From Regional Power to Global Power? The European Neighbourhood Policy after the Lisbon Treaty

Part of the Global Power Shift book series (GLOBAL)


The European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) was established in 2004 to provide a framework for coherent and efficient EU action towards its neighbours in the East and the South. Coherence was meant to be achieved in the EU’s approach across various policies, but also across various countries. This chapter investigates how the Lisbon Treaty has affected the institutional set-up of the EU’s relations with its neighbours, the main underlying logics of the ENP framework and its effects on the EU’s global and regional standing. We take an institutional and political approach, asking how and to what extent the set-up of the EEAS, the strengthened role of the High Representative and the change in the role of the rotating presidency all affect the EU’s policy-making towards its neighbours. The Lisbon provisions are only now being implemented. As such, institutional and political developments in the EU’s policy-making system are the focus of this chapter. To what extent does the Lisbon Treaty strengthen or diminish the logics underlying the ENP? What implications might this have for the EU’s efforts to become an actor of global reach? Or is the EU instead consolidating its regional power base with more limited geopolitical ambitions?


Member State Foreign Policy Partner Country External Relation Lisbon Treaty 
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. Allen, D. (1998). Who speaks for Europe?: The search for an effective and coherent external policy. In J. Peterson & H. Sjursen (Eds.), A common foreign policy for Europe? Competing visions of the CFSP? (pp. 41–58). London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Allen, D. (2004). So who will speak for Europe? The constitutional treaty and coherence in EU external relations. CFSP Forum, 2(5), 1–4.Google Scholar
  3. Bicchi, F. (2010). The impact of the ENP on EU-North Africa relations: The good, the bad and the ugly. In R. Whitman & S. Wolff (Eds.), The European neighbourhood policy in perspective. Context, implementation and impact (pp. 206–222). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  4. Bretherton, C., & Vogler, J. (2006). The European Union as a Global actor (2nd ed.). Oxford/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Council of the European Union (2009, May 7). Joint Declaration of the Prague Eastern Partnership Summit Prague, 8435/09 (Press 78), Brussels.Google Scholar
  6. Delcourt, B., & Remacle, E. (2009). Global governance. A challenge for common foreign and security policy and European security and defense policy. In M. Telò (Ed.), The European Union and Global governance (pp. 232–257). Oxford/New York: Routledge/Garnet Series: Europe in the World.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. European Commission. (2003, March 11). Wider Europe—Neighbourhood: A new framework for relations with our Eastern and Southern Neighbours. Communication from the commission to the European Council and the European Parliament. COM(2003) 104 final, Brussels.Google Scholar
  10. European Commission. (2004, May 12). European Neighbourhood Policy Strategy Paper. Communication from the Commission. COM(2004) 373 final, Brussels.Google Scholar
  11. European Commission. (2008, December 3). Eastern Partnership. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council. COM(2008) 823 final, Brussels.Google Scholar
  12. European Commission. (2010, May 12). Taking stock of the European Neighbourhood Policy. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council. COM(2010) 207, Brussels.Google Scholar
  13. European Commission. (2011). The multiannual financial framework: The proposals on external action instruments. MEMO/11/878.Google Scholar
  14. European Commission and High Representative. (2011a, March 8). A Partnership for Democracy and Shared Prosperity with the Southern Mediterranean. Joint Communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. COM(2011)200 final, Brussels.Google Scholar
  15. European Commission and High Representative. (2011b, May 25). A new response to a changing neighbourhood. Joint Communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. COM(2011) 303, Brussels.Google Scholar
  16. European Council. (2010, September 16). Conclusions. EUCO 21/1/10, REV 1, Brussels.Google Scholar
  17. European Parliament. (2011, May 11). Resolution on development of the common security and defence policy following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. (2010/2299(INI)).Google Scholar
  18. Füle, Š. (2011, June 14). Revolutionising the European Neighbourhood Policy in response to tougher Mediterranean revolutions. Keynote speech by the European Commissioner for Enlargement and European Neighbourhood Policy at a Roundtable discussion organised by Members of the European Parliament, Brussels.Google Scholar
  19. Gauttier, P. (2004). Horizontal coherence and the external competences of the European Union. European Law Journal, 10(1), 23–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hill, C. (1993). The capabilities-expectations gap, or conceptualizing the EU’s international role. Journal of Common Market Studies, 21(3), 305–328.Google Scholar
  21. Laïdi, Z. (2008, February 6). The normative empire: Unintended consequences of European power. Garnet Policy Brief.Google Scholar
  22. Maurer, H. (2011). Business as usual? The European Neighbourhood Policy and institutional coherence in EU foreign policy-making (2002–2007). Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Vienna.Google Scholar
  23. Nuttall, S. (2001). ‘Consistency’ and the CFSP: A categorization and its consequences (EFPU working Paper, 3).Google Scholar
  24. Nuttall, S. (2005). Coherence and consistency. In C. Hill & M. Smith (Eds.), International relations and the European Union (pp. 91–112). Oxford / New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Petiteville, F. (2005). Introduction: De quelques débats relatifs à l’Union européenne acteur international. In D. Helly & F. Petiteville (Eds.), L’Union européenne, Actor International (pp. 11–20). Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
  26. Pilegaard, J. (2003). Relations between trade, development policy and the CFSP: Analysing incoherence in EU external policy. Working paper for FORNET seminar.Google Scholar
  27. Schimmelfennig, F. (2009). Europeanization beyond Europe, Living Reviews in European Governance, 4(3). Accessed August 16, 2011, from
  28. Seidelmann, R. (2009). The EU’s neighbourhood policies. In M. Telò (Ed.), The European Union and global governance (pp. 261–283). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Simão, L. (2013a). Forging a wider European security community? Dilemmas of the ENP in the South Caucasus. In G. Noutcheva, K. Pomorska, & G. Bosse (Eds.), Values vs. security? The choice for the EU and its neighbors (pp. 145–172). Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Simão, L. (2013b). Coming of age: dilemmas for the EU’s foreign policy in the wider Europe. In T. Cierco (Ed.), The European Union and its immediate neighbourhood. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  31. Smith, M. E. (2001). The quest for coherence: Institutional dilemmas of external action from Maastricht to Amsterdam. In A. Stone Sweet, N. Fligstein, & W. Sandholtz (Eds.), The institutionalization of Europe (pp. 171–193). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Smith, M. (2003). The framing of European foreign and security policy: Towards a postmodern policy framework? Journal of European Public Policy, 10(4), 556–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Smith, M. E. (2004). Europe’s foreign and security policy. The institutionalization of cooperation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Smith, K. (2008). European Union Foreign Policy in a changing World (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  35. Stetter, S. (2004). Cross-pillar politics: Functional unity and institutional fragmentation of EU foreign policies. Journal of European Public Policy, 11(4), 720–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stroß, S. (2012, May). Programming financial instruments post-Lisbon: The European External Action Service and the new institutional architecture of EU external action. EUIA Conference Paper, Brussels.Google Scholar
  37. Tulmets, E. (2008). The European Neighbourhood Policy: A flavour of coherence in the EU’s external relations? Hamburg Review of Social Sciences, 3(1), 107–141.Google Scholar
  38. Vieira, A., & Simão, L. (2008). The European Neighbourhood Policy seen from Belarus and Georgia. CFSP Forum, 6(6), 1–6.Google Scholar
  39. Wessel, R. (2000). The inside looking out: Consistency and delimitation in EU external relations. Common Market Law Review, 37(5), 1135–1171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wessels, W., & Bopp, F. (2008, June 10). The institutional architecture of the CFSP after the Lisbon Treaty—constitutional breakthrough or challenges ahead? CHALLENGE Research Paper.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceMaastricht UniversityMaastrichtThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Faculty of Economics and Centre for Social StudiesUniversity of CoimbraCoimbraPortugal

Personalised recommendations