Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Impact of the Agent’s Environment on Discretion in the Field of EU Conflict Resolution

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Principal Agent Model and the European Union

Part of the book series: Palgrave Studies in European Union Politics ((PSEUP))

Abstract

Employing an agent–principal perspective on EU conflict resolution and focusing on the politics of discretion, we argue that the context in which the agent acts affects the principal–agent relation. Our conceptualization draws on the agent’s actions as a source of discretion, which can be either an unintentional product of the characteristics of the external environment in which the agent performs (structure-induced discretion) or a product of intentionally pursued agent action (interest-induced discretion). Focusing particularly on the European External Action Service, we find that the agent can exploit urgency and third party interplay as characteristics of EU conflict resolution in order to increase his discretion. This has led to an agent that has increasingly sought to further its interests and accumulate powers that affect discretion.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Amadio, Viceré M. (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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergmann, J. (2016). Same table, different menus? A comparison of UN and EU mediation practice in Kosovo. Paper presented at the UACES 46th Annual Conference, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergmann, J., & Niemann, A. (2015). Mediating international conflicts: The European Union as an effective peacemaker? Journal of Common Market Studies, 53(5), 957–975.

    Google Scholar 

  • Billiet, S. (2009). Principal–agent analysis and the study of the EU: What about the EC’s external relations? Comparative European Politics, 7(4), 435–454.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandsma, G., & Blom-Hansen, J. (2016). Controlling delegated powers in the post-Lisbon European Union. Journal of European Public Policy, 23(4), 531–549.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braud, P., & Grevi, G. (2005). The EU mission in aceh: Implementing the peace. Paris: European Union institute for security studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conceição-Heldt, E. (2011). Variation in EU member states’ preferences and the commission’s discretion in the Doha round. Journal of European Public Policy, 18(3), 403–419.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, L. (2015). Reform or Business as usual? EU security provision in complex contexts: Mali. Global Society, 29(5), 260–279.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delreux, T. (2008). The EU as a negotiator in multilateral chemicals negotiations: Multiple principals different agents. Journal of European Public Policy, 15(7), 1069–1086.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delreux, T. (2009). The EU negotiates multilateral environmental agreements: Explaining the agent’s discretion. Journal of European Public Policy, 16(5), 719–737.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delreux, T. (2010). The EU as international environmental negotiator. Burlington: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delreux, T. (2013). Examining EU external action through the lens of principal–agent theory. Paper presented at the 8th Pan-European Conference on International Relations, Warsaw.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delreux, T., & Adriaensen, J. (2017). Introduction. Use and limitations of the principal–agent model in studying the European Union. In T. Delreux & J. Adriaensen (Eds.), The principal–agent model and the European Union (pp. 1–34). London: Palgrave MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delreux, T., & Kerremans, B. (2010). How agents weaken their principals incentives to control: The case of EU negotiators and EU member states in multilateral negotiations. Journal of European Integration, 32(4), 357–374.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delreux, T., & Keukeleire, S. (2016). Informal division of labour in EU foreign policy-making. Journal of European Public Policy. doi: 10.1080/13501763.2016.1216151.

  • Dijkstra, H. (2012). The influence of EU officials in European security and defence. European Security, 21(3), 311–327.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dijkstra, H. (2017). Non-exclusive delegation to the European external action service. In T. Delreux & J. Adriaensen (Eds.), The principal–agent model and the European Union (pp. 55–81). London: Palgrave MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dijkstra, H., & Vanhoonacker, S. (2011). The changing politics of information in European foreign policy. Journal of European Integration, 33(5), 541–558.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duke, S., & Ojanen, H. (2006). Bridging internal and external security: Lessons from the European security and defence policy. Journal of European Integration, 28(5), 477–494.

    Google Scholar 

  • Economides, S., & Ker-Lindsay, J. (2015). “Pre-Accession Europeanization”: The case of Serbia and Kosovo: Pre-accession Europeanization. Journal of Common Market Studies, 53(5), 1027–1044.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, G. (2013). The EU’s foreign policy and the search for effect. International Relations, 27(3), 276–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elsig, M. (2010). European Union trade policy after enlargement: Larger crowds shifting priorities and informal decision-making. Journal of European Public Policy, 17(6), 781–798.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elsig, M., & Dupont, C. (2012). European Union meets South Korea: Bureaucratic interests exporter discrimination and the negotiations of trade agreements. Journal of Common Market Studies, 50(3), 492–507.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, D., & O’Halloran, S. (1999). Delegating powers: A transaction cost politics approach to policy making under separate powers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Union. (2015a). Council Decision (CFSP). 2015/440.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Union. (2015b). Council Decision (CFSP). 2015(2006).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferhatović, E. (2010). Implementing peace in Sudan: Lessons for the EU common foreign and security policy. Atlantic-Community.org research papers. Retrieved from http://www.atlantic-community.org/app/webroot/files/articlepdf/Ferhatovic%20Sudan.pdf.

  • Fouéré, E. (2016). The EU special representatives: A dwindling but resilient resource at the service of EU foreign and security policy. 348. CEPS policy brief. CEPS: Brussels. Retrieved from https://www.ceps.eu/system/files/PB348%20EF%20EU%20Special%20Reps.pdf.

  • Gastinger, M. (2017). Effects of contestation within a collective agent in EU trade policy-making. In T. Delreux & J. Adriaensen (Eds.), The principal–agent model and the European Union (pp. 181–202). London: Palgrave MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Girke, N. (2015). A matter of balance: The European Union as a mediator in Yemen. European Security, 24(4), 509–524.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grevi, G. (2007). Pioneering foreign policy: The EU special representatives. Paris: European Union Institute for Security Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haftel, Y., & Thompson, A. (2006). The independence of international organizations: Concept and applications. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 50(2), 253–275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins, D., & Jacoby, W. (2006). Delegation under anarchy: States, international organizations, and principal–agent theory. In D. Hawkins, D. Lake, D. Nielson, & M. Tierney (Eds.), Delegation and agency in international organizations (pp. 199–228). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins, D., Lake, D., Nielson, D., & Tierney, M. (Eds.). (2006). Delegation and agency in international organizations. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helly, D., Herrero, A., Knoll, A., Galeazzi, G., & Sherrriff, A. (2014). A closer look into EU’s external action frontline framing the challenges ahead for EU delegations. 62. Ecdpm Briefing Note. European centre for development policy management: Maastricht. Retrieved from http://ecdpm.org/wp-content/uploads/BN-62-EU-External-Action-Challenges-EU-Delegations-2014.pdf.

  • Helwig, N. (2017). Agent interaction as a source of discretion for the EU high representative. In T. Delreux & J. Adriaensen (Eds.), The principal–agent model and the European Union (pp. 105–129). London: Palgrave MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helwig, N., Ivan, P., & Kostanyan, H. (2013). The new EU foreign policy architecture: Reviewing the first two years of the EEAS. Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, C. (2001). The EU’s capacity for conflict prevention. European Foreign Affairs Review, 6(3), 315–333.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howorth, J. (2010). The EU as a Global Actor: Grand Strategy for a Global Grand Bargain. Journal of Common Market Studies, 48(3), 455–474.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiewiet, R., & McCubbins, M. (1991). The logic of delegation: Congressional parties and the appropriations process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, N. (2010). European agents out of control? Delegation and agency in the civil-military crisis management of the European Union 1999–2008. Baden-Baden: Nomos publisher.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laloux, T. (2017). Designing a collective agent for trilogues in the European parliament. In T. Delreux & J. Adriaensen (Eds.), The principal–agent model and the European Union (pp. 83–103). London: Palgrave MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leblond, P. (2011). EU, US and international accounting standards: A delicate balancing act in governing global finance. Journal of European Public Policy, 18(3), 443–461.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederach, J. (1995). Preparing for peace: Conflict transformation across cultures. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marangoni, A., & Vanhoonacker, S. (2015). The consistency of EU external action post-Lisbon: Renewing appropriate measures against Zimbabwe, in 2012. European Integration Online Papers, 19(1), 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miall, H. (2004). Conflict transformation: A multi-dimensional task. In A. Austin, M. Fischer, & N. Ropers (Eds.), Transforming ethnopolitical conflict: The Berghof handbook (pp. 1–18). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morillas, P. (2015). From policies to politics: The European Union as an international mediator in the Mediterranean. 23. PapersIEMed/EuroMeSCo. Retrieved from http://www.iemed.org/publicacions-en/historic-de-publicacions/papersiemed-euromesco/23.-from-policies-to-politics-the-european-union-as-an-international-mediator-in-the-mediterranean/at_download/arxiu_relacionat.

  • Motsamai, D., & Brosig, M. (2014). Modeling cooperative peacekeeping: Exchange theory and the African peace and security regime. Journal of International Peacekeeping, 18(1–2), 45–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niemann, A., & Huigens, J. (2011). The European Union’s role in the G8: A principal–agent perspective. Journal of European Public Policy, 18(3), 420–442.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinfari, M. (2013). The EU, Egypt and Morsi’s rise and fall: “Strategic Patience” and its discontents. Mediterranean Politics, 18(3), 460–466.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pirozzi, N. (2013). The EU´s comprehensive approach to crisis management. EU crisis management papers series. DCAF: Brussels. Retrieved from http://www.dcaf.ch/content/download/133240/2067752/file/Pirozzi_EU-CM.PDF.

  • Plank, F. (2017). The effectiveness of interregional security cooperation: Evaluating the joint engagement of the EU and the AU in response to the 2013 crisis in the Central African Republic. European Security. doi: 10.1080/09662839.2017.1327849.

  • Pollack, M. (2003). The engines of European integration: Delegation, agency, and agenda setting in the EU. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rein, C. (2015). The EU and peacekeeping in Africa: The case of AMISOM. Global Affairs, 1(2), 193–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K. (1998). The use of political conditionality in the EU’s relations with third countries. How effective? European Foreign Affairs Review, 3(1), 253–274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tercovich, G. (2014). Towards a comprehensive approach: The EEAS crisis response system. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 22(3), 150–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tocci, N. (2007). The EU and conflict resolution: Promoting peace in the backyard. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tolksdorf, D. (2014). EU diplomacy at the individual level: The role and impact of the EU special representatives. In J. Koops & G. Macaj (Eds.), The EU as a diplomatic actor (pp. 69–87). Palgrave: Basingstoke.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanhoonacker, S., & Pomorska, K. (2013). The European external action service and agenda-setting in European foreign policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(9), 13161331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Welz, M. (2016). Multi-actor peace operations and inter-organizational relations: Insights from the Central African Republic. International Peacekeeping, 23(4), 568–591.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zürn, M. (2012). Global governance as multi-level governance. In D. Levi-Faur (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of governance (pp. 80–99). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz, Mainz, Germany

    Friedrich Plank & Arne Niemann

Authors
  1. Friedrich Plank
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Arne Niemann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institut de sciences politiques Louvain-Europe (ISPOLE), Universite catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium

    Tom Delreux

  2. Centre for European Research in Maastricht, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands

    Johan Adriaensen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Plank, F., Niemann, A. (2017). Impact of the Agent’s Environment on Discretion in the Field of EU Conflict Resolution. In: Delreux, T., Adriaensen, J. (eds) The Principal Agent Model and the European Union. Palgrave Studies in European Union Politics. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55137-1_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation