Advertisement

EU enlargement and foreign policy coordination: more powerful, but less cohesive?

  • Daniel Finke
Article
  • 6 Downloads

Abstract

Eastern enlargement posed a challenge to the cohesiveness of EU foreign policy because new member states had a different regional focus and divergent policy interests. Yet Eastern enlargement also reinforced the EU’s potential influence at the world stage. Specifically, it implied higher strength in numbers within the decision bodies of international organizations, for example in the UN General Assembly (UNGA). To what extent has EU foreign policy coordination been able to handle the lower level of internal cohesion and to act cohesively in the UNGA? To answer this question, the article presents the first large scale analysis of co-authorship activities in the UNGA in the period from 1993 to 2016. First I study the cohesiveness of co-authorship before I control for characteristics of member states and draft resolutions in a regression model. I find that the EU has been able to uphold a high level of cohesiveness despite the lower cohesion of foreign policy interests after Eastern enlargement. Today, the observed divergence in co-authorship does not follow an East-West divide but runs across all countries and issues. Overall, Eastern enlargement reduced the EU’s cohesiveness in the UNGA only temporarily and to a lower extent than expected.

Keywords

UN General Assembly European Union Eastern enlargement Co-sponsorship 

References

  1. Bailer, S., Schulz, T., & Selb, P. (2009). What role for the party group leader? A latent variable approach to leadership effects on party group cohesion in the European Parliament. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 15(4), 355–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bailey, M. A., Strezhnev, A., & Voeten, E. (2017). Estimating dynamic state preferences from United Nations voting data. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 61(2), 430–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baron, D. P., & Ferejohn, J. A. (1989). Bargaining in legislatures. American Political Science Review, 83(4), 1181–1206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baturo, A., Dasandi, N., & Mikhaylov, S. J. (2017). Understanding state preferences with text as data: Introducing the UN general debate corpus. Research & Politics, 4(2), 205316801771282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blockmanns, S. (2014). 10 years since the ‘big bang’ enlargement: Impact on EU foreign policy. European Neighborhood Watch, Issue, 104, 1–2.Google Scholar
  6. Cameron, F., & Primatarova, A. (2003). Enlargement, CFSP and the Convention; The Role of the Accession States. EPIN Working Paper No. 5, June 2003.Google Scholar
  7. da Conceição-Heldt, E., & Meunier, S. (2014). Speaking with a single voice: Internal cohesiveness and external effectiveness of the EU in global governance. Journal of European Public Policy, 21(7), 961–979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Degrand-Guillaud, A. (2009). Actors and mechanisms of EU coordination at the UN. European Foreign Affairs Review, 14, 405.Google Scholar
  9. Desposato, S. W. (2005). Correcting for small group inflation of roll-call cohesion scores. British Journal of Political Science, 35(4), 731–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Edwards, G. (2006). New member states and the making of EU foreign policy. The European Foreign Affairs Review, 11, 143.Google Scholar
  11. Farrell, M. (2006). EU representation and coordination within the United Nations. In The European Union at the United Nations (pp. 27–46). London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Heidbreder, E. G. (2014). Why widening makes deepening: Unintended policy extension through polity expansion. Journal of European Public Policy, 21(5), 746–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hix, S., Noury, A. G., & Roland, G. (2007). Democratic politics in the European Parliament. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Hosli, M. O., Van Kampen, E., Meijerink, F., & Tennis, K. (2010). Voting cohesion in the United Nations General Assembly: the case of the European Union. In ECPR Fifth Pan-European Conference (Vol. 24).Google Scholar
  15. Juncos, A. E., & Pomorska, K. (2006). Playing the Brussels game: Strategic socialisation in the CFSP council working groups. European Integration Online Papers, 10(11).Google Scholar
  16. Krehbiel, K. (1992). Information and legislative organization. University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  17. Lightfoot, S. (2008). Enlargement and the challenge of EU development policy. Perspectives on European politics and society, 9(2), 128–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mattes, M., Leeds, B. A., & Carroll, R. (2015). Leadership turnover and foreign policy change: Societal interests, domestic institutions, and voting in the United Nations. International Studies Quarterly, 59(2), 280–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nugent, N. (2006). The Government and Politics of the European Union, 5th edition. Durham: Duke UP.Google Scholar
  20. Panke, D. (2013). Regional power revisited: How to explain differences in coherency and success of regional organizations in the United Nations general assembly 1. International Negotiation, 18(2), 265–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Panke, D. (2014). The European Union in the United Nations: An effective external actor? Journal of European Public Policy, 21(7), 1050–1066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Peress, M. (2013). Estimating proposal and status quo locations using voting and cosponsorship data. The Journal of Politics, 75(3), 613–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Plümper, T., & Schneider, C. J. (2007). Discriminatory European Union membership and the redistribution of enlargement gains. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 51(4), 568–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sjursen, H. (1998). Enlargement and the common foreign and security policy: Transforming the EU's external policy? ARENA – Centre for European Studies.Google Scholar
  25. Smith, K. E. (2006). Speaking with one voice? European Union co-ordination on human rights issues at the United Nations. JCMS: Journal of common market studies, 44(1), 113–137.Google Scholar
  26. Smith, K. E. (2008). European Union foreign policy in a changing world. Polity Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceAarhus UniversityAarhus CDenmark

Personalised recommendations