Kolja Raube

The European External Action Service and the European Parliament

[SummaryDespite considerable academic attention on the European External Action Service (EEAS), only a few studies have touched upon its relationship with the European Parliament. This article looks into the relationship between the EEAS, its High Representative and the European Parliament. It pays particular attention to the question of whether — during the making of the EEAS — the European Parliament was able to expand its parliamentary oversight in external relations along the lines of legislative, supervisory and budgetary powers., Summary Despite considerable academic attention on the European External Action Service (EEAS), only a few studies have touched upon its relationship with the European Parliament. This article looks into the relationship between the EEAS, its High Representative and the European Parliament. It pays particular attention to the question of whether — during the making of the EEAS — the European Parliament was able to expand its parliamentary oversight in external relations along the lines of legislative, supervisory and budgetary powers.]

The security–development nexus and securitization in the EU's policies towards developing countries

This article assesses how and to what extent the European Union (EU) uses a security perspective to define and shape its relationship with the developing world. In order to evaluate the EUs development policy and its relations with developing countries we link the concept of ‘security–development nexus’ with the concept of ‘securitization’. The article examines whether securitization can be observed with regard to four dimensions: discourse, policy instruments, policy actions and institutional framework. The analysis demonstrates a securitization of the EUs development policy and its relations with developing countries, particularly in Africa. However, paradoxically, the securitizations extent and nature suggest that the EU can also use it as a way to avoid a more direct involvement in conflict areas.

Virtue or Vice? The Coherence of the EU’s External Policies

ABSTRACT A buzzword in the EU since four decades already, coherence is at the centre of the Lisbon Treaty. The risk of incoherence is deeply embedded in the institutional framework of EU external policies. Coherence is seen as a permanent quest, while incoherence carries a negative baggage. Goal-oriented coherence is expected to lead to the EU’s effectiveness, legitimacy and credibility as an international actor, but this positive causality has not been questioned all too often in the literature. This paper aims to fill this void: why, to what extent and for which problems is coherence a ‘miracle solution’? To what extent does coherence actually impact on the EU’s international status? The paper will discuss different theoretical perspectives to the coherence debate. It aims to contribute to the theoretical understanding of coherence in EU external policies and to better explain EU efforts towards enhancing coherence.

Seeking CSDP Accountability Through Interparliamentary Scrutiny

The EUs Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) requires parliamentary accountability. At present, as CSDP-related decisions are increasingly taken in the framework of the UN or the EU, neither the European Parliament (EP) nor national parliaments are able to hold decision-makers accountable. Interparliamentary cooperation can provide added value in bringing about parliamentary scrutiny of CSDP. Nevertheless, despite an official agreement, the EP and national parliaments have different views on what such interparliamentary cooperation entails. There are five conditions – cooperation and complementarity among parliaments, conferential dialogues, coordinated agendas, and comprehensive and comparative scrutiny – that have to be fulfilled to create added value for interparliamentary cooperation on CSDP matters.

Influence beyond formal powers: The parliamentarisation of European Union security policy:

The European Union’s foreign and security policy is commonly described as an intergovernmental affair. Despite limited formal powers, several studies suggest that the European Parliament has increased its influence on the Union’s foreign and security policy. This article argues that, to gauge the significance of parliamentary participation, it is necessary to look beyond the notion of formal parliamentary rights and to take into account informal influence. The analysis shows how informal avenues of influence are crucial at certain stages of the decision-making process, and points to factors that constrain and enable parliamentary impact. Furthermore, it emphasises the important role that parliaments play in scrutinising security policy, which is a crucial component of democratic governance. In this particular field where there is little legislation, the establishment of solid procedures and practices for oversight and control can also be a significant indicator of parliamentary influence.