Revisiting the Lisbon Treaty’s Constitutional Design of EU External Relations

Chapter

Abstract

The Lisbon Treaty is the outcome of a long gestation process that started with extraordinary ambitions but was stunned by political constraints. Instilling coherence in EU external action has been one of the major and most visible goals of this reform. In order to do so, the drafters of the Treaty attempted to integrate the different parts of EU external action. Their effort was only partly successful, allowing for an improved coherence, effectiveness and continuity in EU external action if the EU institutions and the Member States manage to garner the political will. However, the current text of the Treaties carries a largely untapped potential for non-negligible improvements in the exercise of Union action abroad. It is this potential that the intellectual exercise at hand attempts to reveal when revisiting the constitutional design of the Lisbon Treaty. At the same time, the political constraints both in the process that led to Lisbon and in the implementation of the new text of the Treaties since December 2009 are analyzed.

Keywords

Coherence in EU external action EU external relations European External Action Service European Union HR/VP 

References

  1. Balfour R, Ojanen H (2013) Equipping the European Union for the 21st century—National diplomacies, the European External Action Service and the making of EU foreign policy. FIIA Report 36. http://www.epc.eu/documents/uploads/pub_3232_equipping_the_eu_for_the_21st_century.pdf
  2. Balfour R, Raik K (2013) Learning to dance to the same tune? The European External Action Service and national diplomacies. European Policy Centre Commentary, 17 January 2013. http://www.epc.eu/documents/uploads/pub_3231_learning_to_dance_to_the_same_tune.pdf
  3. Bendiek A, Kramer H (2010) The EU as a ‘Strategic’ international actor: substantial and analytical ambiguities. Eur Foreign Aff Rev 15:453–474Google Scholar
  4. Biscop S (2012) EU grand strategy: optimism is mandatory. Egmont Security Policy Brief No. 36. http://www.egmontinstitute.be/papers/12/sec-gov/SPB36-Biscop.pdf
  5. Blockmans S (2012) The European External Action Service one year on: first signs of strengths and weaknesses. CLEER Working Papers 2012/2. http://www.asser.nl/upload/documents/1272012_11147cleer2012-2web.pdf
  6. Borger J (2011) EU anger over British stance on UN statements. The Guardian, 20 October 2011. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/20/uk-eu-un-statements-wording
  7. Christiansen T (2012) The European Union after the Lisbon Treaty: an elusive ‘Institutional Balance’? In: Biondi A et al (eds) EU law after Lisbon. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  8. Coelmont J (2012) An EU security strategy: an attractive narrative. Egmont Security Policy Brief No. 34. http://www.egmontinstitute.be/papers/12/sec-gov/SPB34.pdf
  9. Coelmont J (2013) A European global security strategy: offering seven-league boots to become a global actor. Egmont Security Policy Brief No. 45. http://www.egmontinstitute.be/papers/13/sec-gov/SPB45.pdf
  10. Corthaut T, Van Eeckhoutte D (2012) Legal aspects of EU participation in global environmental governance under the UN umbrella. In: Wouters et al (eds) The European Union and multilateral governance. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp 145–170Google Scholar
  11. Craig P (2010) The Lisbon Treaty: law, politics, and treaty reform. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cremona M (2003) The draft constitutional treaty: external relations and external action. Common Mark Law Rev 40:1347–1348Google Scholar
  13. Cremona M (2008) Defining competence in EU external relations: lessons from the treaty reform process. In: Dashwood A, Maresceau M (eds) Law and practice of EU external relations: salient features of a changing landscape. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 34–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dashwood A (2004–2005) The EU constitution—what will really change? Cambridge Yearbook Eur Legal Stud 7:33–56Google Scholar
  15. Dashwood A (2008) Article 47 TEU and the relationship between first and second pillar competences. In: Dashwood A, Maresceau M (eds) Law and practice of EU external relations: salient features of a changing landscape. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 70–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dashwood A et al (2010) Wyatt and Dashwood’s European Union law. Hart, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  17. De Baere G (2008) Constitutional principles of EU external relations. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. De Baere G (2011) International negotiations post-Lisbon: a case study of the union’s external environmental policy. In: Koutrakos K (ed) The European Union’s external relations a year after Lisbon. CLEER Working Papers 2011/3, pp 97–112. http://www.asser.nl/upload/documents/772011_51358CLEER%20WP%202011-3%20-%20KOUTRAKOS.pdf
  19. Duke S (1999) Consistency as an Issue in EU external activities. EIPA Working Paper 99/W/06. http://aei.pitt.edu/542/1/99w06.pdf
  20. Echagüe A, Mikail B (2013) The middle east conundrum. In: Grevi G, Keohane D (eds) Challenges for European Foreign Policy in 2013: renewing the EU’s role in the world. FRIDE, pp 63–70. http://www.fride.org/download/Challenges_for_European_Foreign_Policy_2013.pdf
  21. Eeckhout P (2011) EU external relations law. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ehlermann CD (1983) Mixed agreements: a list of problems. In: O’Keeffe D, Schermers HG (eds) Mixed agreements. Kluwer, Deventer, pp 3–22Google Scholar
  23. Emerson M et al (2011) Upgrading the EU’s role as global actor: institutions, law and the restructuring of European diplomacy. Centre for European Policy Studies. http://www.ceps.eu/book/upgrading-eus-role-global-actor-institutions-law-and-restructuring-european-diplomacy
  24. Flaesch-Mougin C (2013) Représentation externe et compétences de l’Union européenne: quelques réflexions à propos des arrangements généraux du Conseil relatifs aux déclarations de l’UE dans les organisations multilatérales. In: Boutayeb C (ed) La Constitution, l’Europe et le droit—Mélanges en l’honneur de Jean-Claude Masclet. Publications de la Sorbonne, Paris, pp 571–592Google Scholar
  25. Gauttier P (2004) Horizontal coherence and the external competences of the European Union. Eur Law J 10:23–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hemra et al (2011) A diplomatic entrepreneur: making the most of the European External Action Service. A Chatham House Report. http://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/public/Research/Europe/r1211_eeas.pdf
  27. Hillion C (2008) Tous pour un, un pour tous! Coherence in the external relations of the European Union. In: Cremona M (ed) Developments in EU external relations law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 10–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hillion C (2010) Mixity and coherence in EU external relations: the significance of the ‘Duty of Cooperation’. In: Hillion C, Koutrakos K (eds) Mixed agreements revisited: The EU and its Member States in the world. Hart, Oxford, pp 87–115Google Scholar
  29. Hoffmeister F (2007) Outsider or frontrunner? Recent developments under International and European Law on the status of the European Union in International Organizations and treaty bodies. Common Mark Law Rev 44:41–68Google Scholar
  30. Kokott J (2012) Art. 47 EUV. In: Streinz R (ed) EUV/AEUV: Vertrag über die Europäische Union und Vertrag über die Arbeitsweise der Europäischen Union. Verlag C.H. Beck, München, pp 293–302Google Scholar
  31. Kokott J, Rüth A (2003) The European convention and its draft treaty establishing a constitution for Europe: appropriate answers to the Laeken questions? Common Mark Law Rev 40:1315–1345Google Scholar
  32. Kuijper PJ et al (2013) The law of EU external relations: cases, materials and commentary on the EU as an international legal actor. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  33. Larik L (2011) Shaping the international order as a union objective and the dynamic internationalisation of constitutional law. CLEER Working papers 2011/5. http://www.asser.nl/upload/documents/11222011_91506CLEER%20WP%202011-5-LARIK.pdf
  34. Lehne S (2011) More action, better service: how to strengthen the European External Action Service. Carnegie Policy Outlook, 16 December 2011. http://carnegieendowment.org/files/CEIP_Outlook_EAS-Lehne_C.pdf
  35. Lenaerts K, Corthaut T (2006) Of birds and hedges: the role of primacy in invoking norms of EU law. Eur Law Rev 31:287–315Google Scholar
  36. Missiroli A (2010) The new EU “Foreign Policy” system after Lisbon: a work in progress. Eur Foreign Aff Rev 15:427–452Google Scholar
  37. Mögele R (2012) Art. 218 AEUV. In: Streinz R (ed) EUV/AEUV: Vertrag über die Europäische Union und Vertrag über die Arbeitsweise der Europäischen Union. Verlag C.H. Beck, München, pp 2073–2087Google Scholar
  38. Neuwahl N (1994) Foreign and security policy and the implementation of the requirement of ‘Consistency’ under the treaty on European Union. In: O’Keeffe D, Twomey P (eds) Legal issues of the Maastricht Treaty. Chancery, London, pp 227–246Google Scholar
  39. Pechstein M (2012) Art. 3 EUV. In: Streinz R (ed) EUV/AEUV: Vertrag über die Europäische Union und Vertrag über die Arbeitsweise der Europäischen Union. Verlag C.H. Beck, München, pp 18–20Google Scholar
  40. Piris J-C (2010) The Lisbon Treaty: a legal and political analysis. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Priollaud FX, Siritzky D (2008) Le Traité de Lisbonne: Texte et Commentaire Article par Article des Nouveaux Traités Européens (TUE – TFEU). La Documentation Française, Paris, pp 132–136Google Scholar
  42. Ramopoulos T, Odermatt J (2013) EU diplomacy: measuring success in light of the post-Lisbon institutional framework. In: Boening A et al (eds) Global power Europe—vol 1: Theoretical and institutional approaches to the EU’s external relations. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 19–35Google Scholar
  43. Regelsberger E, Kugelmann D (2012a) Art. 21 EUV. In: Streinz R (ed) EUV/AEUV: Vertrag über die Europäische Union und Vertrag über die Arbeitsweise der Europäischen Union. Verlag C.H. Beck, München, pp 236–240Google Scholar
  44. Regelsberger E, Kugelmann D (2012b) Art. 40 EUV. In: Streinz R (ed) EUV/AEUV: Vertrag über die Europäische Union und Vertrag über die Arbeitsweise der Europäischen Union. Verlag C.H. Beck, München, pp 281–282Google Scholar
  45. Renard T (2011) The treachery of strategies: a call for true EU strategic partnerships. Egmont Paper No. 45. http://www.egmontinstitute.be/paperegm/ep45.pdf
  46. Rettman A (2012) Finland: EU countries do not want joint foreign policy. EUobserver, 12 March 2012. http://euobserver.com/foreign/115557
  47. Rosas A, Armati L (2010) EU constitutional law: an introduction. Hart, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  48. Schmalz U (1998) The Amsterdam provisions on external coherence: bridging the Union’s foreign policy dualism? Eur Foreign Aff Rev 3:421–442Google Scholar
  49. Shapovalova N (2013) The eastern neighbourhood: democracy, visas and energy. In: Grevi G, Keohane D (eds) Challenges for European foreign policy in 2013: renewing the EU’s role in the world. FRIDE, pp 47–54. http://www.fride.org/download/Challenges_for_European_Foreign_Policy_2013.pdf
  50. Thym D (2004) Reforming Europe’s common foreign and security policy. Eur Law J 10:5–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tietje C (1997) The concept of coherence in the Treaty on European Union and the common foreign and security policy. Eur Foreign Aff Rev 2:211–233Google Scholar
  52. 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 Mark Law Rev 47:987–1019Google Scholar
  53. Vogel V (2011) Split emerges over remit of the EU’s diplomatic service. European Voice, 26 May 2011. http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/imported/split‐emerges‐over‐remit‐of‐the‐eu‐s‐diplomatic‐service/71168.aspx
  54. Wessel RA (2000) The inside looking out: consistency and delimitation in EU external relations. Common Mark Law Rev 37:1135–1171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wouters J (2004) The Union Minister for Foreign Affairs: Europe’s single voice or Trojan Horse? In: de Zwaan JW et al (eds) The European Union. An ongoing process of integration. Liber Amicorum Alfred E. Kellermann. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp 77–86Google Scholar
  56. Wouters J et al (2013a) The organisation and functioning of the European External Action Service: achievements, challenges and opportunities. European Parliament, Directorate-General for External Policies, EXPO/B/AFET/2012/07, February 2013. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/studiesdownload.html?languageDocument=EN&file=90650
  57. Wouters J et al (2013b) The EU and the Euro area in international economic governance: the case of the IMF. In: Amtenbrink F, Kochenov D (eds) European Union’s shaping of the international legal order. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Leuven Centre for Global Governance StudiesInstitute for International Law – KU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations