Une Liaison Transnationale
- 7 Downloads
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.
KeywordsCFSP International Criminal Court NGOs Lobbying Interest groups
- 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
- Baur, D. 2011. NGOs as legitimate partners of corporations: A political conceptualization. London: Springer.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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.
- Cini, M. 1996. The European Commission: Leadership, organisation, and culture in the EU administration. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
- Chelotti, N. 2016. The formulation of EU foreign policy: Socialization, negotiations and disaggregation of the state. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
- Dawson, R.E., and K. Prewitt. 1969. Political socialization. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- 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
- Fehl, C. 2012. Living with a Reluctant Hegemon. Explaining European responses to US unilateralism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Haas, E.B. 1958. The Uniting of Europe: Political, social and economic forces, 1950–1957. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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.
- Raik, K. 2006. Promoting democracy through civil society: How to step up the EU’s policy towards the Eastern neighbourhood. Brussels: CEPS.Google Scholar
- Slaughter, A.M. 2004. A new world order. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Stone, D. 2013. Capturing the political imagination: Think tanks and the policy process. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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