The External Dimension of the EU’s Non-proliferation Policy: Overcoming Inter-institutional Competition

Chapter

Abstract

For many years, the EU’s policy on non-proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) has been a victim of institutional fragmentation, imbedded in the post-Maastricht formal separation of the European Community from the CFSP. On the one hand, since the beginning of the 1990s, the European Commission was developing capacity-building projects on non-proliferation and nuclear safety, utilising its geographical and thematic financial instruments. On the other hand, more recently, permanent bureaucratic structures entrusted with implementing the EU’s WMD Strategy were established in the Council General Secretariat. This posed a challenge to consistency of the EU’s non-proliferation efforts and even triggered inter-institutional competition over limited resources. The European External Action Service offers an opportunity to solve these problems by bringing selected bureaucracies from the Commission and Council General Secretariat together. Will it be sufficient to develop a consistent policy on the non-proliferation of WMDs for the EU? This chapter analyses structural problems which have been negatively affecting the EU’s profile as an actor in non-proliferation policy. Further, it evaluates prospects for enhancing this profile following the institutional reforms introduced by the Lisbon Treaty.

References

  1. Alibek K (2000) Biohazard. Arrow Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. Àlvarez-Verdugo M (2006) Mixing tools against proliferation: the EU’s strategy for dealing with weapons of mass destruction. European Foreign Affairs Review 11:417–438Google Scholar
  3. Anthony I (2004) Reducing threats at the source: a European perspective on cooperative threat reduction, SIPRI research report 19. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  4. Anthony I (2009) The role of the EU in WMD nonproliferation. In: Busch NE, Joyner DH (eds) Combating weapons of mass destruction: the future of international nonproliferation policy. The University of Georgia Press, Athens, pp 197–221Google Scholar
  5. Bendiek A (2006) Cross-Pillar security regime building in the European Union: effects of the European security strategy of December 2003. European integration, online papers 10Google Scholar
  6. Bergenäs J (2010) What role for WMD nonproliferation under the EU’s new foreign policy chief: a six month review and analysis of Lady Ashton’s Tenure, issue brief. Nuclear Threat InitiativeGoogle Scholar
  7. Christiansen T (2001) Intra-institutional politics and inter-institutional relations in the EU: Towards coherent governance? Journal of European Public Policy 8:747–769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. De Jong S, Sterkx S, Wouters J (2010) The EU as a regional actor: weapons of mass destruction. Working Paper 10, EU-GRASPGoogle Scholar
  9. Denza E (2005) Non-proliferation of nuclear weapons: the European Union and Iran. European Foreign Affairs Review 10:289–311Google Scholar
  10. Dijkstra H (2009) Commission versus Council Secretariat: an analysis of bureaucratic rivalry in European foreign policy. European Foreign Affairs Review 14:431–450Google Scholar
  11. Duke S (2006) Areas of grey: tensions in EU external relations competences. EIPASCOPE 1:21–27Google Scholar
  12. Duke S (2009) Providing for European-level diplomacy after Lisbon: the case of the European External Action Service. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 4:211–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goens J (1987) The opportunities and limits of European co-operation in the area of non-proliferation. In: Müller H (ed) A European nonproliferation policy. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  14. Grand C (2000) The European Union and the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. Chaillot Papers 37, Institute for Security Studies, ParisGoogle Scholar
  15. Harnish S (2007) Minilateral cooperation and transatlantic coalition-building: the E3/EU-3 Iran initiative. European Security 16:1–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Höhl K, Müller H, Schaper A, Schmitt B (2003) EU cooperative threat reduction activities in Russia. Chaillot Papers 61, Institute for Security Studies, ParisGoogle Scholar
  17. Holden (2009) In search of structural power: EU aid policy as a global political instrument. Ashgate, BurlingtonGoogle Scholar
  18. Howorth J (2007) Security and defence policy in the European Union. Palgrave Macmillan, BasingstokeGoogle Scholar
  19. Kile S (2005) Europe and Iran: perspectives on non-proliferation, SIPRI research report 21. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  20. Leonard M (2005) Can EU diplomacy stop Iran’s nuclear programme? Centre for European Reform, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Missiroli A (2001) European security policy: the challenge of coherence. European Foreign Affairs Review 6:177–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Missiroli A (2010) The new EU “foreign policy” system after Lisbon: a work in progress. European Foreign Affairs Review 15:427–452Google Scholar
  23. Müller H (2007) Europe and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. In: Foradori P, Rosa P, Scartezzini R (eds) Managing multilevel foreign policy. Lexington Books, Lanhan, pp 181–200Google Scholar
  24. Nugent N (2010) The government and politics of the European Union. Palgrave Macmillan, BasingstokeGoogle Scholar
  25. Nuttall S (2005) Coherence and consistency. In: Hill C, Smith M (eds) International relations and the European Union. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 91–112Google Scholar
  26. Portela C (2003) The role of the EU in the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons: the way to Thessaloniki and beyond, PRIF report 65. Peace Research Institute, FrankfurtGoogle Scholar
  27. Sauer T (2003) How “common” is European nuclear non-proliferation policy. Joint Session of Workshops of the European Consortium for Political Research, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  28. Schmalz U (1998) The Amsterdam Provisions on external coherence: Bridging the Union’s foreign policy dualism? European Foreign Affairs Review 3:421–442Google Scholar
  29. Smith (2002) European Union foreign policy: what it is and what it does. Pluto Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  30. Smith ME (2005) Implementation: making the EU’s international relations work. In: Hill C, Smith M (eds) International relations and the European Union. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 154–175Google Scholar
  31. Sodupe K, Benito E (1998) The evolution of the European Union’s TACIS programme, 1991–96. Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics 14:51–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stetter S (2004) Cross-pillar politics: functional unity and institutional fragmentation of EU. Journal of European Public Policy 11:720–739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tietje C (1997) The concept of coherence in the Treaty on European Union and the Common Foreign and Security Policy. European Foreign Affairs Review 2:211–233Google Scholar
  34. Turpen E, Finlay B (2009) US–Russia cooperative nonproliferation. In: Busch NE, Joyner DH (eds) Combating weapons of mass destruction: the future of international nonproliferation policy. The University of Georgia Press, Athens, pp 302–324Google Scholar
  35. Van Elsuwege P (2010) EU external action after the collapse of the pillar structure: in search of a new balance between delimitation and consistency. Common Market Law Review 47:987–1019Google Scholar
  36. Vanhoonacker S, Reslow N (2010) The European External Action Service. European Foreign Affairs Review 15:1–18Google Scholar
  37. Weiss S (2009) External action service. Much ado about nothing. Spotlight Europe 5, pp 1–8Google Scholar

Copyright information

© T.M.C. ASSER PRESS, The Hague, The Netherlands, and the author 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of History, Politics and PhilosophyManchester Metropolitan UniversityManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations