Advertisement

Charting the EU–national strategic constellation: understanding EU strategy through member states’ strategic partnerships—an analysis of the Czech case

  • Benjamin TallisEmail author
  • Michal Šimečka
Original Article

Abstract

That the national foreign policies of EU member states impact on the EU’s strategy and strategic performance as a (global) foreign policy actor is not in doubt. But how this happens is a different matter. In analysing EU strategy, national foreign policies are often reduced to their (non-)alignment with that of the EU. This not only de-strategises them but also obscures the range of ways in which member states reinforce or undercut the EU’s strategic actor-ness, particularly those involving relations between member states. We address this gap by zooming in on one such way: member states’ bilateral strategic partnerships. We provide a newly comprehensive conceptualisation of strategic partnerships and employ this to analyse their role in the ‘EU–national strategic constellation’, focusing on Czech strategic partnerships—with both EU and non-EU states. This analysis shows the latent political as well as analytical potential of this underexplored aspect of EU strategy.

Keywords

European Union EU member states Strategy Strategic partnerships Intra-EU relations Czech Republic 

References

  1. Balfour, R., and K. Raik. 2013. The European external action service and national diplomacies. Brussels: European Policy Centre. EPC Issue Paper.Google Scholar
  2. Baun, M.J., and D. Marek (eds.). 2013. The new member states and the European Union: Foreign policy and Europeanization. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Bialasiewicz, L., D. Campbell, S. Elden, S. Graham, A. Jeffrey, and A.J. Williams. 2007. Performing security: The imaginative geographies of current US strategy. Political Geography 26: 405–422.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2006.12.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bickerton, C.J. 2015. European Union foreign policy: From effectiveness to functionality. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Palgrave Studies in European Union Politics.Google Scholar
  5. Blanco, L.F. 2016. The functions of ‘strategic partnership’ in European Union foreign policy discourse*. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 29: 36–54.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2015.1126055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Connolly, W.E. 2005. The evangelical-capitalist resonance machine. Political Theory, 33: 869–886.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591705280376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Copsey, N., and K. Pomorska. 2014. The influence of newer member states in the European Union: The case of Poland and the Eastern Partnership. Europe-Asia Studies 66: 421–443.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09668136.2013.855391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Deng, Y. 2007. Remolding great power politics: China’s strategic partnerships with Russia, the European Union, and India. Journal of Strategic Studies 30: 863–903.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01402390701432046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Emerson, M., Tocci, N., Youngs, R., Cassarino, J.-P., Egenhofer, C., Grevi, G. and Gros, D. 2011. Global matrix: A conceptual and organisational framework for researching the future of global governance. SSRN Electron. J.  https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1898633.
  10. 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: 3–17.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2015.1130341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Foy, H. and Buckley, N. 2016. Orban and Kaczynski vow “cultural counter-revolution” to EU reform. Financial Times, 7 September.Google Scholar
  12. Galeotti, M., Koran, M., Eberle, J., Ditrych, O. and Tallis, B. 2017. The Czech Republic gives up on the EU—and foreign policy. Open Democr. http://www.opendemocracy.net/can-europe-make-it/benjamin-tallis-mark-galeotti-michal-koran-jakub-eberle-ondrej-ditrych/czech-republic-gives-up-on-eu.
  13. German Embassy in Prague (2015) A common declaration on the strategic dialogue between the ministry of foreign affairs of the CR and the federal foreign office of the federal Republic of Germany as a new framework for Czech-German relations. Prague.Google Scholar
  14. Grevi, G. 2010. Making EU partnerships effective. Madrid: FRIDE. FRIDE Working Paper No. 105.Google Scholar
  15. Heiduk, F. 2015. What is in a name? Germany’s strategic partnerships with Asia’s rising powers. Asia Europe Journal 13: 131–146.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10308-014-0399-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Holslag, J. 2011. The elusive axis: Assessing the EU-China strategic partnership: The Elusive Axis. JCMS Journal of Common Market Studies 49: 293–313.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5965.2010.02121.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Howorth, J. 2012. Decision-making in security and defense policy: Towards supranational inter-governmentalism? Cooperation and conflict 47: 433–453.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836712462770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Huang, R.Y.-P., and C.J. Hill (eds.). 2011. National and European foreign policies: Towards europeanization. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Hyde-Price, A. 2006. ‘Normative’ power Europe: A realist critique. Journal of European Public Policy 13: 217–234.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760500451634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. iDnes. 2016. Chinese investment in Czechia: Overly high expectations frustrated. Prague, 24 October.Google Scholar
  21. Kay, S. 2000. What is a strategic partnership? Problems of Post-Communism 47: 15–24.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10758216.2000.11655882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Krastev, I. 2017. The refugee crisis and the return of the east-west divide in Europe. Slavic Review 76: 291–296.  https://doi.org/10.1017/slr.2017.77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Larsen, H. 2014. Discourses of state identity and post-Lisbon national foreign policy: The case of Denmark. Cooperation and Conflict 49: 368–385.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836713495000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Major, C. 2005. Europeanisation and foreign and security policy—Undermining or rescuing the nation state? Politics 25: 175–190.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9256.2005.00242.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Manners, I. 2002. Normative power Europe: A contradiction in terms? JCMS Journal of Common Market Studies 40: 235–258.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5965.00353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic, C.M. 2015. Foreign policy concept of the Czech Republic. Prague: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic.Google Scholar
  27. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic, C.M. 2011. Foreign policy concept of the Czech Republic. Prague: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic.Google Scholar
  28. Office of the President of the Czech Republic. 2016. Joint statement on the establishment of the SP between the Czech Republic and the Peoples’ Republic of China. Prague: Office of the President of the Czech Republic.Google Scholar
  29. Orenstein, M.A., and R.D. Kelemen. 2017. Trojan horses in EU foreign policy: Europe’s hybrid foreign policy. JCMS Journal of Common Market Studies 55: 87–102.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.12441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pannier, A., and O. Schmitt. 2014. Institutionalised cooperation and policy convergence in European defence: Lessons from the relations between France, Germany and the UK. European Security 23: 270–289.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2014.884073.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Puetter, U. 2012. Europe’s deliberative intergovernmentalism: The role of the Council and European Council in EU economic governance. Journal of European Public Policy 19: 161–178.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2011.609743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Raik, K. 2015. Renaissance of realism, a new stage of Europeanization, or both? Estonia, Finland and EU foreign policy. Cooperation and Conflict 50: 440–456.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836714560033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Renard, T. 2011. The EU and the SPs: Searching for a strategic meaning—how the EU is looking for strategic guidance for itself and for its partnerships. Paper Submitted on Twelfth Bienn. Conference on Europe Union Studies Association, EUSA Mass.Google Scholar
  34. Reuters. 2016. Czech parliament rejects labelling goods from Israeli settlements. Prague: Reuters.Google Scholar
  35. Riddervold, M. 2016. (Not) in the hands of the member states: How the European commission influences EU security and defence policies. JCMS Journal of Common Market Studies 54: 353–369.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.12288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sjursen, H. 2006. What kind of power? Journal of European Public Policy 13: 169–181.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760500451584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stanzel, A. 2016. China’s investment in influence: The future of 16 + 1 cooperation. London: European Council on Foreign Relations.Google Scholar
  38. Tonra, B. 2013. Europeanisation and EU foreign policy: A genealogy and survey. Paper presented at the 8th PanEuropean Conference on International Relations, Warsaw.Google Scholar
  39. Turcsany, R. 2014. Central and Eastern Europe’s courtship with China: Trojan Horses within the EU. Brussels: European Institute for Asian Studies.Google Scholar
  40. Vahl, M. 2001. A regional approach to the “strategic partnership”: strengthening EU-Russia relations through the northern dimension. Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies, CEPS Working Paper.Google Scholar
  41. van Gils, E. 2017. Differentiation through bargaining power in EU–Azerbaijan relations: Baku as a tough negotiator. East European Politics 33: 388–405.  https://doi.org/10.1080/21599165.2017.1322957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Vilson, M. 2015. The foreign policy of the baltic states and the Ukrainian crisis: A case of europeanization? New Perspectives 23: 49–76.Google Scholar
  43. Visegrad Group. 2017. Joint statement of the heads of governments of the V4 countries (2017) “strong Europe—union of action and trust”: Input into Rome declaration. Bratislava: Visegrad Four.Google Scholar
  44. Visegrad Group. 2016. Joint statement of V4 countries to bratislava declaration and roadmap. Bratislava: Visegrad Four.Google Scholar
  45. Waever, O. 1995. Identity, integration and security: Solving the sovereignty puzzle in E.U Studies. Journal of Intetnational Affairs 48: 389–431.Google Scholar
  46. Wagner, W. 2003. Why the EU’s common foreign and security policy will remain intergovernmental: A rationalist institutional choice analysis of European crisis management policy. Journal of Europe Public Policy 10: 576–595.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1350176032000101262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wilkins, T.S. 2008. Russo-chinese strategic partnership: A new form of security cooperation? Contemporary Security Policy 29: 358–383.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260802284365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zaorálek, L. 2015. Reflections on Czech-Israeli relations in Light of EU policies. Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs 9: 87–89.  https://doi.org/10.1080/23739770.2015.1015094.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zhongping, F. and Jing, H. 2014. China’s SPs diplomacy: Engaging with a changing world. Brussels: Egmont, EPSO. EPSO Working Paper No. 8.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of International RelationsPragueCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations