This chapter addresses two key
objectives of this book identified in the introductory chapter. It makes a
case for a new theoretical approach to the study of the European Union as a
global actor based explicitly upon an adapted foreignpolicy analysis. It
also seeks to broaden the focus of the analysis from the Common Foreign and
Security Policy to the much more broadly based concept of European foreign
The foreignpolicy of the European Union
is in many ways a puzzle to students of international relations. Doubts
about whether there is in reality a European foreignpolicy contrast with
empirical observations of the considerable influence exerted by the EU, if
not always in the international system at large, then at least in Europe.
Such observations imply that the EU has a ‘foreignpolicy’ of
What explains the similarities and differences in the foreignpolicy behaviour of Middle East states? The relative explanatory weight carried by domestic politics versus that of the systemic arenas in which states operate is a matter of some dispute between pluralists on the one hand, and realists and structuralists on the other. On the face of it, if the domestic level is determinant, as pluralists tend to argue, different kinds of states should follow different foreignpolicies and similar ones similar policies. If the systemic level is
This book reviews a variety of approaches to the study of the European Union's foreign policy. Much analysis of EU foreign policy contains theoretical assumptions about the nature of the EU and its member states, their inter-relationships, the international system in which they operate and the nature of European integration. The book outlines the possibilities for the use of discourse analysis in the study of European foreign policy. It sets out to explore the research problem using a political-cultural approach and seeks to illuminate the cognitive mind-maps with which policy-makers interpret their political 'realities'. The book provides an overview and analysis of some of the non-realist approaches to international relations and foreign policy, and proposes an analytical framework with which to explore the complex interplay of factors affecting European foreign policy. The book suggests one way of seeking theoretical parsimony without sacriﬁcing the most deﬁning empirical knowledge which has been generated about Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) over the years. It argues that while the sui generis nature of CFSP presents an acute problem for international relations theory, it is less pronounced with regard to traditional integration theory. The book discusses the dimensions of European foreign policy-making with reference to the case of arms export controls. Situated at the interface between European studies and international relations, it outlines how the EU relates to the rest of the world, explaining its effort towards creating a credible, effective and principled foreign, security and defence policy.
It is frequently claimed that foreignpolicy making in Middle East states is either the idiosyncratic product of personalistic dictators or the irrational outcome of domestic instability. In fact, it can only be adequately understood by analysis of the multiple factors common to all states, namely: (1) foreignpolicy determinants (interests, challenges) to which decision-makers respond when they shape policies; and (2) foreignpolicy structures and processes which factor the ‘inputs’ made by various actors into a policy addressing these
Between international relations and European studies
Ben Tonra and Thomas Christiansen
The European Union’s foreignpolicy is an ongoing puzzle. The membership of the enlarging European Union
has set itself ever more ambitious goals in the field of foreignpolicy-making, yet at the same time each member state continues to guard its
ability to conduct an independent foreignpolicy. As far as the EU’s
ambitions are concerned, foreignpolicy cooperation led to coordination, and
Launched in 1970, Europe’s common
foreignpolicy has, to some degree, come of age. Because previous attempts
to introduce cooperation in the field of foreignpolicy had failed, the
cooperative enterprise was deliberately launched with very modest ambitions.
Its development over the years came to include still more policy areas, and
still more modules were added to its institutional infrastructure. When
There could be no special partnership between Britain and the
United States, even if Britain wanted it.
Prime Minister Heath to President Pompidou, May 19711
The jilted lover
According to Henry Kissinger, Edward Heath rejected a close working partnership with Richard Nixon, which left him feeling akin to that of a ‘jilted
lover’.2 Kissinger’s analysis has had an incredible impact upon the subsequent scholarly assessments of the US–UK relationship. As Heath’s official
biographer Philip Ziegler has claimed, ‘Certainly it was
European and foreignpolicy
of the Länder
At first it would appear that this chapter is misnamed. Surely “European
and ForeignPolicy” are themes that belong to the federal government.
They do, of course, but the Länder are not irrelevant in these areas.
Indeed, European policy is now to a considerable extent domestic policy,
and many responsibilities that have traditionally belonged to the Länder
have been and are today the subjects of European Community – now EU
– regulations and legislation. The efforts
The foreignpolicy process has become
Europeanised, in the sense that in every international issue, there
is an exchange of information and an attempt to arrive at a common
understanding and a common approach – compared to how things
were in the past, where most issues were looked at in isolation
without addressing the attitudes