Une Liaison Transnationale

Exploring the Role of NGOs in EU Foreign Policy-making on the ICC
Original Article
  • 7 Downloads

Abstract

CFSP has traditionally been studied as a policy-making domain that is reserved to negotiations among formal representatives from the EU and its member states. In this article, we draw attention to the way in which the CFSP bureaucracy interacts with transnational actors from civil society. We conceptualize this relationship on the basis of three mechanisms: access to European policy-making in return for information, coalition building dynamics, and socialization processes. We illustrate the importance of these mechanisms for the EU’s policy on the International Criminal Court (ICC). Specifically, we argue that NGOs have gained routine access to the COJUR-ICC working group, where they have obtained a prominent status as experts, participating in information exchange coalition building dynamics. This has also translated into NGO influence on important aspects of the EU’s foreign policy towards the ICC.

Keywords

CFSP International Criminal Court NGOs Lobbying Interest groups 

References

  1. Alderson, K. 2001. Making sense of state socialization. Review of International Studies 27 (3): 415–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alecu de Flers, N., and P. Müller. 2012. Dimensions and mechanisms of the Europeanization of member state foreign policy: State of the art and new research avenues. Journal of European Integration 34 (1): 19–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Attina, F., and D. Irrera 2010. Humanitarian NGOs, peacebuilding and reconstruction, preliminary results of a survey analysis. Paper presented at responsibility 2 rebuild. Linking Infrastructure, Governance and Democratization, 18–19, June, Guildford, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
  4. Baur, D. 2011. NGOs as legitimate partners of corporations: A political conceptualization. London: Springer.Google Scholar
  5. Benedetti, F., and J.L. Washburn. 1999. Drafting the international criminal court treaty: Two years to Rome and an afterword on the Rome diplomatic conference. Global Governance 5 (1): 1–37.Google Scholar
  6. Bekou, O., and H. Mistry. 2014. Mainstreaming support for the ICC in the EU’s policies. European Parliament, DG EXPO, March. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2014/433844/EXPO-DROI_ET(2014)433844_EN.pdf. Accessed 24 June 2016.
  7. Betsill, M.M., and E. Corell. 2001. NGO influence in international environmental negotiations: A framework for analysis. Global Environmental Politics 1 (4): 65–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beyers, J. 2005. Multiple embeddedness and socialization in Europe: The case of council officials. International Organization 59 (4): 899–936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boräng, F., R. Eising, H. Klüver, C. Mahoney, D. Naurin, D. Rasch, and P. Rozbicka. 2014. Identifying frames: A comparison of research methods. Interest Groups and Advocacy 3 (2): 188–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Börzel, T.A. 2002. Member state responses to Europeanization. Journal of Common Market Studies 40 (2): 193–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cini, M. 1996. The European Commission: Leadership, organisation, and culture in the EU administration. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Checkel, J.T. 2007. International institutions and socialization in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chelotti, N. 2013. Analysing the links between national capitals and Brussels in EU foreign policy. West European Politics 36 (5): 1052–1072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chelotti, N. 2016. The formulation of EU foreign policy: Socialization, negotiations and disaggregation of the state. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Collantes-Celador, G. 2016. The defence of an institution under challenge: The EU and the International Criminal Court. In The EU policy responses to a shifting multilateral system, ed. E. Barbé, O. Costa, and R. Kissack, 71–91. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Constantinou, C.M., N. Cornago, and F. McConnell. 2016. Transprofessional diplomacy. Brill Research Perspectives in Diplomacy and Foreign Policy 1 (4): 1–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Council of the European Union. 2011. Action plan to follow-up on the decision on the International Criminal Court. Brussels 12 July 2011, 12080/11, http://register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/srv?l=EN&f=ST%2012080%202011%20INIT. Accessed 24 June 2016.
  18. Council of the European Union. 2013. The EU’s response to non-cooperation with the International Criminal Court by third states. Brussels, 27 November 2013, 16993/13, http://eeas.europa.eu/human_rights/icc/docs/st_16993_2013_init_en.pdf. Accessed 24 June 2016.
  19. Davis, L. 2014. Discreet effectiveness: The EU and the ICC. In The EU and effective multilateralism. Internal and external reform practice, ed. E. Drieskens, and L.G. van Schaik, 84–100. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Dawson, R.E., and K. Prewitt. 1969. Political socialization. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar
  21. Dembinski, M. 2009. NGOs and security: The case of the European Union. In Transnational activism in the UN and the EU: A comparative study, ed. J. Joachim, and B. Locher, 147–160. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Dembinski, M., and J. Joachim. 2014. Civil society and the European common security and defence policy. European security 23 (4): 449–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dür, A. 2008. Measuring interest group influence in the EU: A note on methodology. European Union Politics 9 (4): 559–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dür, A., and D. De Bièvre. 2007. Inclusion without influence? NGOs in European trade policy. Journal of Public Policy 38 (10): 1271–1296.Google Scholar
  25. Eckstein, H. 1975. Case studies and theory in political science. In Handbook of political science, ed. P.F.N. Greenstein, 79–138. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  26. Eising, R. 2007. The access of business interests to EU institutions: Towards élite pluralism? Journal of European Public Policy 14 (3): 384–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. EU Global Strategy. 2016. Shared vision, common action: A stronger Europe. A Global Strategy for the EU’s Foreign and Security Policy. June 2016, https://europa.eu/globalstrategy/sites/globalstrategy/files/eugs_review_web.pdf. Accessed July 2017.
  28. European Council—The President. 2010. Statement by Herman Van Rompuy, President of the European Council, following his meeting with Judge Song President of the International Criminal Court. PCE 182/10, Brussels 10 Sept 2010.Google Scholar
  29. Fehl, C. 2012. Living with a Reluctant Hegemon. Explaining European responses to US unilateralism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Glasius, M. 2002. Expertise in the cause of justice: Global civil society influence on the statute for an International Criminal Court. In Global civil society yearbook 2002, ed. M. Glasius, M. Kaldor, and H.K. Anheier, 137–168. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Grande, E. 1996. The state and interest groups in a framework of multi-level decision-making: The case of the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy 3 (3): 318–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Groenleer, M., and D. Rijks. 2009. The European union and the International Criminal Court. In The European Union and International Organizations, ed. K.E. Jørgensen, 167–187. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Groenleer, M., and L. van Schaik. 2007. United we stand? The European Union’s International actorness in the cases of the International Criminal Court and the Kyoto Protocol. Journal of Common Market Studies 45 (5): 969–999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Haas, E.B. 1958. The Uniting of Europe: Political, social and economic forces, 1950–1957. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Hocking, B., J. Melissen, S. Riordan, and P. Sharp. 2012. Futures for diplomacy: Integrative diplomacy in the 21st century, 1. Clingendael: Netherlands Institute for International Relations Report No.Google Scholar
  36. Hoffmann, S. 2000. Towards a common European foreign and security policy. Journal of Common Market Studies 38 (2): 189–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Irrera, D. 2013. NGOs, crisis management and conflict resolution: Measuring the impact of NGOs on intergovernmental organisations. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Joachim, J., and M. Dembinski. 2011. A contradiction in terms? NGOs, democracy, and European foreign and security policy. Journal of European public policy 18 (8): 1151–1168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Juncos, A., and K. Pomorska. 2006. Playing the Brussels game: Strategic socialisation in the CFSP council working groups. European Integration Online Papers 10(11), http://eiop.or.at/eiop/pdf/2006-011.pdf. Accessed 24 June 2016.
  40. Keohane, R.O., and J.S. Nye. 1974. Transgovernmental relations and international organizations. World Politics 27 (1): 39–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Levy, J.S. 2008. Case studies: Types, designs, and logics of inference. Conflict Management and Peace Science 25 (1): 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mahoney, C. 2004. The power of institutions: State and interest group activity in the European Union. European Union Politics 5 (4): 441–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Michalowitz, I. 2007. What determines influence? Assessing conditions for decision-making influence of interest groups in the EU. Journal of European Public Policy 14 (1): 132–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Müller, P., and P. Slominski. 2017. The role of law in EU foreign policy-making: Legal integrity, legal spillover, and the EU policy of differentiation towards Israel. Journal of Common Market Studies 55 (4): 871–888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Parau, C.E. 2009. Impaling Dracula: How EU accession empowered civil society in Romania. West European Politics 32 (1): 119–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Raik, K. 2006. Promoting democracy through civil society: How to step up the EU’s policy towards the Eastern neighbourhood. Brussels: CEPS.Google Scholar
  47. Risse-Kappen, T. 1995. Bringing transnational relations back, in non-state-actors, domestic structures and international relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Slaughter, A.M. 2004. A new world order. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Smith, M. 2004. Toward a theory of EU foreign policy-making: Multi-level governance, domestic politics, and national adaptation to Europe’s common foreign and security policy. Journal of European Public Policy 11 (4): 740–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Stone, D. 2013. Capturing the political imagination: Think tanks and the policy process. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  51. Tallberg, J., T. Sommerer, T. Squatrito, and C. Jönsson. 2013. The opening up of international organizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Thomas, D. 2005. The institutional construction of EU Foreign policy: CFSP and the International Criminal Court. Paper presented at the European Union Studies Association Conference, March 31–April 2, Austin, US.Google Scholar
  53. Thomas, Daniel C. 2009. Rejecting the US challenge to the International Criminal Court: Normative entrapment and compromise in EU policy-making. International Politics 46 (4): 376–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tonra, B. 2003. Constructing the CFSP: The utility of a cognitive approach. Journal of Common Market Studies 41 (4): 731–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Voltolini, B. 2016. Non-state actors and framing processes in EU foreign policy: The case of EU–Israel relations. Journal of European Public Policy 23 (10): 1502–1519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Voltolini, B., and R. Eising. 2016. Framing processes and lobbying in EU foreign policy: Case study and process-tracing methods. European Political Science.  https://doi.org/10.1057/eps.2016.18.Google Scholar
  57. Wessel, R.A. 2009. The constitutional unity of the European Union: The increasing irrelevance of the pillar structure? In European constitutionalism beyond Lisbon, ed. J. Wouters, L. Verhey, and P. Kiiver, 283–306. Anwerp: Intersentia.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Political Science and SociologyUniversitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB)Cerdanyola del VallèsSpain
  2. 2.Institut Barcelona d’Estudis Internacionals (IBEI)BarcelonaSpain
  3. 3.Facultat de Ciències Polítiques i Sociologia, Edifici BUABCerdanyola del VallèsSpain
  4. 4.Faculty of Social ScienceUniversity of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU)BilbaoSpain

Personalised recommendations