Advertisement

An Ever More Intergovernmental EU? From Foreign and Security Policy to External Action

  • Pol Morillas
Chapter
Part of the The European Union in International Affairs book series (EUIA)

Abstract

This chapter provides the analytical framework of the book by looking at two parallel developments. On the one hand, it reviews the re-emergence of a long-lasting debate between intergovernmentalism and supranationalism in the form of the new intergovernmentalism and its critiques. On the other, it analyses the shift from foreign policy to external action and the inter-institutional dynamics in both areas. The chapter reviews the policy-making of the intergovernmental CFSP and of a hybrid area such as external action and highlights the increasing autonomy that the HR/VP and the EEAS have gained since the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. By bringing together both literatures, this chapter lays the ground for the study of the policy-making processes of the ESS and the EUGS.

References

  1. Allen, D. (1998). ‘Who Speaks for Europe?’ The Search for an Effective and Coherent External Policy. In J. Peterson & H. Sjursen (Eds.), A Common Foreign Policy for Europe? Competing Visions for the CFSP (pp. 41–58). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Amadio Viceré, M. G. (2016). The Roles of the President of the European Council and the High Representative in Leading EU Foreign Policy on Kosovo. Journal of European Integration, 38(5), 557–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Balfour, R., & Raik, K. (2013). Equipping the European Union for the XXIst Century. National Diplomacies, the European External Action Service and the making of EU foreign policy. Finnish Institute of International Affairs, 36(1). https://www.fiia.fi/en/publication/equipping-the-european-union-for-the-21st-century. Accessed 6 March 2018.
  4. Balfour, R., Carta, C., & Raik, K. (Eds.). (2015). The European External Action Service and Foreign National Ministries. Convergence or Divergence?. Surrey: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  5. Barbé, E. (dir.). (2014). La Unión Europea en las Relaciones Internacionales. Barcelona: Tecnos.Google Scholar
  6. Barber, T. (2010). The Appointments of Herman van Rompuy and Catherine Ashton. Journal of Common Market Studies, 48(s1), 55–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bátora, J. (2013). The Mitrailleuse Effect: The EEAS as an Interstitial Organization and the Dynamics of Innovation in Diplomacy. Journal of Common Market Studies, 51(4), 598–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bickerton, C., Hodson, D., & Puetter, U. (2015a). The New Intergovernmentalism: European Integration in the Post-Maastricht Era. Journal of Common Market Studies, 53(4), 703–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bickerton, C., Hodson, D., & Puetter, U. (2015b). The New Intergovernmentalism: States and Supranational Actors in the Post-Maastricht Era. Oxford: Oxford Scholarship Online.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blockmans, S., & Laatsit, M.-L. (2012). The European External Action Service: Enhancing Coherence in EU External Action? In P. J. Cardwell (Ed.), EU External Relations Law and Policy in the Post-Lisbon Era (pp. 135–159). The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press.Google Scholar
  11. Blockmans, S., & Russack, S. (2015). The Commissioners’ Group on External Action—Key Political Facilitator (CEPS Special Report, 125). https://www.ceps.eu/publications/commissioners%E2%80%99-group-external-action-%E2%80%93-key-political-facilitator. Accessed 6 March 2018.
  12. Börzel, T. A., & Risse, T. (2008). Revisiting the Nature of the Beast—Politicization, European Identity, and Postfunctionalism: A Comment on Hooghe and Marks. British Journal of Political Science, 39(1), 217–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Börzel, T. A., & van Hüllen, V. (2014). One Voice, One Message, but Conflicting Goals: Cohesiveness and Consistency in the European Neighbourhood Policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 21(7), 1033–1049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bretherton, C., & Vogler, J. (2006). The European Union as a Global Actor. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Cameron, F. (1998). Building a Common Foreign Policy: Do Institutions Matter? In J. Peterson & H. Sjursen (Eds.), A Common Foreign Policy for Europe? Competing Visions of the CFSP (pp. 59–76). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Cameron, F. (2012). An Introduction to European Foreign Policy. Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Council of the European Union. (2010). Council Decision 2010/427/EU Establishing the Organisation and Functioning of the European External Action Service (OJ L 201/30). Brussels, 26 July. https://eeas.europa.eu/sites/eeas/files/eeas_decision_en.pdf. Accessed 21 March 2018.
  18. Christiansen, T. (2001). The Council of Ministers: The Politics of Institutionalised Intergovernmentalism. In J. Richardson (Ed.), European Union: Power and Policy-Making (pp. 135–154). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Christiansen, T. (2010). The EU Reform Process: From the European Constitution to the Lisbon Treaty. In M. Carbone (Ed.), National Politics and European Integration: From the Constitution to the Lisbon Treaty (pp. 16–33). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  20. Cremona, M. (2003). The Draft Constitutional Treaty: External Relations and External Action. Common Market Law Review, 40(6), 1347–1366.Google Scholar
  21. Cremona, M. (2008a). Coherence Through Law: What Difference Will the Treaty of Lisbon Make? Hamburg Review of Social Sciences, 3, 11–36.Google Scholar
  22. Cremona, M. (2008b). The European Neighbourhood Policy: More Than a Partnership? In M. Cremona (Ed.), Developments in EU External Relations Law (pp. 244–300). Oxford University Press: Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cremona, M. (2017). A Quiet Revolution: The Common Commercial Policy Six Years After the Treaty of Lisbon. Stockholm: Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies.Google Scholar
  24. Dashwood, A. (2008). Article 47 TEU and the Relationship Between First and Second Pillar Competences. In A. Dashwood & M. Maresceau (Eds.), Law and Practice of EU External Relations: Salient Features of a Changing Landscape (pp. 70–103). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dehousse, R. (2015). The New Supranationalism. Paper Prepared for the ECPR General Conference, Montreal, 26–29 August 2015. https://ecpr.eu/Filestore/PaperProposal/281383a5-0285-4417-a613-eed8cd5d36bd.pdf. Accessed 31 August 2017.
  26. Dehousse, R. (2016). Why Has EU Macroeconomic Governance Become More Supranational? Journal of European Integration, 38(5), 617–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. den Hertog, L., & Stroβ, S. (2013). Coherence in EU External Relations: Concepts and Legal Rooting of an Ambiguous Term. European Foreign Affairs Review, 18(3), 373–388.Google Scholar
  28. Dinan, D. (2011). Governance and Institutions: Implementing the Lisbon Treaty in the Shadow of the Euro Crisis. Journal of Common Market Studies, 49(s1), 103–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Duke, S. (2005). The Linchpin COPS: Assessing the Workings and Institutional Relations of the Political and Security Committee (EIPA Working Paper 05/W/2005). http://aei.pitt.edu/5914/. Accessed 6 March 2018.
  30. Duke, S. (2008a). The Lisbon Treaty and External Relations (EIPA Working Paper 2008/1). https://www.eipa.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/20080509183907_SCOPE2008-1-3_SimonDuke-1.pdf. Accessed 6 March 2018.
  31. Duke, S. (2008b). Peculiarities in the Institutionalisation of CFSP and ESDP. In S. Blockmans (Ed.), The European Union and Crisis Management: Policy and Legal Aspects (pp. 75–106). The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Duke, S. (2012). The European External Action Service: Antidote against incoherence? European Foreign Affairs Review, 17(1), 45–68.Google Scholar
  33. Duke, S. (2017). Europe as a Stronger Global Actor. Challenges and Strategic Responses. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Edwards, G. (2011). The Pattern of the EU’s Global Activity. In C. Hill & M. Smith (Eds.), International Relations and the European Union (pp. 44–74). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. European Convention. (2002). Final Report of Working Group VII on External Action (CONV 459/02). Brussels, 16 December. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/committees/deve/20030218/489393EN.pdf. Accessed 6 March 2018.
  36. Fabbrini, S. (2016). From Consensus to Domination: The Intergovernmental Union in a Crisis Situation. Journal of European Integration, 38(5), 587–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Fabbrini, S., & Puetter, U. (2016). Integration Without Supranationalisation: Studying the Lead Roles of the European Council and the Council in Post-Lisbon EU Politics. Journal of European Integration, 38(5), 481–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Fernández Sola, N. (2008). El Servicio de Acción Exterior de la Unión Europea. Documento de Trabajo, Real Instituto Elcano, 46/2008. http://www.realinstitutoelcano.org/wps/portal/rielcano_es/contenido?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/elcano/elcano_es/zonas_es/dt46-2008. Accessed 6 March 2018.
  39. Furness, M. (2013). Who Controls the European External Action Service? Agent Autonomy in EU External Policy. European Foreign Affairs Review, 18(1), 103–125.Google Scholar
  40. Furness, M., & Gänzle, S. (2016). The Security-Development Nexus in European Union Foreign Relations after Lisbon: Policy Coherence at Last? Development Policy Review.  https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Gaspers, J. (2008). The Quest for European Foreign Policy Consistency and the Treaty of Lisbon. Humanitas Journal of European Studies, 2(1), 19–53.Google Scholar
  42. Gauttier, P. (2004). Horizontal Coherence and the External Competences of the European Union. European Law Journal, 10(1), 23–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Gebhard, C. (2011). Coherence. In C. Hill & M. Smith (Eds.), International Relations and the European Union (pp. 101–127). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Glencross, A. (2016). The European Council and the Legitimacy Paradox of New Intergovernmentalism: Constitutional Agency Meets Politicisation. Journal of European Integration, 38(5), 497–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Giegerich, B., & Wallace, W. (2010). Foreign and Security Policy. Civilian Power Europe and American Leadership. In W. Wallace, M. A. Pollack, & A. Young (Eds.), Policy-Making in the European Union (pp. 431–456). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Helwig, N. (2015). The High Representative of the Union: The Constrained Agent of Europe’s Foreign Policy. PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh and University of Cologne.Google Scholar
  47. Helwig, N., & Rügler, C. (2014). In Search of a Role for the High Representative: The Legacy of Catherine Ashton. The International Spectator: Italian Journal of International Affairs, 49(4), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Hoffman, S. (2000). Towards a Common European Foreign and Security Policy? Journal of Common Market Studies, 38(2), 189–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Henökl, T. (2014). The European External Action Service: Torn Apart Between Several Principals or Acting as a Smart ‘Double-agent’? Journal of Contemporary European Research, 10(4), 381–401.Google Scholar
  50. Henökl, T. (2015). How Do EU Foreign Policy-Makers Decide? Institutional Orientations within the European External Action Service. West European Politics, 38(3), 679–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Henökl, T., & Trondal, J. (2015). Unveiling the Anatomy of Autonomy: Dissecting Actor-Level Independence in the European External Action Service. Journal of European Public Policy, 22(10), 1426–1447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Hill, C., & Smith, M. (Eds.). (2011). International Relations and the European Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Hix, S. (1999). The Political System of the European Union. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2008). A Postfunctionalist Theory of European Integration: From Permissive Consensus to Constraining Dissensus. British Journal of Political Science, 39(1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Howorth, J. (2010). The Political and Security Committee: A Case Study on ‘Supra-National Inter-Governmentalism’? Les Cahiers Europeens de Sciences Po. Centre d’Etudes Européennes Sciences Po. https://www.ies.be/files/documents/JMCdepository/Howorth,%20Jolyon,%20The%20Political%20and%20Security%20Committee,%20A%20Case%20Study%20in%20%E2%80%98Supranational%20Intergovernmentalism%E2%80%99.pdf. Accessed 5 March 2018.
  56. Howorth, J. (2011). Decision-Making in Security and Defence Policy: Towards Supranational Intergovernmentalism? (KFG Working Paper Series, No. 25, March 2011). Kolleg-Forschergruppe (KFG). The Transformative Power of Europe. Freie Universität Berlin. http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/kfgeu/kfgwp/wpseries/WorkingPaperKFG_25.pdf. Accessed 5 March 2018.
  57. Howorth, J. (2014a). Security and Defence Policy in the European Union. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Howorth, J. (2014b). Catherine Ashton’s Five-Year Term: A Difficult Assessment. Les Cahiers Européens de Sciences Po. 03/2014. https://www.sciencespo.fr/centre-etudes-europeennes/sites/sciencespo.fr.centre-etudes-europeennes/files/n%C2%B03_2014_Howorth%20v4.pdf. Accessed 5 March 2018.
  59. Howarth, D., & Quaglia, L. (2015). The New Intergovernmentalism in Financial Regulation and European Banking Union. In C. Bickerton, D. Hodson, & U. Puetter (Eds.), The New Intergovernmentalism: States and Supranational Actors in the Post-Maastricht Era (pp. 146–164). Oxford: Oxford Scholarship Online.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Jørgensen, K. E., Aarstad, A., Drieskens, E., Laatikainen, K., & Tonra, B. (Eds.). (2015). The Sage Handbook of European Foreign Policy. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  61. Juncker, J.-C. (2014). Mission Letter to Federica Mogherini, High Representative of the Union for Foreign Policy and Security Policy/Vice-President of the European Commission. European Commission. Brussels, 1 November. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/cwt/files/commissioner_mission_letters/mogherini_en.pdf. Accessed 6 March 2018.​
  62. Juncos, A. E., & Pomorska, K. (2013). ‘In the Face of Adversity’: Explaining the Attitudes of EEAS Officials Vis-à-Vis the New Service. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(9), 1332–1349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Juncos, A. E., & Pomorska, K. (2014). Manufacturing Esprit de Corps: The Case of the European External Action Service. Journal of Common Market Studies, 52(2), 302–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Juncos, A. E., & Reynolds, C. (2007). The Political and Security Committee: Governing in the Shadow. European Foreign Affairs Review, 12(2), 127–147.Google Scholar
  65. Keukeleire, S., & Delreux, T. (2014). The Foreign Policy of the European Union. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Keukeleire, S., & MacNaughtan, J. (2008). The Foreign Policy of the European Union. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  67. Koehler, K. (2010). European Foreign Policy After Lisbon: Strengthening the EU as an International Actor. Caucasian Review of International Affairs, 4(1), 57–72.Google Scholar
  68. Kostanyan, H. (2014). The Rationales Behind the European External Action Service: The Principal-Agent Model and Power Delegation. Journal of Contemporary European Research, 10(2), 166–183; 171.Google Scholar
  69. Kostanyan, H. (2016). Analysing the Power of the European Union’s Diplomatic Service: Do the EU Member States Control the European External Action Service? The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 11, 26–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Koutrakos, P. (2013). The EU Common Security and Defence Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Larivé, M. H. A. (2014). Debating European Security and Defense Policy. Understanding the Complexity. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  72. Lehne, S. (2011). More Action, Better Service: How to Strengthen the European External Action Service. Policy Outlook. Carnegie Europe. http://carnegieeurope.eu/2011/12/16/more-action-better-service-how-to-strengthen-european-external-action-service-pub-46218. Accessed 6 March 2018.
  73. Lehne, S. (2015). Are Prime Ministers Taking Over EU Foreign Policy? (Carnegie Paper). Carnegie Europe. http://carnegieeurope.eu/2015/02/16/are-prime-ministers-taking-over-eu-foreign-policy-pub-59070. Accessed 19 February 2018.
  74. Lequesne, C. (2015). EU Foreign Policy Through the Lens of Practice Theory: A Different Approach to the European External Action Service. Cooperation and Conflict, 50(3), 351–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Lequesne, C. (2016). The Eurozone Crisis and European Integration: “New Intergovernmentalism” as a Valid Theory. In S. Saurugger & F. Terpan (Eds.), Crisis and Institutional Change in Regional Integration (pp. 41–59). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  76. Lewis, J. (2003). Institutional Environments and Everyday EU Decision Making. Rationalist or Constructivist? Comparative Political Studies, 36(1/2), 97–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Manners, I., & Whitman, R. (2016). Another Theory is Possible: Dissident Voices in Theorising Europe. Journal of Common Market Studies, 54(1), 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Marangoni, A.-C. (2012). One Hat Too Many for the High Representative—Vice President? The Coherence of EU External Policies After Lisbon. EU External Action Review, 2, 4–17.Google Scholar
  79. Marangoni, A.-C. (2014). Towards Consistency of EU External Policies? A Case Study on the European Commission. Maastricht: University of Maastricht.Google Scholar
  80. Moravcsik, A. (1998). The Choice for Europe. Social Purpose and State Power from Messina to Maastricht. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  81. Morgenstern-Pomorski, J.-H. (2018). The Contested Diplomacy of the European External Action Service. Inception, Establishment and Consolidation. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  82. Morillas, P. (2011). Institutionalization or Intergovernmental Decision-Taking in Foreign Policy: The Implementation of the Lisbon Treaty. European Foreign Affairs Review, 16(2), 243–257.Google Scholar
  83. Morillas, P. (2014). Actores y Procesos en la Política Exterior y de Seguridad Común. In E. Barbé (dir.), La Unión Europea en las Relaciones Internacionales (pp. 59–81). Barcelona: Tecnos.Google Scholar
  84. Morillas, P. (2017). Shapes of a Union: From Ever Closer Union to Flexible Differentiation After Brexit. Notes Internacionals, 166. CIDOB. https://www.cidob.org/en/publications/publication_series/notes_internacionals/n1_166/shapes_of_a_union_from_ever_closer_union_to_flexible_differentiation_after_brexit. Accessed 6 March 2018.
  85. Murdoch, Z., Trondal, J., & Gänzle, S. (2012). Building Foreign Affairs Capacity in the EU: The Recruitment of Member State Officials to the European External Action Service (EEAS). Public Administration, 92(1), 71–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Nivet, Bastien. (2011). Europeanizing European Foreign Policies by Forging European Diplomats? IRIS. http://www.iris-france.org/docs/kfm_docs/docs/2011-07-12-eeas-bastien-nivet.pdf. Accessed 6 March 2018.
  87. Nugent, N. (2010). The Government and Politics of the European Union. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Nuttall, S. (2000). European Foreign Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Nuttall, S. (2001). ‘Consistency’ and the CFSP: A Categorization and Its Consequences (EFPU Working Paper Series, 3).Google Scholar
  90. Ohrgaard, J. (2004). International Relations or European Integration: Is the CFSP Sui Generis? In B. Tonra & T. Christiansen (Eds.), Rethinking European Foreign Policy (pp. 26–44). Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  91. Onestini, C. (2015). A Hybrid Service: Organising Efficient EU Foreign Policy. In D. Spence & J. Bátora (Eds.), The European External Action Service. European Diplomacy Post-Westphalia (pp. 65–86). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Peterson, J., & Sjursen, H. (Eds.). (1998). A Common Foreign Policy for Europe? Competing Visions of the CFSP. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  93. Piris, J. C. (2010). The Lisbon Treaty. A Legal and Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  94. Pirozzi, N. (2015). EU Crisis Management after Lisbon. A New Model to Address Security Challenges of the 21st Century? Cambridge: Insertia.Google Scholar
  95. Poletti, A., & De Bièvre, D. (2013). The Political Science of European Trade Policy: A Literature Review with a Research Outlook. Comparative European Politics, 12(1), 101–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Pollack, M. A. (2003). The Engines of European Integration: Delegation, Agency, and Agenda Setting in the EU. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Pomorska, K., & Puetter, U. (2016). The Two Pillars of New Intergovernmentalism. How CFSP and EMU Have Shaped Post-Maastricht EU Governance. Academic association for Contemporary European Studies. https://www.uaces.org/events/conferences/london/papers/abstract.php?paper_id=137#.WrKAfOjOXcv. Accessed 21 March 2018.
  98. Puetter, U. (2003). Informal Circles of Ministers: A Way Out of the EU’s Institutional Dilemmas? European Law Journal, 9(1), 109–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Puetter, U. (2014). The European Council and the Council: New Intergovernmentalism and Institutional Change. Oxford: Oxford Scholarship Online.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Puetter, U. (2016). The Centrality of Consensus and Deliberation in Contemporary EU Politics and the New Intergovernmentalism. Journal of European Integration, 38(5), 601–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Puetter, U., & Fabbrini, S. (2016). Catalysts of Integration—The Role of Core Intergovernmental Forums in EU Politics. Journal of European Integration, 38(5), 633–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Reichwein, A. (2015). Realism and European Foreign Policy: Promises and Shortcomings. In K. Jørgensen, A. Aarstad, E. Drieskens, K. Laatikainen, & B. Tonra (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of European Foreign Policy (pp. 99–120). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Rosamond, B. (2016). Field of Dreams: The Discursive Construction of EU Studies, Intellectual Dissidence and the Practice of ‘Normal Science’. Journal of Common Market Studies, 54(1), 19–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Rummel, R., & Wiedemann, J. (1998). Identifying Institutional Paradoxes of the CFSP. In J. Zielonka (Ed.), Paradoxes of European Foreign Policy (pp. 53–66). The Hague: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
  105. Schmidt, V. A. (2016). The New EU Governance: New Intergovernmentalism, New Supranationalism, and New Parliamentarism (IAI Working Papers 16(11)). IAI. http://www.iai.it/sites/default/files/iaiwp1611.pdf. Accessed 5 March 2018.
  106. Schimmelfennig, F. (2015). What’s the News in ‘New Intergovernmentalism’? A Critique of Bickerton, Hodson and Puetter. Journal of Common Market Studies, 53(4), 723–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Sjursen, H. (2011). Not So Intergovernmental After All? On Democracy and Integration in European Foreign and Security Policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 18(8), 1078–1095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Smith, K. E. (2014). European Union Foreign Policy in a Changing World. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  109. Smith, M. (1998). Does the Flag Follow Trade?: ‘Politicisation’ and the Emergence of a European Foreign Policy. In J. Peterson & H. Sjursen (Eds.), A Common Foreign Policy for Europe? Competing Visions of the CFSP (pp. 77–94). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  110. Smith, M. (2012). Still Rooted in Maastricht: EU External Relations as a ‘Third-generation Hybrid’. Journal of European Integration, 34(7), 699–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Smith, M., Keukeleire, S., & Vanhoonacker, S. (Eds.). (2015). The Diplomatic System of the European Union. Evolution, Change and Challenges. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  112. Smith, M. E. (2001). The Quest for Coherence: Institutional Dilemmas of External Action from Maastricht to Amsterdam. In A. Stone Sweet, W. Sandholtz, & N. Fligstein (Eds.), The Institutionalization of Europe (pp. 171–193). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Smith, M. E. (2004). Europe’s Foreign and Security Policy: The Institutionalization of Cooperation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  114. Smith, M. E. (2013). The European External Action Service and the Security Development Nexus: Organizing for Effectiveness or Incoherence? Journal of European Public Policy, 20(9), 1299–1315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Smith, M. E. (2015). The New Intergovernmentalism and Experiential Learning in the Common Security and Defence Policy. In C. Bickerton, D. Hodson, & U. Puetter (Eds.), The New Intergovernmentalism: States and Supranational Actors in the Post-Maastricht Era (pp. 111–128). Oxford: Oxford Scholarship Online.Google Scholar
  116. Spence, D. (2012). The Early Days of the European External Action Service: A Practitioner’s View. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 7(1), 115–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Spence, D., & Bátora, J. (2015). The European External Action Service. European Diplomacy Post-Westphalia. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Stone Sweet, A., & Sandholtz, W. (1997). European Integration and Supranational Governance. Journal of European Public Policy, 4(3), 297–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Thaler, P. (2016). The European Commission and the European Council: Coordinated Agenda Setting in European Energy Policy. Journal of European Integration, 38(5), 571–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Toje, A. (2008). The Consensus—Expectations Gap: Explaining Europe’s Ineffective Foreign Policy. Security Dialogue, 39(1), 121–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Tsebelis, G., & Garrett, G. (2001). The Institutional Foundations of Intergovernmentalism and Supranationalism in the European Union. International Organization, 55(2), 357–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Vanhoonacker, S. (2011). The Institutional Framework. In C. Hill & M. E. Smith (Eds.), International Relations and the European Union (pp. 75–100). Oxford: Oxford University.Google Scholar
  123. Vanhoonacker, S., & Pomorska, K. (2013). The European External Action Service and Agenda-Setting in European Foreign Policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(9), 1316–1331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Van Vooren, B. (2012). EU External Relations Law and the European Neighbourhood Policy. A Paradigm for Coherence. Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Wallace, H. (2010). An Institutional Anatomy and Five Policy Models. In H. Wallace, M. Pollack, & A. Young (Eds.), Policy-Making in the European Union (pp. 69–106). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  126. Wessels, W. (1982). European Political Cooperation: A New Approach to Foreign Policy. In D. Allen, R. Rummel, & W. Wessels (Eds.), European Political Cooperation: Towards a Foreign Policy for Western Europe (pp. 1–21). London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
  127. Wessels, W. (2004). Theoretical Perspectives. CFSP Beyond the Supranational and Intergovernmental Dichotomy. In D. Mahncke, A. Ambos, & C. Reynolds (Eds.), European Foreign Policy. From Rhetoric to Reality? (pp. 61–96). Brussels: Presses Interuniversitaires Européennes.Google Scholar
  128. Wessels, W., & Bopp, F. (2008). The Institutional Architecture of CFSP after the Lisbon Treaty—Constitutional Breakthrough or Challenges Ahead? CHALLENGE—The Changing Landscape of European Liberty and Security (Research Paper, 10). http://aei.pitt.edu/9403/2/9403.pdf. Accessed 5 March 2018.
  129. Wolff, S. (2015). Integrating in Justice and Home Affairs. A Case of New Intergovernmentalism Par Excellence? In C. Bickerton, D. Hodson, & U. Puetter (Eds.), The New Intergovernmentalism: States and Supranational Actors in the Post-Maastricht Era (pp. 129–145). Oxford: Oxford Scholarship Online.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Barcelona Centre for International Affairs (CIDOB)BarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations