Hylke Dijkstra

Explaining Variation in the Role of the EU Council Secretariat in First and Second Pillar Policy-Making

This article explains variation in the role of the Council Secretariat in first and second pillar policy-making. While the Council Secretariat started in both pillars as a facilitator of decision-making, it has been delegated additional tasks in foreign policy: from providing content expertise to representation. Such functions would normally have gone to the European Commission, yet in the sensitive domain of foreign policy the member states have preferred their own secretariat. This has implications in terms of agency. Due to its additional tasks, the Council Secretariat has more bureaucratic resources in the second pillar. While its activities furthermore used to be restricted to the decision-making phase, it is now also playing a role in the agenda-shaping and implementation of European foreign policy. These additional bureaucratic resources and opportunities not only impact on the Council Secretariats political influence in the second pillar, but also on its strategies to promote its preferences.

Understanding the Role of Bureaucracy in the European Security and Defence Policy: The State of the Art

The establishment of the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) in 1999 has led to the creation of a whole range of bureaucratic bodies in Brussels and the national capitals. These bodies support the crisis management operations of the European Union. This review article presents the state of the art of academic research on the role of bureaucracy in this recent policy area. It argues that the growing institutional complexity and the constant interaction between actors at the national and European level require scholars to go beyond the dominant approaches of International Relations. Using insights from comparative politics, public administration and multi-level governance, this article considers four important questions: who these civil servants are, why they matter, how they interact, and how they are controlled politically and democratically.

The Military Operation of the EU in Chad and the Central African Republic: Good Policy, Bad Politics

This article evaluates the military operation of the European Union in Chad and the Central African Republic in 2008–09. Despite a promising conceptual approach and close cooperation with the United Nations (UN), the operation created significant political problems between member states. It led to a split – France arguing that it carried too much of the burden and Germany and the United Kingdom sensing that they were sponsoring a pet project. When the UN failed to achieve its ambitious promises to establish a parallel presence and follow-on force, tensions arose with the UN as well. This type of operation is therefore unlikely to be repeated in the near future.

Agenda-setting in the Common Security and Defence Policy: An institutionalist perspective

The European Union (EU) has launched an impressive number of crisis management missions since its Common Security and Defence Policy became operational in 2003. This article analyses the agenda-setting phase of these civilian and military operations in order to explain why the EU has sent troops, policemen, judges, prosecutors and monitors across three continents. It presents an institutionalist perspective and argues that the former High Representative Javier Solana and his officials have been instrumental in putting various operations on the agenda. They have employed deliberate agenda-setting strategies, such as venue shopping, conflict expansion and issue framing, to further their bureaucratic interest of launching new missions. Solana and his officials had the ability to affect the agenda-setting process thanks to their pivotal position in policy making. This gave them with superior information on the state of play and an early mover advantage as well as strong international networks. The article provides empirical evidence from the crisis management missions in Aceh, Bosnia, Chad and Kosovo. It concludes with the changes to the Common Security and Defence Policy after the Treaty of Lisbon.

The Planning and Implementation of the Rule of Law Mission of the European Union in Kosovo

Abstract This article evaluates the planning process and initial implementation of the Rule of Law Mission of the European Union in Kosovo (EULEX). It shows that the original intention was to have a smaller presence than the predecessor United Nations Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK). Yet as a result of a lack of settlement on the international status of Kosovo, the European Union ended up with a robust mandate and it was unable to make a fresh start in order to distinguish itself from the United Nations. EULEX has, nonetheless, successfully established itself, but it remains too early for a final judgment.

The Influence of EU Officials in European Security and Defence

Abstract European Union (EU) foreign policy has long been considered the domaine réservé of the member states. This article challenges such conventional state-centered wisdom by analyzing the influence of the Brussels-based EU officials in the Common Security and Defence Policy. Using four case studies and data from 105 semi-structured interviews, it shows that EU officials are most influential in the agenda-setting phase and more influential in civilian than in military operations. Their prominence in agenda-setting can be explained by their central position in the policy process. This allows them to get early involved in the operations. The absence of strong control mechanisms and doctrine in civilian crisis management gives them opportunities to affect civilian missions. Finally, EU officials direct civilian operations from Brussels, whereas the command of military operations is with the member states and NATO.

Introduction: One-and-a-half cheers for the EU Global Strategy

ABSTRACT EU High Representative Federica Mogherini presented her EU Global Strategy (EUGS) in June 2016. Encircled by security crises, it is difficult to think of something more important for Europe than collective action with the aim of weathering the storm. The EUGS, in this respect, seeks to define common ends and identify means. So what do we make of the EUGS? What does the EUGS tell us about the current role of the EU in global affairs? And how will the withdrawal of the UK from the EU affect foreign and security policy? As a way of introduction to the forum, this article notes that the EUGS focuses on the neighbourhood, puts the interests of European citizens first, identifies civilian means, and has created momentum on security policy. The key question, however, remains whether there is any interest in the EUGS beyond the foreign policy elites.

The Changing Politics of Information in European Foreign Policy

Abstract This article studies the development of European foreign policy from an informational perspective. It illustrates how since the establishment of European Political Cooperation in 1970, the European Union has gradually evolved from a platform to share foreign policy information into a Brussels‐based system that gathers and processes information autonomously. Building upon the broader literature of delegation in international organisations, it explains the gradual shift in the centre of informational gravity from the national capitals to Brussels through motives of efficiency and credibility. The development of an operational foreign policy after the Treaty of Amsterdam has considerably raised the demands for rapid and high quality data. A system entirely dependent on the ad hoc information flows from the member states proved incompatible with these new ambitions. The recent establishment of the European External Action Service and the transformation of the European Commission delegations into Union delegations is the most recent step in this long‐term and highly institutionalised process of European informational cooperation.

Functionalism, multiple principals and the reform of the NATO secretariat after the Cold War

The literature on international organizations tells us that diverging member states’ preferences and concerns about the loss of control are major obstacles to institutional reform. But what if changes in the international environment necessitate institutional reform? This article examines such dilemma in the case of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). NATO has faced functional pressures to adjust its machinery to the post-Cold War era, but has at the same time seen its membership and the preference heterogeneity of the membership increase. The article finds that institutional change is indeed difficult with multiple principals and uncertainty about the consequences of reform. Yet modest reform has still taken place. Firstly, strong functional pressures can help the member states to overcome their differences concerning institutional reform. Secondly, lower-level incremental reforms, beyond the control of the member states, have made NATO a more efficient organization. The empirical focus is on the development of the understudied International Staff post-1989.

Domestic Politics, News Media and Humanitarian Intervention: Why France and Germany Diverged Over Libya

The European Union member states split over the military intervention in Libya with France, Germany and the UK voting differently in the United Nations Security Council. This article compares news media in France and Germany to better understand the foreign policy decisions of these key actors. Using a newspaper analysis of 334 articles, it shows that the German domestic debate started very late and was much less stable than the French debate. This supports arguments that Germanys decision-making was erratic. The analysis, however, also shows that the German debate was comprehensive and included an extensive discussion of the legitimacy of intervention. This fits in well with the traditional reluctance of German foreign policy elites to support military action.