Advertisement

International Politics

, Volume 56, Issue 3, pp 375–394 | Cite as

Of insiders and outsiders: assessing EU strategic partnerships in their regional context

  • Daniel SchadeEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Through their designation as strategic partners the EU has given its ties with numerous third countries a special status in its external relations. While the term provides for rhetorical ambition to structure the EU’s ties with these actors the concept has never been clearly defined. The article attempts to analyse the choice and practice of the EU’s strategic partnerships in their regional context through a comparative analysis of the EU’s ties with its two strategic partners in Latin America, Brazil and Mexico, as well as those with other countries in the region. It then argues that through the rhetorical choice of the partners artificial ingroups and outgroups are created, with some outsiders enjoying closer ties to the EU than one of its strategic partners. This mismatch between the strategic partnerships and practiced external relations put the concept’s overall contribution to the structuring of the EU’s external relations into question.

Keywords

European Union foreign policy Strategic partnerships Grand strategy Latin America Labelling 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the editors of this special issue for bringing this project to fruition. I am immensely grateful for the comments by two anonymous reviewers and the constructive feedback received at the EWIS workshop on geopolitics and strategic thinking in EU foreign policy in Tübingen.

References

  1. Bendiek, A., and H. Kramer. 2010. The EU as a ‘Strategic’ International Actor: Substantial and Analytical Ambiguities. European Foreign Affairs Review 15: 4.Google Scholar
  2. Blanco, L.F. 2016. The Functions of ‘Strategic Partnership’ in European Union foreign Policy Discourse. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 29(1): 36–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boniatti-Pavese, C. 2013. Level-Linkage in European Union—Brazil Relations: An Analysis of Cooperation on Climate Change, Trade, and Human Rights. London: London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE).Google Scholar
  4. Council of the European Union. 2003. A Secure Europe in a Better world—European Security Strategy. Brussels: Council of the European Union. Available from: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/78367.pdf.
  5. Council of the European Union. 2008a. Draft Council Conclusions on the EU-Mexico Strategic Partnership. I/A Item Not from the PSC to the Coreper 13224/08, Brussels: Council of the European Union.Google Scholar
  6. Council of the European Union. 2008b. Report on the Implementation of the European Security Strategy—Providing Security in a Changing World—Brussels: Council of the European Union. Available from: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/EN/reports/104630.pdf.
  7. Council of the European Union. 2010. Mexico-European Union Strategic Partnership Joint Executive Plan. 9820/10 PRESSE 126, Brussels: Council of the European Union.Google Scholar
  8. Council of the European Union. 2011. V European Union—Brazil Summit Joint Statement. 15084/11 PRESSE 348, Brussels: Council of the European Union.Google Scholar
  9. DG Trade. 2006. Global Europe: Competing in the World. Brussels: European Commission. Available from: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2006/october/tradoc_130376.pdf. Accessed 3 December 2013.
  10. EEAS. 2016. The European Union in a Changing Global Environment: A More Connected, Contested and Complex World. Brussels: European External Action Service. Available from: http://www.eeas.europa.eu/docs/strategic_review/eu-strategic-review_strategic_review_en.pdf.
  11. ESPO. 2014. European Strategic Partnerships Observatory. Available from: http://www.strategicpartnerships.eu.
  12. EU-Argentina Comisión Mixta. (2010). Programa de trabajo Argentina—Unión Europea 2010–2013. Brussels: European External Action Service. Available from: http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/argentina/documents/eu_argentina/programa_de_trabajo_es.pdf.
  13. EU-Brazil Summit. 2014. 7th EU-Brazil Summit Joint Statement. Available from: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/141145.pdf. Accessed 8 January 2017.
  14. EU-LAC summit. 1999. Rio Declaration and Priorities for Action. I EU-LAC Summit Declaration, Rio de Janeiro: European Union. Available from: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/intcoop/eurolat/key_documents/summits_eu_alc/i_29_6_1999_rio_en.pdf. Accessed 6 April 2014.
  15. EU-Mexico Summit. 2015. VII EU-Mexico Summit Joint Statement. Brussels: Council of the European Union.Google Scholar
  16. European Commission. 2005. A Stronger Partnership Between the European Union and Latin America. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council COM (2005) 636 Final, Brussels: European Commission. Available from: http://eeas.europa.eu/la/docs/com05_636_en.pdf. Accessed 17 January 2013.
  17. European Commission. 2007. Towards an EU-Brazil Strategic Partnership. Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament COM (2007) 281 Final, Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  18. European Commission. 2008. Towards an EU-Mexico Strategic Partnership. Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament COM (2008) 447 final, Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  19. European Commission. 2015. Trade for All: Towards a More Responsible Trade and Investment Policy. Brussels: European Commission. Available from: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2015/october/tradoc_153846.pdf. Accessed 1 May 2016.
  20. European Council. 2010. European Council Conclusions 16 September 2010. EUCO 21/1/10 Rev 1, Brussels: General Secretariat of the Council. Available from: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/116547.pdf.
  21. Ferreira-Pereira, L.C. 2016. The European Union’s Partnership Policy Towards Brazil: More Than Meets the Eye. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 29(1): 55–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ferreira-Pereira, L.C., and A.V.G. Vieira. 2015. Ukraine in the European Union’s Partnership Policy: A Case of Institutionalized Ambiguity. European Politics and Society 16(2): 143–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ferreira-Pereira, L.C., and A.V.G. Vieira. 2016. Introduction: The European Union’s Strategic Partnerships: Conceptual Approaches, Debates and Experiences. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 29 (1): 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gratius S. 2011. Can EU Strategic Partnerships Deepen Multilateralism? Working paper no 109, Madrid: FRIDE.Google Scholar
  25. Grevi G., and de Vasconcelos Á. (eds) 2008. Partnerships for Effective Multilateralism: EU Relations with Brazil, China, India and Russia. Paris.Google Scholar
  26. Hess N.M. 2012. EU Relations with ‘Emerging’ Strategic Partners: Brazil, India and South Africa. GIGA Focus 4/2012, Hamburg: German Institute of Global and Area Studies.Google Scholar
  27. Hix, S., A. Noury, and G. Roland. 2005. Power to the Parties: Cohesion and Competition in the European Parliament, 1979–2001. British Journal of Political Science 35(2): 209–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jin, X., and M.O. Hosli. 2013. Pre- and Post-Lisbon: European Union Voting in the United Nations General Assembly. West European Politics 36(6): 1274–1291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Khandekar, G. 2013. The EU: India Strategic Partnership: From Blind Acknowledgement Towards Recognition. European Foreign Affairs Review 18(4): 487–510.Google Scholar
  30. Luengo-Cabrera, J., and A. Missiroli. 2014. CSDP’s New Partners: South America. Issue Alert. Paris: European Union Institute for Security Studies.Google Scholar
  31. Malamud A. 2012. La Unión Europea, del interregionalismo con América Latina a la asociación estratégica con Brasil. Revista CIDOB d’Afers internacionals (97/98).Google Scholar
  32. Michalski, A., and Z. Pan. 2017. Role Dynamics in a Structured Relationship: The EU–China Strategic Partnership. JCMS Journal of Common Market Studies 55(3): 611–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Murray, P. 2016. EU–Australia Relations: A Strategic Partnership in All but Name? Cambridge Review of International Affairs 29(1): 171–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Oxford Dictionary of English. 2016. Strategic. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Available from: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com.
  35. Providing for Peacekeeping. 2016. Peacekeeping Contributor Profile: Chile. Providing for Peacekeeping. Available from: http://www.providingforpeacekeeping.org/2014/04/03/contributor-profile-chile/.
  36. Renard T. 2011. The Treachery of Strategies: A Call for True EU Strategic Partnerships. Egmont Paper 45, Brussels: EGMONT.Google Scholar
  37. Renard, T. 2012. The EU and Its Strategic Partners: A Critical Assessment of the EU’s Strategic Partnerships. In The Routledge Handbook of European Security, ed. S. Biscop and R.G. Whitman, 302–314. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Renard, T. 2013. The EU and Its Strategic Partners: A Critical Assessment of the EU’s Strategic Partnerships. In The Routledge Handbook of European Security, ed. S. Biscop and R.G. Whitman, 302–314. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  39. Renard, T. 2016a. Partnering for Global Security: The EU, Its Strategic Partners and Transnational Security Challenges. European Foreign Affairs Review 21(1): 9–33.Google Scholar
  40. Renard, T. 2016b. Partnerships for Effective Multilateralism? Assessing the Compatibility between EU Bilateralism, (Inter-)Regionalism and Multilateralism. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 29(1): 18–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Renard T., and Hooijmaaijers B. 2011. Assessing the EU’s Strategic Partnerships in the UN System. Security Policy Brief 24, Brussels: EGMONT.Google Scholar
  42. Schmidt, A. 2010. Strategic Partnerships—A Contested Policy Concept: A Review of Recent Publications. Berlin: Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik.Google Scholar
  43. Smith, K.E. 2017a. A European Union Global Strategy for a Changing world? International Politics 54(4): 503–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Smith, K.E. 2017b. EU Member States at the UN: A Case of Europeanization Arrested? JCMS Journal of Common Market Studies 55(3): 628–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Smith, M. 2016. EU Diplomacy and the EU–China Strategic Relationship: Framing, Negotiation and Management. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 29(1): 78–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Szymanski, M., and M.E. Smith. 2005. Coherence and Conditionality in European Foreign Policy: Negotiating the EU–Mexico Global Agreement. JCMS Journal of Common Market Studies 43(1): 171–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tardy T. 2014. CSDP: Getting third states on board. EUISS Brief 6/2014, Paris: European Union Institute for Security Studies.Google Scholar
  48. Vivet E., and de Lalande V. 2014. EU Strategic Partnerships: Shallow Political Summits, Active Technical Dialogues? Paris: Institute for Research and Education on Negotiation (IRENE). Available from: http://www.ecfr.eu/blog/entry/eu_strategic_partnerships_shallow_political_summits_active_technical_dialog.
  49. Voeten E. 2013. Data and Analyses of Voting in the UN General Assembly. In: Reinalda B (ed.), Routledge Handbook of International Organization. Available from: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2111149.
  50. Whitman, R.G., and A.P. Rodt. 2012. EU-Brazil Relations: A Strategic Partnership? European Foreign Affairs Review 17(1): 27–44.Google Scholar
  51. Wikileaks. 2017. Public Library of US Diplomacy. Wikileaks. Available from: https://search.wikileaks.org/plusd/.
  52. Young, H., and N. Rees. 2005. EU Voting Behaviour in the UN General Assembly, 1990–2002: The EU’s Europeanising Tendencies. Irish Studies in International Affairs 16: 193–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceOtto-von-Guericke University MagdeburgMagdeburgGermany

Personalised recommendations