Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Introduction

  • Chapter
Germany and the Common Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union

Part of the book series: New Perspectives in German Studies ((NPG))

  • 103 Accesses

Abstract

Germany’s foreign and security policy has come under intense international scrutiny since the end of the Cold War. The European Union’s (EU) Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) has been an important institution through which Germany has sought to meet the new foreign policy demands of the post-Cold War era. These pressures have revolved around how Germany can meet the demands of its closest allies, to play an increased role in crisis management and international affairs. This book outlines how successive German governments sought to manage post-Cold War adaptational pressures affecting Germany through the uploading of German preferences to the European and international level. In addition, the analysis outlined here highlights areas in German foreign policy which have come under increasing strain due to the demands placed on Germany stemming from the EU’s CFSP.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. It is important to note that whilst the international context of German foreign policy changed virtually overnight with the end of the Cold War, the content of German foreign policy was resistant to wholesale changes. To this end Eberwein and Kaiser state, ‘To a certain extent, when Germany was unified and attained full sovereignty, its position in international politics changed overnight’, in Eberwein, W.-D. and Kaiser, K. (eds) (2001), p. 3, Germany’s New Foreign Policy: Decision-making in an Interdependent World (Basingstoke: Palgrave). Banchoff contends that, ‘The collapse of the Soviet bloc and reunification transformed the context of German foreign policy’ in Banchoff, T. (1999), p. 131, The German Problem Transformed: Institutions, Politics and Foreign Policy, 1945–1995 (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ladrech, R. (1994), ‘Europeanization of domestic politics and institutions: the case of France’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 32/1: 69–88;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Miskimmon, A. and Paterson, W. E. (2003), ‘Foreign and Security Policy: On the Cusp Between Transformation and Accommodation’, in K. Dyson and K. H. Goetz (eds) (2003), German, Europe and the Politics of Constraint (Oxford: Proceedings of the British Academy/Oxford University Press), pp. 325–345;

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Lüdeke, A. (2002), Europäisierung der deutschen Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik: Konstitutive und operative Europapolitik zwischen Maastricht und Amsterdam (Opladen: Leske + Budrich);

    Book  Google Scholar 

  5. Schmalz, U. (2004), Deutschlands europäisierte Aussenpolitik (Wiesbaden: VS Verlag);

    Book  Google Scholar 

  6. Smith, M. E. (2000), ‘Conforming to Europe: The Domestic Impact of EU Foreign Policy Co-operation’, Journal of European Public Policy, 7/4: 613–631; Torreblanca, J. I. (2001), ‘Ideas, Preferences and Institutions: Explaining the Europeanization of Spanish Foreign Policy’, Arena Working Papers, WP01/26, University of Oslo.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Cornish, P. and Edwards, G. (2001), ‘Beyond the EU/NATO Dichotomy: The Beginnings of a European Strategic Culture’, International Affairs, 77/3: 587–603;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Meyer, C. O. (2005), ‘Convergence towards a European Strategic Culture? A Constructivist Framework for Explaining Changing Norms’, European Journal of International Relations, 11/4: 523–549. For a more elaborated version of this argument see also,

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Meyer, C. O. (2006), The Quest for a European Strategic Culture (Basingstoke, Palgrave). Longhurst defines strategic culture as, ‘… a distinctive body of beliefs, attitudes and practices regarding the use of force, which are held by a collective (usually a nation) and arise gradually over time, through a unique and protracted historical process. Strategic culture is persistent over time, tending to outlast the era of its original inception, although it is not a permanent or static feature. It is shaped and influenced by formative periods and can alter, either fundamentally or piecemeal, at critical junctures in that collective’s experiences.’ See,

    Book  Google Scholar 

  10. Longhurst, K. and Zaborowski, M. (eds) (2005), Old Europe, New Europe and Transatlantic Security (London: Routledge).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Garton-Ash, T. (1993), ‘Germany’s Choice’, in Foreign Affairs, 73/4: 65–81;

    Google Scholar 

  12. Zimmer, M. (1997), ‘Return of the Mittelage? The Discourse of the Centre in German Foreign Policy’, German Politics, 6/1: 23–38; Wallace, W. (1990), ‘Deutschlands zentrale Rolle: Ein Versuch die europäische Frage neu zu definieren’, Integration 13. Jg, 1/90, Beilage zur Europäischen Zeitung;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bulmer, S. and Paterson, W. E. (1996), ‘Germany in the European Union: Gentle Giant or Emergent Leader?’, Intemational Affairs, 72/1: 9–32;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Bach, J. P. G. (1999), Between Sovereignty and Integration: German Foreign Policy and National Identity After 1989 (New York: Lit Verlag/St.Martin’s Press); Bulmer, S., Jeffrey, C. and Paterson, W. E. (1997), ‘Shaping the regional milieu’, Gutachten für die Forschungsgruppe Europa und die Bertelsmann Wissenschaftsstiftung, München;

    Google Scholar 

  15. Janning, J. and Meyer, P. (1998), Deutsche Europapolitik: Vorschläge zur Effektivierung (Gütersloh: Verlag Bertelsmann Stiftung);

    Google Scholar 

  16. Pond, E. and Schoenbaum, D. (1996), The German Question and other German Questions (Basingstoke: Macmillan)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Marsh, D. (1995), Germany and Europe: The Crisis of Unity (London: Mandarin); Rometsch, D. (1995), ‘The Federal Republic of Germany and the European Union: Patterns of Institutional and Administrative Interaction’, Institute for German Studies Discussion Paper 95/2, University of Birmingham;

    Google Scholar 

  18. Garton-Ash, T. (1994), In Europe’s Name (London: Vintage);

    Google Scholar 

  19. Katzenstein, P. (1987), Policy and Politics in West Germany: The Growth of A Semi-Sovereign State (Philadelphia: Temple University Press);

    Google Scholar 

  20. Bulmer, S. and Paterson, W. E. (1987), The Federal Republic of Germany and the European Community, (London: Allen and Unwin);

    Google Scholar 

  21. Collins, S. D. (1998), Managing the Agenda? German Policy-Making with Regard to Eastern Enlargement of the European Union, PhD Study, Institute for German Studies, University of Birmingham;

    Google Scholar 

  22. Katzenstein, P. J. (ed.) (1997), Tamed Power: Germany in Europe (Ithaca: Cornell University Press);

    Google Scholar 

  23. Bulmer, S., Jeffery, C. and Paterson, W. E. (2000), Germany’s European Diplomacy: Shaping the Regional Milieu (Manchester: Manchester University Press);

    Google Scholar 

  24. Banchoff, T. (1999), The German Problem Transformed: Institutions, Politics and Foreign Policy, 1945–95 (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Bulmer, S. and Paterson, W. E. (1987), The Federal Republic of Germany and the European Community (London: Allen and Unwin);

    Google Scholar 

  26. Bulmer, S. and Paterson, W. E. (1996), ‘Germany in the European Union: Gentle Giant or Emergent Leader?’, International Affairs, 72/1: 9–32;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Bulmer, S., Jeffery, C. and Paterson, W. E. (2000), Germany’s European Diplomacy: Shaping the Regional Milieu (Manchester: Manchester University Press);

    Google Scholar 

  28. Katzenstein, P. (1987), Policy and Politics in West Germany: The Growth of a Semi-sovereign State (Philadelphia: Temple University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  29. For three excellent studies tackling German conceptions of European security see, Remmert, M. (1994), Westeuropäische Zusammenarbeit in der Sicherheitsund Verteidigungspolitik: Positionen von Regierung und Koalitionsparteien der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (1982–1991), (Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlag);

    Google Scholar 

  30. Rühl, L. (1995), Deutschland als Europäische Macht, Bouvier Verlag, Bonn;

    Google Scholar 

  31. Sauder, A. (1995) Souveränität und Integration (Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlag).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Eliassen, K. A. (ed.) (1998), Foreign and Security Policy in the European Union (London: Sage);

    Google Scholar 

  33. Hill, C. (ed.) (1996), The Actors in Europe’s Foreign Policy (London: Routledge);

    Google Scholar 

  34. Hill, C. (ed.) (1983), National Foreign Policies and European Political Cooperation (Hemel Hempstead: Allen and Unwin); AICGS (1999), Franco-German relations and European Integration: a transatlantic dialogue — Challenges for German and American Foreign Policy, Conference Report, 16th September 1999, American Institute for Contemporary German Studies;

    Google Scholar 

  35. Wyatt-Walter, H. (1997), The European Community and the Security Dilemma, 1979–92 (Basingstoke: Macmillan);

    Book  Google Scholar 

  36. Ifestos, P. (1987), European Political Cooperation: Towards a Framework for Supranational Diplomacy (Aldershot: Avebury);

    Google Scholar 

  37. Carlsnaes, W. and Smith, S. (1993), European Foreign Policy: The EC and Changing Perspectives in Europe (London: Sage);

    Google Scholar 

  38. Howorth, J. and Menon, A. (eds) (1997), The European Union and National Defence Policy (London: Routledge);

    Google Scholar 

  39. Aybet, G. (1997), The Dynamics of European Security Cooperation, 1945–91 (Basingstoke: Macmillan);

    Google Scholar 

  40. Nuttall, S. (1992), European Political Co-operation (Oxford: Clarendon Press);

    Book  Google Scholar 

  41. Regelsberger, E., De Schoutheete de Tervarent, P. and Wessels, W. (eds) (1997), From EPC to CFSP and Beyond (London: Lynne Rienner Publishers);

    Google Scholar 

  42. Tsakaloyannis, P. (1996), The European Union as a Security Community: Problems and Prospects (Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlag);

    Google Scholar 

  43. Van Eekelen, W. (1998), Debating European Security, 1948–1998 (The Hague: Sdu Publishers).

    Google Scholar 

  44. Lüdeke, A. (2002), ‘Europäisierung’ der deutschen Auβen- und Sicherheitspolitik? (Opladen: Leske + Budrich)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  45. Schmalz, U. (2004), Deutschlands europäisierte Außenpolitik, VS Verlag, Wiesbaden.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  46. For an excellent survey see, Olsen, J. P. (2002), ‘The Many Faces of Europeanization’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 40/5: 921–952.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. For example, Ladrech, R. (1994), ‘Europeanization of Domestic Politics and Institutions: The Case of France’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 32/1: 69–88;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Croft, S. (2000), ‘The EU, NATO and Europeanisation: The Return of Architectural Debate’, European Security, 9/3: 1–20;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Solana, J. (1996), ‘NATO: Shaping up for the future’, Speech to the IISS, 19 September 1996, London, http://www.nato.int/docu/speech/1996/s960919b.htm

    Google Scholar 

  50. Miskimmon, A. J. (2001), ‘Recasting the Security Bargains: Germany, European Security and the Transatlantic Relationship’, in D. Webber, (ed.) New Europe, New Germany, Old Foreign Policy: German Foreign Policy since Unification (London: Frank Cass and Co.).

    Google Scholar 

  51. Cowles, M. G., Caporaso, J. A. and Risse, T. (2001), Transforming Europe: Europeanization and Domestic Change (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press);

    Google Scholar 

  52. Dyson, K. and Goetz, K. H. (eds) (2003), Germany, Europe and the Politics of Constraint (Oxford: Proceedings of the British Academy/ Oxford University Press);

    Google Scholar 

  53. Ladrech, R. (1994) ‘Europeanization of Domestic Politics and Institutions: The Case of France’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 32/1: 69–88;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Olsen, J. P. (2002), ‘The Many Faces of Europeanization’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 40/5: 921–952;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Tonra, B. (2001), The Europeanisation of National Foreign Policy (Aldershot: Ashgate).

    Google Scholar 

  56. They include, Lüdeke, A. (2002) ‘Europäisierung’ der deutschen Auβen- und Sicherheitspolitik?: Konstitutive und operative Europapolitik zwischen Maastricht und Amsterdam (Opladen: Leske + Budrich);

    Book  Google Scholar 

  57. Manners, I. and Whitman, R. (2001), The Foreign Policies of European Member States (Manchester: Manchester University Press);

    Google Scholar 

  58. Miskimmon, A. and Paterson, W. E. (2003) ‘Foreign and Security Policy: On the Cusp Between Transformation and Accommodation’, in K. Dyson and K. H. Goetz (eds) Germany, Europe and the Politics of Constraint (Oxford: Proceedings of the British Academy/Oxford University Press); Torreblanca, J. I. (2001), ‘Ideas, Preferences and Institutions: Explaining the Europeanization of Spanish Foreign Policy’, Arena Working Papers, WP01/26, University of Oslo.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Rosenau, J. N. (1981), p. 29, The Study of Political Adaptation: Essays on the Analysis of World Politics (London: Frances Pinter).

    Google Scholar 

  60. Gourevitch, P. (1978), p. 882, ‘The Second Image Reversed: The International Sources of Domestic Politics’, International Organization, 32/4: 881–912.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Rosenau uses the terms adaptation and maladaptation in his study of 1981. Rosenau, J. N. (1981), The Study of Political Adaptation: Essays on the Analysis of World Politics (London: Frances Pinter).

    Google Scholar 

  62. Duffield, J. S. (1998), World Power Forsaken: Political Culture, International Institutions, and German Security Culture after Unification (Stanford: Stanford University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  63. Putnam, R. (1988), ‘Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The logic of two-level games’, International Organisation, 42/3: 427–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Key texts include, Anderson, J. J. (2002), ‘Europeanization and the Transformation of the Democratic Polity — 1945–2000’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 41/5: 793–822; Bomberg, E. and Peterson, J. (2000), ‘Policy Transfer and Europeanization: Passing the Heiniken Test?’, Queen’s Papers on Europeanization No.2/2000, Queen’s University, Belfast, http://www.qub.ac.uk/ies/onlinepapers/poe2.html;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Börzel, T. A. (1999), ‘Towards Convergence in Europe? Institutional Adaptation in German and Spain’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 39/4: 573–596;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Börzel, T. A. (2001), The Domestic Impact of Europe: Institutional Adaptation in Germany and Spain (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press); Börzel, T. A. and Risse, T. (2000), ‘When Europe hits home: Europeanization and Domestic Change’, European University Institute, RSC Working Paper, 2000/56;

    Book  Google Scholar 

  67. Goetz, K. H. and Hix, S. (eds) (2001), Europeanised Politics. European Integration and National Political Systems (London: Frank Cass);

    Google Scholar 

  68. Harmsen, R. (1999), ‘The Europeanization of National Administrations: A Comparative Study of France and the Netherlands’, Governance, 12/1: 81–113;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Green-Cowles, M., Caporaso, J. and Risse, T. (2001), Transforming Europe: Europeanization and Domestic Change (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press);

    Google Scholar 

  70. Dyson, K. (2000a), ‘Europeanization, Whitehall Culture and the Treasury as Institutional Veto Player: A Constructivist Approach to Economic and Monetary Union’, Public Administration, 78/4: 897–914;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Dyson, K. (2000b), ‘EMU as Europeanization: Convergence, Diversity and Contingency’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 38/4: 645–666;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Knill, C. (2001), The Europeanization of National Administrations, Patterns of Institutional Change and Persistence (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press);

    Book  Google Scholar 

  73. Kohler-Koch, B. and Eising, R. (eds) (1999), The Transformation of Governance in the European Union (London: Routledge).

    Google Scholar 

  74. Ladrech, R. (1994), ‘Europeanization of Domestic Politics and Institutions: The Case of France’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 32/1: 69–88; Ladrech, R. (2001), ‘Europeanization and Political Parties: Towards a Framework of Analysis’, Queen’s Papers on Europeanization, No.2/2001, Queens University, Belfast. However, Ladrech has more recently appeared to accept the significance of uploading within Europeanisation. See,

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Ladrech, R. (2004), p. 64, ‘Europeanization and the Member States’, in M. Green Cowles and D. Dinan (eds) (2004), Developments in the European Union: 2 (Basingstoke: Palgrave), pp. 47–64.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Ladrech, R. (1994), p. 69, ‘Europeanization of Domestic Politics and Institutions: the Case of France’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 32/1: 69–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Koenig-Archibugi explains government preferences on institutional change in CFSP by the analysis of four central factors: relative power capabilities, foreign policy interests, Europeanised identities and domestic multilevel governance structures. Koenig-Archibugi, M. (2004), ‘Explaining Government Preferences for Institutional Change in EU Foreign and Security Policy’, International Organization, 58/1: 137–174. This study factors in these four criteria to its analysis of German participation in the development of CFSP.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Dunleavy, P. (1991), Democracy, Bureaucracy and Public Choice, (Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheat). Russell Holden has charted the development of the Labour Party’s European Policy in these terms. See,

    Google Scholar 

  79. Holden, R. (2002), The Making of New Labour’s European Policy (Basingstoke: Palgrave). For an analysis of how Member States contribute to the bottom-up aspect of Europeanisation, see also, Beyers, J. and Trondal, J. (2003), ‘How Nation-States “hit” Europe: Ambiguity and Representation in the European Union’, European Integration Online Papers (EIOP), 7/5, http://eiop.or.at/eiop/pdf/2003-005.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  80. Moravcsik, A. (1998) The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State power from Messina to Maastricht (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press);

    Google Scholar 

  81. Moravcsik, A. (1993), ‘Preferences and Power in the European Community: A Liberal Intergovernmentalist Approach’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 31: 473–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. On this point see, Majone, G. (1989), Evidence, Argument and Persuasion in the Policy Process (New Haven: Yale University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  83. Miskimmon, A. and Paterson, W. E. (2003), ‘Foreign and Security Policy: On the Cusp Between Transformation and Accommodation’, in K. Dyson and K. H. Goetz (eds) Germany, Europe and the Politics of Constraint (Oxford: Proceedings of the British Academy/Oxford University Press), 325–425.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  84. However, Smith has noted some aspects of a legal order creeping into the CFSP process — Smith, M. E. (2001), ‘Diplomacy by Decree: The Legalization of EU Foreign Policy’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 39/1: 79–104. See also,

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Tilikainen, T. (2001), ‘To Be or Not To Be?: An Analysis of the Legal and Political Elements of Statehood in the EU’s External Identity’, European Foreign Affairs Review, 6: 223–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Moravcsik, A. (1993), ‘Armaments Among Allies: European Weapons Collaboration, 1975–1985’, in P. B. Evans, H. K. Jacobson and R. D. Putnam (eds) Double-Edged Diplomacy: International Bargaining and Domestic Politics (Berkeley: University of California Press), pp.128–168.

    Google Scholar 

  87. For example, Wincott, D. (1995), ‘Institutional Interaction and European Integration: Towards an Everyday Critique of Liberal Intergovernmentalism’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 33: 597–609;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Forster, A. (1998), ‘Britain and the Negotiation of the Maastricht Treaty: A Critique of Liberal Intergovernmentalism’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 36/3: 347–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Aggestam, L. (2004), ‘Role Identity and the Europeanisation of Foreign Policy: A Political-Cultural Approach’, in B. Tonra and T. Christiansen (eds) (2004), Rethinking European Foreign Policy (Manchester: Manchester University Press), pp. 81–98;

    Google Scholar 

  90. Lüdeke, A. (2002), Europäisierung der deutschen Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik: Konstitutive und operative Europapolitik zwischen Maastricht und Amsterdam (Opladen: Leske + Budrich); Torreblanca, J. I. (2001). ‘Ideas, Preferences and Institutions: Explaining the Europeanization of Spanish Foreign Policy’, Arena Working Papers, WP01/26, University of Oslo. However, Irondelle paints a more explicit picture of the mechanisms through which Europeanisation occurs. See,

    Book  Google Scholar 

  91. Irondelle, B. (2003), ‘Europeanization Without the European Union? French Military Reforms 1991–96’, Journal of European Public Policy, 10/2: 208–226 and

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Rieker, P. (2004), ‘Europeanization of Nordic Security: The European Union and the Changing Security Identities of the Nordic States’, Cooperation and Conflict, 39/4: 369–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. For example, Lübkemeier, E. (1997), ‘Europäisierung der NATO?’, Die Neue Gesellschaft, Frankfurter Hefte, 44/1: 16–21.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Miskimmon, A. and Paterson, W. E. (2003), ‘Foreign and Security Policy: On the Cusp Between Transformation and Accommodation’ in Dyson, K. and Goetz, K. H. (eds) Germany, Europe and the Politics of Constraint (Oxford: Proceedings of the British Academy/Oxford University Press), pp. 325–425.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  95. Smith, M. E. (2000) ‘Conforming to Europe: the Domestic Impact of EU Foreign Policy Cooperation’, Journal of European Public Policy, 7/4, pp. 613–631. Smith concentrates on European Political Co-operation in this article but the classifications of adaptation which he employs have relevance for CFSP.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Dyson, K. and Goetz, K. H. (eds) (2003) Germany, Europe and the Politics of Constraint (Oxford: Proceedings of the British Academy/Oxford University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  97. Olsen, J. P. (2002), p. 936, ‘The Many Faces of Europeanization’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 40/5: 921–952.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Haftendom, H. (2001), Deutsche Außenpolitik zwischen Selbstbeschränkung und Selbstbehauptung, (Stuttgart und München: DVA Verlag).

    Google Scholar 

  99. Indeed Hellmann describes Germany’s participation in Europe as a ‘symbiotic relationship’ (eine symbiothische Beziehung) Hellmann, G. (2002), ‘Deutschland in Europa: Eine symbiothische Beziehung’, in Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, Beilage zur Wochenzeitung Das Parlament, December 2002, B48/2002: 24–31.

    Google Scholar 

  100. An exception is, Irondelle, B. (2003), ‘Europeanization without the European Union? French Military Reforms 1991–96’, Journal of European Public Policy, 10/2: 208–226. Irondelle outlines indirect pressures, institutional mediations, socialisation and learning as the three key mechanisms of Europeanisation in his study of French military doctrine. Yet, this study focuses on domestic adaptation and not on the ability of the nation-state to influence policy development.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. March, J. G. and Olsen, J. P. (2004), ‘The Logic of Appropriateness’, Arena Working Paper, WP04/09, http://www.arena.uio.no/publications/wp04_9.pdf. See also, their landmark work, March, J. G. and Olsen, J. P. (1989), Rediscovering Institutions (New York: Free Press).

    Google Scholar 

  102. Smith, M. E. (2000), ‘Conforming to Europe: The Domestic Impact of EU Foreign Policy Co-operation’, Journal of European Public Policy, 7/4: 613–631. See also,

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Smith, M. E. (2004), ‘Institutionalization, Policy Adaptation and European Foreign Policy Co-operation’, European Journal of International Relations, 10/1: 95–136;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Smith, M. E. (2004), Europe’s Foreign and Security Policy: The Institutionalization of Co-operation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  105. See, Checkel, J. T. (1999), ‘Norms, Institutions and National Identity in Contemporary Europe’, International Studies Quarterly, 43/1: 83–114. Checkel highlights the importance of ‘norm diffusion’ as part of this socialisation/social learning process. On the conditions for the successful acceptance of a norm, Kratochwil states, ‘The decisive criterion is whether direct communication takes places among the parties in regard to the norm, or whether its operation is unilaterally inferred or imputed from each others’ actions’, see,

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Kratochwil, F. (1989), p. 55, Rules, Norms and decisions: On the Conditions of Practical and Legal Reasoning in International Relations and Domestic Affairs (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  107. Hill, C. (2003), The Changing Politics of Foreign Policy (Basingstoke: Palgrave), pp. 262–268.

    Google Scholar 

  108. The final aspect of exaggerated multilateralism/institution building draws on Nina Phillipi’s concept of ‘salami tactics’ where Germany seeks to achieve policy objectives with small, incremental steps. Philippi, N. (1997), Bundeswehr-Auslandseinsätze als aufβen- und sicherheitspolitisches Problem des geeinten Deutschland (Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang Verlag)

    Google Scholar 

  109. Philippi, N. (2001), ‘Civilian Power and War: The German Debate About out-of-Area Operations’, in S. Harnisch and H. W. Maull (eds) Germany as a Civilian Power? The Foreign Policy of the Berlin Republic (Manchester: Manchester University Press), pp. 49–67.

    Google Scholar 

  110. See, Hayes-Renshaw, F. and Wallace, H. (1996), The Council of Ministers, (Basingstoke: Macmillan);

    Google Scholar 

  111. Tallberg, J. (2003), ‘The Agenda-shaping Powers of the EU Council Presidency’, Journal of European Public Policy, 10/1: 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  112. See, Larsen, H. (1997), Foreign Policy and Discourse Analysis: France, Britain and Europe (London: Routledge);

    Google Scholar 

  113. Larsen, H. (2004), ‘Discourse Analysis in the Study of European Foreign Policy’, in B. Tonra and T. Christiansen (eds) Rethinking European Union foreign policy (Manchester: Manchester University Press), pp. 62–80. Also

    Google Scholar 

  114. Howorth, J. (2004), ‘Discourse, Ideas and Epistemic Communities in European Security and Defence Policy’, West European Politics, 27/2: 211–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  115. Miskimmon, A. and Paterson, W. E. (2003), ‘Foreign and Security Policy: On the Cusp Between Transformation and Accommodation’, in K. Dyson and K. H. Goetz (eds) German, Europe and the Politics of Constraint (Oxford: Proceedings of the British Academy/Oxford University Press), pp. 325–345.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  116. Genscher, H.-D. (1998), Rebuilding a House Divided (New York: Broadway Books).

    Google Scholar 

  117. Bulmer, S. and Paterson, W. E. (1987), p. 44, The Federal Republic of Germany and the European Community, (London: Allen and Unwin). Musterknabe can also have the connotation of ‘swat’ or of being ‘out of touch with reality’, which is illuminating the dichotomous attitude often displayed by Germany in CFSP affairs. Interview with German Civil Servant, Auswärtiges Amt, Berlin, 7 July 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  118. Siwert-Probst, J. (2001), p. 19, ‘Traditional Institutions of Foreign Policy’, in W.-D. Eberwein and K. Kaiser (eds) Germany’s New Foreign Policy: Decision-making in an Interdependent World (Basingstoke: Palgrave), pp. 19–37.

    Google Scholar 

  119. For more information on the role and organisation of the German Foreign Ministry, see, Brandt, E. and Buck, C. (2002), Auswärtiges Amt: Diplomatie als Beruf, 2. Auflage (Opladen: Leske + Budrich).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  120. Miskimmon, A. and Paterson, W. E. (2003) ‘Foreign and Security Policy: On the Cusp Between Transformation and Accommodation’, Dyson, K. and Goetz, K. H. (eds), German, Europe and the Politics of Constraint (Oxford: Proceedings of the British Academy/Oxford University Press), pp. 325–345.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  121. See, Bulmer, S. and Paterson, W. E. (1987), The Federal Republic of Germany and the European Community (London: Allen and Unwin);

    Google Scholar 

  122. Bulmer, S. and Paterson, W. E. (1996), ‘Germany in the European Union: Gentle Giant or Emergent Leader?’, International Affairs, 72: 9–32;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  123. Bulmer, S., Maurer, A. and Paterson, W. E. (2001), ‘The European Policy Machinery in the Bonn Republic: Hindrance or Handmaiden?’, German Politics, 10/1: 177–206;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  124. Katzenstein, P. (1987), Policy and Politics in West Germany: The Growth of a Semi-Sovereign State (Philadelphia: Temple University Press);

    Google Scholar 

  125. Johnson, N. (1983), State and Government in the Federal Republic of Germany: The Executive at Work, 2nd edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press)

    Google Scholar 

  126. Derlien, H.-U. (2000), ‘Failing Successfully?’, in K. Kassim, B. G. Peters and V. Wright (eds) The National Co-ordination of EU Policy: The Domestic Level (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 54–78;

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  127. Maurer, A. and Wessels, W. (2001), ‘The German Case: A key Moderator in a Competitive Multi-level Environment’, in H. Kassim, A. Menon, B. G. Peters and V. Wright (eds) The National Coordination of EU Policy: The European Level (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 101–128.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  128. Kassim, H. (2001) ‘Representing the United Kingdom in Brussels: The Fine Art of Positive Co-Ordination’, in Kassim, H., Menon, A., Peters, B. G. and Wright, V. (eds) The National Co-Ordination of EU Policy: The European Level (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 47–74.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  129. Axel Lüdeke also makes the important distinction between constitutive and operative policy in German CFSP. Lüdeke, A. (2002) ‘Europäisierung’ der deutschen Auβen- und Sicherheitspolitik?: Konstitutive und operative Europapolitik zwischen Maastricht und Amsterdam, (Opladen: Leske und Budrich).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  130. Interviews in the Ständige Vertretung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Brussels 2nd and 3rd July 2003. Maurer and Wessels pinpoint the ineffectiveness of Germany’s Permanent Representation to the European Union as being down to difficulties arising from the vertical and horizontal diffusion of power in Germany which is out of step with the policy-making style in Brussels. Maurer, A. and Wessels, W. (2000), ‘Die Ständige Vertretung Deutschlands bei der EU — Scharnier im administrativen Mehrebenensystem’, in B. Kohler-Koch and M. Knodt (Hrsg.) Deutschland zwischen Europäisierung und Selbstbehauptung (Frankfurt/Main: Campus), pp. 293–324.

    Google Scholar 

  131. Wallace, H. and Wallace, W. (1996), p. 427, Policy-making in the European Union, 3rd Edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  132. Cited in Wyatt-Walter, H. (1997), p. 202, The European Community and the Security Dilemma, 1979–92 (Basingstoke: Macmillan).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  133. Bulmer, S., Jeffery, C. and Paterson, W. E. (2000), p. 78, Germany’s European Diplomacy: Shaping the Regional Milieu (Manchester: Manchester University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  134. Hill, C. (1993), ‘The Capabilities-expectations Gap or Conceptualising Europe’s International Role’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 31/3: 305–328. See also,

    Article  Google Scholar 

  135. Hill, C. (1998), ‘Closing the Capabilities-expectation Gap?’, in J. Peterson and H. Sjursen (eds) A Common Foreign Policy for Europe? Competing Visions of the CFSP (London: Routledge);

    Google Scholar 

  136. Ginsberg, R. H. (1999), ‘Conceptualizing the European Union as an International Actor: Narrowing the Capability-Expectations Gap’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 37/3: 429–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  137. Smith, M. (2001), p. 297, ‘The EU as an International Actor’, in J. Richardson (ed.) European Union: Power and Policy-making (London: Routledge), pp. 283–301. See also, Elgstöm, O. and Smith, M. (eds) (2001), ‘Negotiation and Policy-making in the European Union: Process, System, Order’, Special Issue of the Journal of European Public Policy, 7/5.

    Google Scholar 

  138. Hill, C. (1993), ‘The Capability-expectations Gap, or Conceptualising Europe’s International Role’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 31/3: 305–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Royal Holloway, University of London, UK

    Alister Miskimmon

Authors
  1. Alister Miskimmon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 2007 Alister Miskimmon

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Miskimmon, A. (2007). Introduction. In: Germany and the Common Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union. New Perspectives in German Studies. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230591523_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation