Institutionalization, Policy Adaptation and European Foreign Policy Cooperation

Abstract

The expansion of European Union (EU) foreign policy cooperation since 1970 presents a number of puzzles for theorists of regional integration and International Relations. It is not directed by supranational organizations, does not involve bargaining over policy alternatives, and is not dominated by the largest EU states. Nor do the EU's common foreign policy decisions reflect 'lowest common denominator' preferences. Instead, cooperation has been achieved through decentralized institutional mechanisms, involving processes associated with both intergovernmental and social constructivist theories. This article first explains how changes in institutional context-in terms of intergovernmental, transgovernmental and supranational proceduresaffect the propensity for cooperation. It then links processes of institutionalization to an expansion of foreign policy cooperation among EU member states. Finally, it explores three policy areas (the Middle East, South Africa and nuclear non-proliferation) where EU states have adjusted their national foreign policies in line with EU foreign policy norms. KEY WORDS ♦ Common Foreign and Security Policy ♦ European Union foreign policy ♦ European Political Cooperation ♦ institutionalization ♦ international cooperation The Maastricht Treaty on European Union clearly marks a new era in the theory and practice of European integration. Much of the scholarly attention in this area focuses on the European Union's (EU) socioeconomic policy domains, primarily in terms of developing the single European market (Stone Sweet and Sandholtz, 1998). 1 This achievement, however, tends to overshadow an increasingly prominent area of European integration-the pursuit of a common foreign policy. Foreign policy cooperation has been

Market imperative meets normative power: Human rights and European arms transfer policy

“…This socialization or 'Europeanization' perspective suggests that, as the EU develops its external identity, member practices will fall more closely into line with its common policy over time. Rather than enduring divergence between members, the regular interaction of officials in European fora on issues discussed at the EU level should lead to greater convergence in those policies and practices (Smith, 2004). The growth of EU normative power therefore results not simply from the adoption of a common foreign policy, but from a socialization process by which norms diffuse from the supranational to the national level and transform (at least in theory) member states' interests and preferences.…”

The Limits of Normative Power Europe in Asia: The Case of Human Rights in China

“…Institutionalist approaches have shown that institutions do matter in the definition and shaping of member states' interests and policy preferences [25]. This is evidenced at two levels.…”

Introduksjon til temanummer om EUs utenriks- og sikkerhetspolitikk - Integrasjon og samarbeid i Europa: EUs felles utenriks- og sikkerhetspolitikk som kritisk case

“…Danmark, som er fullt medlem i EU, har unntak fra deltakelse i deler av sikkerhets-og forsvarspolitikken. Norge, på sin side, som ikke er medlem i EU, har søkt å etablere så tette bånd som mulig til EU på dette politikkområdet, og har inngått en rekke avtaler med EU (Sjursen 2014(Sjursen , 2008. Ifølge Utenriksminister Børge Brende begynner norsk utenrikspolitikk i Europa (Brende 2016).…”