Advertisement

Article 27 [Role and Powers of the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy]

  • Hermann-Josef Blanke
  • Stelio Mangiameli
Chapter

Abstract

Throughout the years of European Political Cooperation (EPC) on foreign policy—from 1969 until 1993—the rotating Presidency was in charge of responding to external events, proposing common positions and initiatives to be agreed by the MS and acting as spokesman for any agreed policy in foreign capitals and in international organisations. The primary role of the Presidency was formalised in the SEA in 1986 and retained when the CFSP was established on a binding legal basis with the entry into force in 1993 of the TEU-Maastricht (Art. J.5 and J.8 TEU). Leadership by the Presidency reflected the intergovernmental character of the CFSP and the continuing identities of the MS in international fora.

Keywords

Foreign Policy Security Policy Foreign Affair European Council Council Decision 
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.

References

  1. Crowe, B. (2003). Interview British diplomatic oral history. http://www.chu.cam.ac.uk/archives/collections/BDOHP/Crowe.pdf. Accessed 30 Oct 2011.
  2. Dashwood, A. (1999). External relations provisions of the Amsterdam treaty. In D. O’Keeffe & P. Twomey (Eds.), Legal issues of the Amsterdam treaty (pp. 201–224). Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  3. 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 (pp. 70–103). Oxford: OUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Denza, E. (2002). The intergovernmental pillars of the European Union. Oxford: OUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Denza, E. (2004). Lines in the sand: Between Common Foreign Policy and Single Foreign Policy. In T. Tridimas & P. Nebbia (Eds.), European Law for the 21st century (pp. 259–272). Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  6. Dijkstra, H. (2009). Commission versus Council Secretariat: An analysis of bureaucratic rivalry in European Foreign Policy. European Foreign Affairs Review, 14(3), 431–450.Google Scholar
  7. Duke, S. (2008). The Lisbon Treaty and external relations. Eipascope, 1, 13–18.Google Scholar
  8. Duke, S. (2012). The European External Action Service: Antidote against incoherence. European Foreign Affairs Review, 17(1), 45–68.Google Scholar
  9. Gstöhl, S. (2009). “Patchwork Power” Europe: The EU’s representation in international institutions. European Foreign Affairs Review, 14(3), 385–403.Google Scholar
  10. Hillion, C. (2008). Tous pour un, un pour tous? Coherence in the external relations of the European Union. In M. Cremona (Ed.), Developments in EU External Relations Law (pp. 10–36). Oxford: OUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hoffmeister, F. (2008). The contribution of EU practice to international law. In M. Cremona (Ed.), Developments in EU External Relations Law (pp. 37–127). Oxford: OUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Howorth, J. (2011). The “New Faces” of Lisbon: Assessing the performance of Catherine Ashton and Herman van Rompuy on the Global Stage. European Foreign Affairs Review, 16(3), 303–323.Google Scholar
  13. Kluth, M., & Pilegaard, J. (2012). The making of the EU’s External Action Service: A neorealist interpretation. European Foreign Affairs Review, 17(2), 303–322.Google Scholar
  14. Koutrakos, P. (2006). EU international relations law. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  15. Piris, J.-C. (2012). The future of Europe: Towards a two-speed EU? Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
  16. Thym, D. (2011). The intergovernmental constitution of the EU’s foreign, security and defence executive. European Constitutional Law Review, 7(3), 453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Van Hoof, L. (2012). Why the EU is failing in its neighbourhood: The case of Armenia. European Foreign Affairs Review, 17(2), 285–302.Google Scholar
  18. Vanhoonacker, S., & Reslow, N. (2010). The European external action service: Living forwards by understanding backwards. European Foreign Affairs Review, 15(1), 1–18.Google Scholar
  19. Wessels, R. A. (1999). The European Union’s Foreign and Security Policy. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
  20. Zwolski, K. (2011). The external dimension of the EU’s non-proliferation policy: Overcoming inter-institutional competition. European Foreign Affairs Review, 16(3), 325–340.Google 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