Suchergebnisse

The Treaty of Lisbon gave new institutional ideas regarding EU external actions which were the basis for taking further steps in strengthening the effectiveness of the EU as an international actor. The EU Global Strategy for Foreign and Security Policy – EUGS (2016) was prepared as a response to the need for a stronger Europe in times of crisis. The new strategic document together with its institutional framework places a question over EU diplomatic capability in its implementation. The aim of this paper is to analyze relations between the assumptions of the EUGS and EU diplomatic potential, with special emphasis on the European External Action Service. The author poses the following research questions: what are the institutional challenges in implementing the EU Global Strategy for Foreign and Security Policy? What are the capabilities of the EU diplomatic system in responding to global threats and challenges? What are the roles of the European External Action Service and member states in implementing EUGS priorities?

The Treaty of Lisbon gave new institutional ideas regarding EU external actions which were the basis for taking further steps in strengthening the effectiveness of the EU as an international actor. The EU Global Strategy for Foreign and Security Policy – EUGS (2016) was prepared as a response to the need for a stronger Europe in times of crisis. The new strategic document together with its institutional framework places a question over EU diplomatic capability in its implementation. The aim of this paper is to analyze relations between the assumptions of the EUGS and EU diplomatic potential, with special emphasis on the European External Action Service. The author poses the following research questions: what are the institutional challenges in implementing the EU Global Strategy for Foreign and Security Policy? What are the capabilities of the EU diplomatic system in responding to global threats and challenges? What are the roles of the European External Action Service and member states in implementing EUGS priorities?

The Treaty of Lisbon gave new institutional ideas regarding EU external actions which were the basis for taking further steps in strengthening the effectiveness of the EU as an international actor. The EU Global Strategy for Foreign and Security Policy – EUGS (2016) was prepared as a response to the need for a stronger Europe in times of crisis. The new strategic document together with its institutional framework places a question over EU diplomatic capability in its implementation. The aim of this paper is to analyze relations between the assumptions of the EUGS and EU diplomatic potential, with special emphasis on the European External Action Service. The author poses the following research questions: what are the institutional challenges in implementing the EU Global Strategy for Foreign and Security Policy? What are the capabilities of the EU diplomatic system in responding to global threats and challenges? What are the roles of the European External Action Service and member states in implementing EUGS priorities?

The European External Action Service (EEAS) which came into existence on 1st January 2011 has the potential to bring coherence and visibility to the external action of the European Union (EU). It could go beyond, giving new impetus to the Union's external action and contributing to the emergence of an EU foreign policy. But it could also end up as a mere juxtaposition of previously existing organizations and policies with uncertain added value for the Union. This paper looks at the EEAS from a functional perspective and in the context of a nascent EU diplomacy. It analyzes how training can contribute towards fulfilling the EEAS objectives and in nurturing a new EU diplomacy. It proposes a training approach built around three poles – knowledge, skills and attitudes- and three levels – preparatory, pre-posting and career-long training – and presents the main parameters and options for implementation.

Debate over 'loyalty transfer' in the European Union (EU) centres on the assumption that elite socialisation and 'spillover' processes lead inevitably to changes in the behaviour and identities of European officials. This article interrogates that notion by exploring how officials in the EU external delegations represent Europe. The Lisbon Treaty (2009) will transform the delegations in ways that are emblematic of the EU's evolution as a global actor. Drawing on empirical insights we examine the way EU diplomats embody the European idea and understand their role in promoting 'the European Union interests and values around the world'. At a moment of historic transition, the article highlights some of the cultural dynamics currently transforming European diplomacy and how officials conceptualize their work of 'delivering EU external relations policy'. We argue that Europeanization and loyalty transfer are complicated by inter-institutional rivalries that raise problematic questions over who can best claim to 'speak for Europe'. Adapted from the source document.

Instruments of conduct of European external relations --. - European geopolitical discourse and the EU as a "model" in times of crisis --. - External dimensions of europeanisation and regulated spaces of interaction --. - An institutional ethnography of the sites of diplomatic conduct in Nairobi --. - Positioning collective Europe abroad : operating EU diplomacy --. - Perceiving collective Europe abroad : interaction with the "partners" --. - What should the EU do? : expectations of the EU as a geopolitical actor --. - The EU's global role : what happened to the model? --. - Conclusion : a less global and a more European Union?

Summary
Embassies of the Netherlands within the European Union operate in another political and diplomatic environment than Dutch embassies in other parts of the world. There is a lack of comprehensive studies on the change dynamics of bilateral diplomacy within the EU. This article aims to contribute to the study of intra-EU diplomacy by looking at one of the key tasks of embassies abroad, namely reporting back to the capital. An analysis of the addressees, the type of reporting, and the interlocutors of embassy staff across Europe, reveals characteristics of the work of representations in a 'post-Westphalian' order. The results show that the diplomatic environment of Dutch bilateral embassies within the European Union does in several important ways indeed differ from that of Dutch embassies outside the Union.