Article 18 [The High Representative]

  • Hermann-Josef Blanke
  • Stelio Mangiameli


The comment analyzes the evolution, the present role and some possible perspectives of the HR in European legal system, in order to reduce the fragmentation of European Foreign Policy. At the same time, a peculiar attention is given to institutional questions concerning the problematic relationship of the HR with other European Institutions (European Council and Council, Commission, European Parliament) and the principles of action lying behind each of them.

The structural ambiguity of the “double hatting” solution for HR institutional position is the point of departure to explore opportunities and risks of this figure


Foreign Policy Security Policy Foreign Affair European Council External Relation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Bieber, R. (1990). Democratic control of European Foreign Policy. European Journal of International Law, 1(1), 148–173.Google Scholar
  2. Bourgeois, J. H. J. (1987). Les relations extérieures de la Communauté européenne et la règle de droit: quelques réflexions. In F. Capotorti et al. (Eds.), Du droit international au droit de l’intégration. Liber amicorum Pierre Pescatore (pp. 59–78). Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  3. Ceps – Egmont – EpC. (2010). Dossier: The treaty of Lisbon: A second look at the institutional innovations. Joint Ceps - Egmont - Epc Study, Ceps Paperbacks. Downloadable at
  4. Cherubini, P. (2012). The role and interactions of the European Council and the Council in the Common Foreign and Security Policy. In H.-J. Blanke & S. Mangiameli (Eds.), The European Union after Lisbon. Constitutional basis, economic order and external action (pp. 471–480). Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cremona, M. (2003). The draft constitutional treaty: External relations and external action. Common Market Law Review, 40(6), 1347–1366.Google Scholar
  6. Cremona, M. (2004). The Union as a global actor: Roles, models and identity. Common Market Law Review, 41(2), 553–573.Google Scholar
  7. Cremona, M. (2009). Enhanced cooperation and the common foreign and security and defence policies of the EU (EUI Working Papers Law 2009/21). European University Institute.Google Scholar
  8. Curtin, D. (2009). Executive power of the European Union law, practices and the living constitution. Oxford: OUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. D’Atena, A. (2010). Una costituzione senza costituzione per l’Europa. Diritto e società, 191–212.Google Scholar
  10. Denza, E. (2012). The role of the high representative of the Union for foreign affairs and security policy. In H.-J. Blanke & S. Mangiameli (Eds.), The European Union after Lisbon. Constitutional basis, economic order and external action (pp. 481–494). Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Diedrichs, U. (2004). The European parliament in CFSP: More than a marginal player. The International Spectator, 2, 31–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dijkstra, H. (2011). EU external representation in conflict resolution: When does the presidency or the high representative speak for Europe? European Integration online Papers (EIoP), Vol. 15, Article 1. Text consulted 17 July 2011.
  13. Dougan, M. (2008). The treaty of Lisbon 2007: Winnings minds, not hearts. Common Market Law Review, 45(3), 617–703.Google Scholar
  14. Duke, S. (1999). From Amsterdam to Kosovo: Lesson for the future of CFSP. Eipascope, 2, 2–15.Google Scholar
  15. Duke, S. (2008). The Lisbon treaty and external relations. Eipascope, 1, 13–18.Google Scholar
  16. Egeberk, M., & Heskestad, A. (2010). The denationalization of cabinets in the European Commission. Journal of Common Market Studies, 48(4), 775–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Emerson, M., Balfour, R., Corthaut, T., Wouters, J., Kaczynski, P.M., & Renard, T. (2011). Dossier: Upgrading the EU's role as a global actor. Institutions, law and the restructuring of European diplomacy. Brussels: Center of European Policy Studies. Downloaded at
  18. Gauttier, P. (2004). Horizontal coherence and the external competences of the European Union. European Law Journal, 10(1), 23–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gianfrancesco, E. (2011). La politica estera e di sicurezza europea prima e dopo il trattato di Lisbona. Accessed 17 July 2011.
  20. Gianniti, L. (2003). Il rappresentante esterno. Quaderni costituzionali, 400–401.Google Scholar
  21. Gosalbo Bono, R. (2006). Some reflections on the CFSP legal order. Common Market Law Review, 43(2), 337–394.Google Scholar
  22. Griller, S. (2003). External relations. In B. De Witte (Ed.), Ten reflections on the constitutional treaty for Europe 133–157. Eui – R. Schuman centre for advanced studies – Academy of European law.Google Scholar
  23. Hill, C. (2003). A foreign minister without a foreign ministry – or with too many. Common Foreign and Security Policy Forum, 1, 1–2.Google Scholar
  24. Kaddous, C. (2008). High representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. In S. Griller & J. Ziller (Eds.), The Lisbon treaty. EU constitutionalism without a constitutional treaty? (pp. 205–222). Vienna: Springer.Google Scholar
  25. Kokott, J., & Ruth, A. (2003). The European Convention and its Draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe: Appropriate answers to the Laeken questions. Common Market Law Review, 40(6), 1315–1345.Google Scholar
  26. Mangiameli, S. (2009). Il ruolo del Parlamento europeo nella Pesc, alla luce delle innovazioni apportate dal trattato di Lisbona. In C. Decaro & N. Lupo (Eds.), Il “dialogo” tra parlamenti: obiettivi e risultati (pp. 417–434). Rome: Luiss University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Mangiameli, S. (2008). Il ruolo del Parlamento europeo e il principio della democrazia rappresentativa. In AA.VV., Scritti in onore di Michele Scudiero (Vol. III, pp. 1225–1242). Naples.Google Scholar
  28. Maurer, A., Kietz, D., & Völkel, D. (2005). Inter-institutional agreements in the CFSP: Parliamentarisation through the backdoor? European Foreign Affairs Review, 10, 175–195.Google Scholar
  29. Mignolli, A. (2009). L’azione esterna dell’Unione europea e il principio della coerenza. Naples: Jovene.Google Scholar
  30. Naurin, D., & Rasmussen, A. (2011). New external rules, new internal games: How the EU institutions respond when inter-institutional rules change. West European Politics, 34, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Navarrete, D. F., & Egea, R. M. F. (2001). The Common Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union: A historical perspective. The Columbia Journal of European Law, 7(1), 41–62.Google Scholar
  32. Nugent, N. (2010). The government and politics of the European Union (7th ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  33. Pagani, F. (1998). A new gear in the CFSP machinery: Integration of the Petersberg tasks in the treaty on European Union. European Journal of International Law, 9(4), 737–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pescatore, P. (1961). Les Relations Extérieures des Communautés Européennes. Contribution à la Doctrine de la Personnalité des Organisations Internationales. In II Recueil des cours de l'Academie de Droit International.Google Scholar
  35. Pescatore, P. (1979). External relations in the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities. Common Market Law Review, 16(3), 615–645.Google Scholar
  36. Pescatore, P. (1987). Some critical remarks on the “Single European Act”. Common Market Law Review, 24(1), 19–30.Google Scholar
  37. Piris, J.-C. (2010). The Lisbon treaty. A legal and political analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ruane, K. (2000). The rise and fall of the European Defence Community. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Solana, J. (2000). Le développment de la politique européenne commune de securité et de défense de l’Union européenne. Rev. Marché Commun. Un. Eur., 586–589.Google Scholar
  40. Spence, D. (2006a). The President, the College and the cabinets. In D. Spence & G. Edwards (Eds.), The European Commission (pp. 25–74). London: Harper.Google Scholar
  41. Spence, D. (2006b). The Commission and the Common Foreign and Security Policy. In D. Spence & G. Edwards (Eds.), The European Commission (pp. 356–359). London: Harper.Google Scholar
  42. Thym, D. (2004). Reforming Europe’s common foreign and security policy. European Law Journal, 10, 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Thym, D. (2006). Beyond Parliament’s reach? The role of the European Parliament in the CFSP. European Foreign Affairs Review, 11, 109–127.Google Scholar
  44. Thym, D. (2010). Foreign affairs. In A. von Bogdandy & J. Bast (Eds.), Principles of European constitutional law (2nd ed., pp. 309–344). Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
  45. Thym, D. (2012). The Intergovernmental branch of the EU’s foreign affairs executive. In H.-J. Blanke & S. Mangiameli (Eds.), The European Union after Lisbon. Constitutional basis, economic order and external action (pp. 517–532). Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tizzano, A. (2000). Le relazioni esterne dell’Unione europea. In Annuario Aic 1999. La costituzione europea (pp. 33–71). Padua: Cedam.Google Scholar
  47. von Graf Kielmannsegg, S. (2012). Permanent structured cooperation: A new mechanism of flexibility. In H.-J. Blanke & S. Mangiameli (Eds.), The European Union after Lisbon. Constitutional basis, economic order and external action (pp. 551–566). Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wessel, R. A. (2012). Initiative and voting in Common Foreign and Security Policy: The New Lisbon rules in historical perspective. In H.-J. Blanke & S. Mangiameli (Eds.), The European Union after Lisbon. Constitutional basis, economic order and external action (pp. 495–516). Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wouters, J., Coppens, D., & De Meester, B. (2008). The European Union’s external relations after the Lisbon Treaty. In S. Griller & J. Ziller (Eds.), The Lisbon treaty. EU constitutionalism without a constitutional treaty? (pp. 143–204). Vienna: Springer.Google Scholar
  50. Wouters, J., & Naert, F. (2001). How effective is the European security architecture? Lessons from Bosnia and Kosovo. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 50(3), 540–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hermann-Josef Blanke
    • 1
  • Stelio Mangiameli
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty for Economics, Law and Social ScienceUniversity of ErfurtErfurtGermany
  2. 2.National Research Council Institute for Regionalism, Federalism and Self-GovernmentRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations