Abstract
The European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) was established in 2004 to provide a framework for coherent and efficient EU action towards its neighbours in the East and the South. Coherence was meant to be achieved in the EU’s approach across various policies, but also across various countries. This chapter investigates how the Lisbon Treaty has affected the institutional set-up of the EU’s relations with its neighbours, the main underlying logics of the ENP framework and its effects on the EU’s global and regional standing. We take an institutional and political approach, asking how and to what extent the set-up of the EEAS, the strengthened role of the High Representative and the change in the role of the rotating presidency all affect the EU’s policy-making towards its neighbours. The Lisbon provisions are only now being implemented. As such, institutional and political developments in the EU’s policy-making system are the focus of this chapter. To what extent does the Lisbon Treaty strengthen or diminish the logics underlying the ENP? What implications might this have for the EU’s efforts to become an actor of global reach? Or is the EU instead consolidating its regional power base with more limited geopolitical ambitions?
The authors would like to thank Thomas Christiansen and David Phinnemore for their comments on previous drafts of this chapter, which were presented at the ECPR and UACES annual conferences 2011. We would also like to thank Paul Stephenson for commenting on and proof-reading the current text. Licínia Simão would like to acknowledge support from the Centre for Social Studies of the University of Coimbra, to present previous versions of this chapter.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The EaP was set up in 2009, following a communication from the European Commission and the Prague Summit declaration. It aims at deepening EU political and economic relations with the countries in the eastern dimension of the ENP: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine. See European Commission (2008) and Council of the European Union (2009).
- 2.
Article 7, TFEU reads the following: “The Union shall ensure consistency between its policies and activities, taking all of its objectives into account and in accordance with the principle of conferral of powers” (Lisbon Treaty, Treaty on Functioning of the European Union, Art. 7).
- 3.
Article 13(1), TEU reads the following: “The Union shall have an institutional framework which shall aim to promote its values, advance its objectives, serve its interests, those of its citizens and those of the Member States, and ensure the consistency, effectiveness and continuity of its policies and actions” (Lisbon Treaty, TEU Art. 13.1).
- 4.
The ring of friends encompassed in 2004 finally 16 partner countries: Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Israel, the Palestinian Authority, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria.
- 5.
Poland has lead the push for EU recognition of the Eastern neighbours’ European aspirations, together with the Baltic and the Visegrad countries.
- 6.
Yet, this attempt for closer coordination to achieve institutional and therefore horizontal coherence within the ENP framework for more than 5 years also altered the (informal) policy processes in a way that would allow for stronger involvement of the Commission, especially in agenda-setting, policy-formulation and implementation in the EU’s approach towards its neighbours (Maurer 2011).
- 7.
For a detailed listing of transferred posts to the EEAS at the beginning of 2011, see EEAS Press Release from 21 December 2010: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/1769&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en
- 8.
The need to ensure the actual application of political conditionality in order to differentiate between reforming and reluctant partners appears as a somewhat idealistic concept in the ENP review documents; this assessment is shared by various EU actors and member state representatives.
- 9.
The need for coordination between the EEAS and Commission will in the future especially visible in the various programming stages within the framework of the European Neighbourhood Instrument (for more details see Stroß 2012).
References
Allen, D. (1998). Who speaks for Europe?: The search for an effective and coherent external policy. In J. Peterson & H. Sjursen (Eds.), A common foreign policy for Europe? Competing visions of the CFSP? (pp. 41–58). London/New York: Routledge.
Allen, D. (2004). So who will speak for Europe? The constitutional treaty and coherence in EU external relations. CFSP Forum, 2(5), 1–4.
Bicchi, F. (2010). The impact of the ENP on EU-North Africa relations: The good, the bad and the ugly. In R. Whitman & S. Wolff (Eds.), The European neighbourhood policy in perspective. Context, implementation and impact (pp. 206–222). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bretherton, C., & Vogler, J. (2006). The European Union as a Global actor (2nd ed.). Oxford/New York: Routledge.
Council of the European Union (2009, May 7). Joint Declaration of the Prague Eastern Partnership Summit Prague, 8435/09 (Press 78), Brussels.
Delcourt, B., & Remacle, E. (2009). Global governance. A challenge for common foreign and security policy and European security and defense policy. In M. Telò (Ed.), The European Union and Global governance (pp. 232–257). Oxford/New York: Routledge/Garnet Series: Europe in the World.
Duke, S. (2008). The Lisbon Treaty and external relations. Eipascope, 1, 13–18.
Duke, S. (2012). The European external action service: antidote against incoherence? European Foreign Affairs Review, 17(1), 45–68.
European Commission. (2003, March 11). Wider Europe—Neighbourhood: A new framework for relations with our Eastern and Southern Neighbours. Communication from the commission to the European Council and the European Parliament. COM(2003) 104 final, Brussels.
European Commission. (2004, May 12). European Neighbourhood Policy Strategy Paper. Communication from the Commission. COM(2004) 373 final, Brussels.
European Commission. (2008, December 3). Eastern Partnership. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council. COM(2008) 823 final, Brussels.
European Commission. (2010, May 12). Taking stock of the European Neighbourhood Policy. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council. COM(2010) 207, Brussels.
European Commission. (2011). The multiannual financial framework: The proposals on external action instruments. MEMO/11/878.
European Commission and High Representative. (2011a, March 8). A Partnership for Democracy and Shared Prosperity with the Southern Mediterranean. Joint Communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. COM(2011)200 final, Brussels.
European Commission and High Representative. (2011b, May 25). A new response to a changing neighbourhood. Joint Communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. COM(2011) 303, Brussels.
European Council. (2010, September 16). Conclusions. EUCO 21/1/10, REV 1, Brussels.
European Parliament. (2011, May 11). Resolution on development of the common security and defence policy following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. (2010/2299(INI)).
Füle, Š. (2011, June 14). Revolutionising the European Neighbourhood Policy in response to tougher Mediterranean revolutions. Keynote speech by the European Commissioner for Enlargement and European Neighbourhood Policy at a Roundtable discussion organised by Members of the European Parliament, Brussels.
Gauttier, P. (2004). Horizontal coherence and the external competences of the European Union. European Law Journal, 10(1), 23–41.
Hill, C. (1993). The capabilities-expectations gap, or conceptualizing the EU’s international role. Journal of Common Market Studies, 21(3), 305–328.
Laïdi, Z. (2008, February 6). The normative empire: Unintended consequences of European power. Garnet Policy Brief.
Maurer, H. (2011). Business as usual? The European Neighbourhood Policy and institutional coherence in EU foreign policy-making (2002–2007). Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Vienna.
Nuttall, S. (2001). ‘Consistency’ and the CFSP: A categorization and its consequences (EFPU working Paper, 3).
Nuttall, S. (2005). Coherence and consistency. In C. Hill & M. Smith (Eds.), International relations and the European Union (pp. 91–112). Oxford / New York: Oxford University Press.
Petiteville, F. (2005). Introduction: De quelques débats relatifs à l’Union européenne acteur international. In D. Helly & F. Petiteville (Eds.), L’Union européenne, Actor International (pp. 11–20). Paris: L’Harmattan.
Pilegaard, J. (2003). Relations between trade, development policy and the CFSP: Analysing incoherence in EU external policy. Working paper for FORNET seminar.
Schimmelfennig, F. (2009). Europeanization beyond Europe, Living Reviews in European Governance, 4(3). Accessed August 16, 2011, from http://www.livingreviews.org/lreg-2009-3
Seidelmann, R. (2009). The EU’s neighbourhood policies. In M. Telò (Ed.), The European Union and global governance (pp. 261–283). London and New York: Routledge.
Simão, L. (2013a). Forging a wider European security community? Dilemmas of the ENP in the South Caucasus. In G. Noutcheva, K. Pomorska, & G. Bosse (Eds.), Values vs. security? The choice for the EU and its neighbors (pp. 145–172). Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Simão, L. (2013b). Coming of age: dilemmas for the EU’s foreign policy in the wider Europe. In T. Cierco (Ed.), The European Union and its immediate neighbourhood. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Smith, M. E. (2001). The quest for coherence: Institutional dilemmas of external action from Maastricht to Amsterdam. In A. Stone Sweet, N. Fligstein, & W. Sandholtz (Eds.), The institutionalization of Europe (pp. 171–193). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Smith, M. (2003). The framing of European foreign and security policy: Towards a postmodern policy framework? Journal of European Public Policy, 10(4), 556–575.
Smith, M. E. (2004). Europe’s foreign and security policy. The institutionalization of cooperation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, K. (2008). European Union Foreign Policy in a changing World (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Polity.
Stetter, S. (2004). Cross-pillar politics: Functional unity and institutional fragmentation of EU foreign policies. Journal of European Public Policy, 11(4), 720–739.
Stroß, S. (2012, May). Programming financial instruments post-Lisbon: The European External Action Service and the new institutional architecture of EU external action. EUIA Conference Paper, Brussels.
Tulmets, E. (2008). The European Neighbourhood Policy: A flavour of coherence in the EU’s external relations? Hamburg Review of Social Sciences, 3(1), 107–141.
Vieira, A., & Simão, L. (2008). The European Neighbourhood Policy seen from Belarus and Georgia. CFSP Forum, 6(6), 1–6.
Wessel, R. (2000). The inside looking out: Consistency and delimitation in EU external relations. Common Market Law Review, 37(5), 1135–1171.
Wessels, W., & Bopp, F. (2008, June 10). The institutional architecture of the CFSP after the Lisbon Treaty—constitutional breakthrough or challenges ahead? CHALLENGE Research Paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Maurer, H., Simão, L. (2013). From Regional Power to Global Power? The European Neighbourhood Policy after the Lisbon Treaty. In: Boening, A., Kremer, JF., van Loon, A. (eds) Global Power Europe - Vol. 1. Global Power Shift. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32412-3_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32412-3_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-32411-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-32412-3
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)