decisions has driven research on its agenda formation, decision-making and internal dynamics, its legal status and democratic legitimacy. Yet research on the European Council can be cumbersome and methodologically demanding due to the lack of confirmed empirical evidence: meetings of the European Council are consultations behind closed doors and the dense network of mutual information difficult to access. The conclusions are only a concentrate of the discussions held within. It is furthermore a challenge to explain the causal links between the diplomatic language of the conclusions and the real impact these measures have on EU politics. Nevertheless, the European Council is a vivid object of investigation. Since its creation in 1974, the European Council has undergone structural and formal changes: from the increase to up to 28 heads of state or government, to the establishment of a permanent president and the formal inclusion in the institutional setup of the EU in the Lisbon Treaty. From the first “summits” onwards, the Lisbon Treaty had a crucial role in the development of the EU system and the formulation of the underlying treaties. In crisis, it was often the only constellation able to provide consensual and thus effective proposals. Meanwhile, the scope of its activities has been enlarged toward a state-like agenda. It now covers topics at the very heart of national sovereignty. To these issues dealing with core state powers belong economic governance, migration policy, justice and home affairs, and external action, including security policy. Academic controversies about this cornerstone of the Union derive from intergovernmental or quasi-federalist assessments of the institution or from the powers and limitations of “summits” in general and in relation to other EU institutions. Some argue that the European Council shifts the institutional balance toward intergovernmentalist structures. Others stress the European Council’s role in transferring competences to supranationalist institutions. Further debates focus on whether the European Council has (successfully) overtaken the role of a “crisis manager,” or how its embeddedness in the EU institutional architecture could be enhanced, especially vis-à-vis the Council and toward a constructive and balanced relationship with the EP, in future treaty revisions. Analyses of power and of the role of institutions—especially of a key institution as the European Council—are crucial issues of social sciences. Research projects on this highly interesting EU institution will have to assess which methods are adequate: from studying the treaty provisions, formalized agreements and conclusions, to observing its activities as well as tracing external contexts and the internal constellations of the European Council, to evaluating information considered as “anecdotal evidence” from interviews, biographies, and speeches from the few members of this institution.


2014 ◽  
Vol 67 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-14 ◽  
Author(s):  
David T. Williams

AbstractThe result of the Arian controversy was the affirmation of the total equality of the trinitarian persons. This led to the realisation that all three persons of the Trinity are involved in every external action of God. Despite this, the role of the Holy Spirit in creation has not been clear, partly due to few specific references in the creation narratives. However, it may be suggested that the Spirit does not act in the creation of matter, which is the role of the second person, but in the provision of the underlying form and order necessary for very existence, and specifically for the dynamic interaction which is of the essence of life, as in the second account of the creation of the man (Gen 2). This reflects the fact that the action of the Spirit is also essential in salvation to link Christ's work on the cross to the believer. While separation is a feature of the Genesis creation narrative, this is balanced by the interrelating of what had been created.So, although Christian theology has commonly seen the world as ‘spirit’-less, restricting the action of the Holy Spirit to the church, this would be understood as referring to the limitation of his direct action. His immanent presence is nevertheless essential in all for very existence. The Spirit is not in the world, but underlies it.Creation may be seen as a theistic act, by transcendent intervention to give matter, and giving interaction in immanent presence. The nature of the world therefore reflects the theistic nature of God, involving both distinction and relating. Indeed it then reflects the trinitarian nature of the creator, in which the persons maintain their absolute distinction at the same time as their total equality through the interaction of perichōrēsis, specifically enabled by the action of the Spirit as generating and undergirding relationship. The parallel between the created and the creator is seen especially insofar as the discrete elements of matter interrelate to give form and interaction.It is in their interaction that the elements of creation fulfil their purpose, and so specifically that humanity reflects its nature as created in imago Dei.


Motor Control ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 386-404 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Ford ◽  
Nicola J. Hodges ◽  
Raoul Huys ◽  
A. Mark Williams

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elsa Hedling

Abstract This article explores the transformative role of practices of countering digital disinformation in European Union diplomacy. It argues that an overlooked dimension of the change brought by the rise of digital disinformation is located in the emergence of everyday countering practices. Efforts to counter disinformation have led to the recruitment of new actors with different dispositions and skillsets than those of traditional diplomats and state officials in diplomatic organizations such as the European External Action Service. Focusing on the countering efforts by the East StratCom Task Force, a unit introduced in 2015, the article argues that the composition of actors, the task force's practices and the reorientation in audience perception it reflected, contributed significantly to institutional transformation. Drawing on 23 interviews with key actors and building on recent advancements in international practice theory, the article shows how change and transformation can be studied in practices that have resulted from digitalization in international politics. The article thus contributes to an increased understanding of the digitalization of diplomacy in which new practices can emerge from both deliberate reflection and experimentation.


Author(s):  
Bruce Wilson

In 2013, ANZJES published an article on the significance of European Union (EU) Regional Policy in the process of European integration and its implications for Asia. Over the past decade, EU Regional Policy has evolved considerably. It is still centred on facilitating European integration, but also assumes a much more central role in focusing attention on harnessing resources, intellectual and economic, in order to address major societal missions. Regional Policy, or Cohesion, funds constitute approximately one third of the total European Commission budget and are, therefore, not only an important resource for integration, but also for addressing the wider priorities around the European Green Deal, and indeed, the planet. This is evident in the proposed Multiannual Financial Framework agreed by the European Council for 2021-27, in which Cohesion funding is seen to be a crucial resource for economic and social recovery from the COVID-19 crisis. This article reviews the evolution of this thinking in the last decade and considers its growing international significance. Whilst not necessarily imagined in 2010, when the EU established its European External Action Service (EEAS), a focus on regions and their innovation systems has enabled the EU to strengthen its global influence significantly.


Author(s):  
Alan Dashwood

The new institutional balance resulting from the Treaty of Lisbon is being tested nowhere as sharply as in the field of the exercise of the EU’s powers of external action. There is a wealth of recent litigation clarifying aspects of the procedural code, now set out in Article 218 TFEU, which governs the negotiation, conclusion, and implementation of international agreements concluded on behalf of the EU. This chapter explores issues connected with the adoption of acts within the framework of Article 218, including the designation of the Union negotiator, the choice of legal basis for decisions on the conclusion of agreements and the enhanced role of the European Parliament in such decisions. Also discussed are certain controversial developments in the procedure that applies for determining the Union’s position in a decision-making body established under an international agreement, and other issues including the legality of so-called ‘hybrid acts’.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document