Who speaks for Europe? Bringing a ‘reversed’ principal- agent model into research of the implementation of the EU’s foreign policy

Yonatan Schvartzman, Aarhus University,

Paper for the 9th CEEISA Convention, Krakow, 20-22 September, 2012

Abstract

Europeanization of member- states foreign policy is a major step in developing strong and coherent EU foreign policy. Existing literature has already discussed the relations between the EU’s - and the member stats’ foreign policy. However, the EU institutions have got surprisingly only little attention in this literature. In this paper I suggest a framework for analyzing the influence of the EU’s supranational institutions on national foreign policies. I am doing so by developing the thread in the principal-agent perspective.

Originated in new economics of organization, the principal-agent model has been increasingly applied in the study of the European Union (EU). Within the extensive literature on the EU, Member States are considered as the principals delegating responsibilities to the EUinstitutions (regarded as agents). Yet, such an approach misses the fact that the Member – States also act as agents with responsibility for the implementation of common policy originated at the EU – institutions. As such Member States might comply with but also ignore or be inconsistent with EU decisions.

In this paper I build a “reversed” principal-agent model to explore the interplay between EU-institutions and member-states. I apply the model to discuss the ability of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR) and the European External Action Service (EEAS) to influence and coordinate the foreign policy of the individual member states.

The aim of this paper is thus two fold. First, to explore the role of the EU institutions in the implementation of EU foreign policy. Second, to introduce a theoretical frame work for such a study.

Introduction

In 2009 Catherin Ashton has been appointed as the EU’s first High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR). The new position is created under the Treaty of Lisbon, and its holder is charged with coordinating the EU’s common and foreign and security policy. The Treaty of Lisbon also warranties the creation of the European External Action Service (EEAS), established in 2010, in order to assist the HR in fulfilling his/her mandate. This act has locked the various dimensions of extern relations together into unify institutional structure designed to enforce greater coordination and coherence in the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP).

However, the implementation of an integrated European foreign policy is far from being an easy task. As opposed to extern policy areas where the Community has exclusive legal competence, such as trade and agriculture, most areas under the CFSP still maintain classical intergovernmental character of cooperation (Christoffersen 2010). As such, the member states still reserved their ultimate authority to have their own national foreign policy. Implementation deficits might therefore arise as the member states can still adopt foreign policies that are decoupled and/or inconsistent from policy decisions formulated at the EU level. That leaves us with a question on the ability of the EU’s supranational institutions to promote Europeanization of the national foreign policies towards a coherent European foreign policy. An important questions, considering the fact that the both HR and the EEAS recently have been criticized by 12 – member states for being weak and unable to carry out coherent and consistent European foreign policy (The Economist, 2.2.2012).

The Europeanization of foreign policy has already been broadly discusses in the literature (Tonra, 2001; Smith, 2004; White, 1999, 2001; Larsen 2005, 2009). The EU’s supranational institutions, has got surprisingly only limited attention in this literature. This is a serious omission. In the past 50 years we have witnessed the development of European diplomatic service aimed towards representing the EU in the world and developing a visible and coherent European foreign policy. However, only limited amount of studies have surprisingly analyzed the EU – diplomatic service (see Jørgensen 2007). Thus, still little is known on how the EU’s diplomatic service works, and on the role it might play in promoting a common European foreign policy. Studying the ability of the diplomatic service to influence and coordinate the foreign policy of member states will be a significant contribution to existing body of research. The purpose of this paper is to offer and demonstrate the use of such a framework for such a study.

I do that by discussing the ability of the HR and the EEAS to influence the foreign policy of the individual member states. The main argument to be developed is that the instruments the HR and EEAS have on their disposals do so are weak. The member states can therefore still ensure high level of autonomy regarding their foreign policies. However, there are indicators that the HR/EEAS might still succeed in promoting Europeanization in specific areas of the CFSP - through dialogue and by monitoring the preference of the individual member states.

In order to make this argument I usea principal – agent framework as analytical approach. The model is explicitly concerned with complex inter-institutional interactions. An inspection of EU policy through the lens of this approach focuses on the question of control mechanism and enables the analyst to investigate potential implementation deficit (Blom-Hansen, 2005, p. 625). Yet, the existing body of research focuses mostly on the control of the member statesover the EU’s supranational institutions (but see Blom-Hansen 2005). In this paper I will apply a “reversed” principal- agent model and discuss the ability of an EU’s supranational institution to influence national policies.

The paper is structured as follows. The following section defines the tasks of the HR and the EEAS in more detail. Then follows a discussion on the shortcoming of the existing literature on the Europeanization of foreign policies.In the third part I analyze the role of the HR and the EEAS in the implementation of the CFSP by use of the principal agent model. I close the paper with conclusions and reflections.

The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policyand the European External Action Service

As I noted before the new role of the HR has been created with the entry of the Treaty of Lisbon into action in 2009.Yet, the development of the EU’s diplomatic service has started way before. The need for coherent external representation for the European Communities was born already in 1951with the establishment of the European Steel and Coal Community (ESCC) and in 1954 The High Authority of the ESCC (later the Commission) opened its first delegation in Washington D.C. (European Commission, 2004, p. 11). Since then a global network of 130 European delegations - with responsibility for presenting, explaining and implementing EU policy-, has been built up (ibid.). At the same time the different DG of the Commission began to develop capacities for managing the extern dimensions of their policy areas (interview 3). The external service of the Commission has been coordinated by the Commissioner for External Relations and DG for External Relation (DG RELEX).

The Treaty of Maastricht introduced the CFSP framework (TEU, Maastricht, 13(2), and the Commission became a formal partner to the member states in foreign policy matters (Tonra 2001). The Treaty of Amsterdam (1999) established the High Representative for the CFSP, and until the entry of the Lisbon Treaty into action CFSP has been divided between three institutions. First, the six month rotating Council Presidency was in charged of chairing the External Relations Council and representing the EUin the world in CFSP matters.The HR of the CFSP used to assist the council in the formulation and implementation of foreign policy strategies and acted on behalf of the Council in conducting political dialogue with third countries. Finally, representation of the Commission in the world and the EU’s Neighborhood Policy has been coordinated by Commissioner for External Relations(General Secretariat of the EU Council, 2009).

The Lisbon treaty implied organizational reform of the EU diplomatic service. By establishing the HR and the EEAS it merged the functions within the CFSPinto single institutional entity, in hope to enable better coordination between the different parts of external policies and by that promote stronger and more coherence EU foreign policy (interview 3). Coordination can be referred to both the EU – and the domestic level (interview 3). At the EU level the HR should represent the EU in all agreed foreign policy matters. Furthermore he/she coordinate the different organisational bodies working with foreign policy matters. Finally, the HR should assist the national foreign ministers to reach consensus and formulate common foreign policies. At the domestic level the HR should coordinate the member states’ foreign policy. As I noted above, this paper focuses on the latter form of coordination.

In order to fulfill his/ her mandate the HR has the authority to (TEU Art. 18, Art. 27):

  • conduct the Union’s common an security policy;
  • contributes by proposals to the development of that policy, which she will carry out as mandated by the Council, and ensure implementation of the decisions adopted in this field;
  • presides over the Foreign Affairs Council (FAC);
  • is one of the Vice-president of the Commission. She ensures the consistency of the Union’s external action. She is responsible within the Commission for responsibilities incumbent on it external relations and for coordinating other aspects of the Union’s external action;
  • represents the Union for matters relating to the common foreign and security policy, conduct political dialogue with third parties on the Union’s behalf and expresses the Union’s position in international organizations and international conferences;
  • exercises authority over European External Action Service (EEAS) and over the Union’s delegations in third countries and at international organizations.

As I mentioned above, the Treaty of Lisbon also constitutes the legal basis for the organization and function of the European External Service (EEAS) (TEU Art. 27(3)). The EEAS, according to the Council decision, should assiststhe HR in fulfilling his/her mandate to conduct the CFSP of the European Union and endure the consistency of the Union’s External Action (Council Decision 2010/427/EU). The EEAS is functionally autonomous European body under the authority of the HR, with the legal capacity necessary to perform its tasks and attain its objectives (Council Decision 2010/427/EU, Art. 1, Art. 3). It is therefore separated from the General Secretariat of the Council and from the Commission.

The intention behind creating the HR and the EEAS has been to enforce greater coherence in the CFSP, what will increase the Union’s political and economic influence in the world (The High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, 2010). Yet, According to Declaration 13 of the Final Act of the Lisbon Treaty ‘ ..the provisions in the Treaty on European Union covering the Common Foreign and Security Policy, including the creation of the office of High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the establishment of an External Action Service, do not affect the responsibilities of the Member States, as they currently exist, for the formulation and conduct of their foreign policy, nor of their national representation in third countries and international organisations.’ And according to Decleration 14 ‘… the provisions… will not affect the existing legal basis, responsibilities, and powers each Member State in relation to the formulation and conduct of its foreign policy, its national diplomatic service, relations with third countries and participation in international organisations, including a Member State’s memebrship of the Security Council of the United Nations’.

Thus, while the Treaty of Lisbon seeks to establish a basis for greater coherence in the European foreign policy on the one hand, it embeds on the other hand the right of the member states to maintain their individual foreign policy.Therefore, in most areas of foreign policies the individual member state can pursue its own foreign policy parallel to the foreign policy of the union (interview 3). That can create confusion over who actually speaks for Europein the world and weaken the coherence of the European foreign policy (see Jørgensen, 2007). One of the major challenges the HR and the EEAS face in the implementation of the EU foreign policy is therefore getting the individual member states to adjust their foreign policies and pursue them within the framework of the EU, so that foreign policies of the Union will not hollowed out by national foreign policies. But do the HR and the EEAS have the ability in doing so? In the following section I will review the existing literature on the Europeanization of foreign policy. I will argue that the outlined implementation problem has not been subject to the widespread debate within the existing body of research.

The shortcoming of the Europeanization approach to foreign policy

According to Hill (1996) the creation of the CFSP did not imply the hollowing out of national foreign policies (see also Jørgensen, 2007). Instead, it enables a two tiers focus on both national and European foreign policies, including the interplay between the two tiers in terms of actorness and policy-making (Jørgensen, 2007, p. 512). Hills’ approach has paved the way for an emerging literature on the Europeanization of foreign policy, focusing on the influence of the EU on national policy-making processes. This focus research was launched by scholars such asWhite (1999, 2001) and Tonra (2001) and it has been further developed by Larsen (2005, 2009).

The point of departure is that the EU’s foreign policy is based oninterplaybetween foreign policy at the EU level and national foreign policy (White, 2001, p. 41). Thus, both the EU foreign policy and the member state foreign policy constitute the European foreign policy, but they can also be separated analytically (White, 2001, p. 39). The pivotal question is therefore whether national foreign policy is being adjusted and conducted within the EU or without the EU, and why (Larsen 2009, p. 546).

We can think of two extremes when it comes to the relations between the foreign policy of the EU and the member stats’ foreign policy (see Larsen, 2009, 544-545). On the one hand a member state’s foreign policy may be conducted with the EU as just one part of state’s extern environment. The state conducts its foreign policy with many other partners and through many different organisations. Foreign policy is formed through relatively autonomous national decision making process. Thus, policy preferences are being formed within the state and then being promoted and reshaped at the international arena.

On the other extreme, all issue- areas within the state foreign policy are dealt within one specific organization. The EU foreign policy is then becoming the frame for the national foreign policy. International relations are then mediate mainly through the EU and national foreign policy concepts are tend to be heavily influenced by the EU policy concepts.

Brian White (1999; 2001) discussesthe Europeanization of foreign policy in his works The European Challenges to Foreign Policy Analysis (1999) and Understanding European Foreign Policies (2001). However, the implication of EU foreign policy structures to foreign policy at the national level is underplayed theoretically (Larsen, 2009, p. 540). Ben Tonra studies in The Europeanization of national foreign policies: Dutch, Danish and Irish Foreign Policy in the European Union (2001) the impact of participation in the EU on national foreign policies of small states. Tonra emphasize the importance of joint understanding in the EU which cut across national policy systems and with significant impact on national foreign policy making. Thus, participation in the making of the Union’s foreign policy creates shared norms and procedures that goes beyond national boundaries, and causes a wide ranging Europeanization of national foreign policies procedures. Tonra, however, is not dealing with the question of why and when member states will change their national policies (Larsen, 2009, p. 541).

The theoretical and the empirical gaps in the outlined literature have pushed Henrik Larsen (2005, 2009) to propose his own analytical framework for analyzing the relationship between EU - and national foreign policy. Larsen argues that whether national foreign policy is conducted within or outside the EU varies between issue areas.The influence of the EU in national foreign policy might be depended on the strength of the EU foreign policy and the national construction of agency (Larsen, 2009, p. 550-553). The strength of EU foreign policy refers to whether there is strong EU foreign policy in the issue area or not. EU foreign policy can be seen as falling into continuum. On the one hand policies are resourceful, detailed, and long term and with day to day involvement; at the other hand policies are based on few resources, general statements, few CFSP instruments and little day- to day involvement.