Suchergebnisse

1. Actors and decision-making processes of EU foreign and defence policy -- 2. Theories and the CFSP/CSDP decision-making process -- 3. Profiles, working habits and experience of EU diplomats -- 4. Preparing the national position: the capital-Brussels nexus -- 5. Identities : a diplomatic republic of Europe? -- 6. Decision-making styles and practices.

"EU foreign and defence policy is largely formulated in the working parties and committees of the Council of the EU and the vast majority of decisions in this field are made by the national diplomats working in the around 35 groups of the CFSP/CSDP."--

Abstract
This article intends to investigate to what extent, how, and when individuals who are below the leader's level affect the processes and outputs of international politics. It does so by analyzing one group of below-leader actors—diplomatic negotiators in EU foreign policy. It first shows how, despite all the bureaucratic layers they are embedded in, individual negotiators have de facto acquired ultimate policymaking responsibilities, most prominently in the selection of tactics. This empowerment of individual diplomats occurs through a process of double state disaggregation: Policymaking responsibilities have shifted from the political to the bureaucratic level; then, within the latter, from the capital-based administration to the officials involved, often in single capacity, in negotiations. Next, it tests three individual characteristics (experience, style, and identity) against an original dataset of 138 questionnaires completed by EU diplomats and 17 interviews. It shows that negotiators' personal traits explain the use of some, but not all, tactics. Specifically, they are less likely to matter when negotiators have to commit the state in significant and explicit ways, e.g., when threatening/exercising veto. When this does not happen (e.g., showing flexibility in the delegation's position or using persuasion), the influence of individual characteristics is instead strong.

This book is closed access. ; EU foreign and defence policy is largely formulated in the working parties and committees of the Council of the EU and the vast majority of decisions in this field are made by the national diplomats working in the around 35 groups of the CFSP/CSDP. Although the importance of these committees and their participants has been increasingly recognised, we still know relatively little about them. Using an original database of 138 questionnaires and 37 interviews, this book addresses this lack of knowledge, studying what these committees do and how they negotiate and resolve issues. It explores three key areas: the formulation of the national position; the identity of CFSP/CSDP policy-makers; negotiation practices and outputs. In doing so, it provides an innovative observation point from which EU foreign policy can be analysed. This book will be of key interest to scholars and students of EU foreign and defence policy, external relations of the EU, European integration and politics, diplomacy and more broadly international relations.

This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in European Security on 31 October 2016, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/09662839.2016.1236791. ; The European Union (EU) foreign policy has gone beyond intergovernmentalism. It is largely formulated by (Brussels-based) national officials, in a process characterised by a high number of cooperative practices, diffuse sentiments of group loyalty and possibly argumentative procedures. Yet, in many cases, the most likely output of this process reflects the lowest common denominator of states' positions or the preferences of the biggest states. The article intends to investigate this puzzle. In the first part, it corroborates its existence by using answers from an original database of 138 questionnaires and 37 interviews with EU negotiators. Next, it argues that cooperative practices remain often subordinated to nationally oriented ways of doing things. Consequentialist practices perform an anchoring function, in that they define the parameters around which (social) practices operate. The last section looks more closely at the sites of and meanings attached to EU foreign policy-making. By discussing national diplomats' conspicuous leeway in Brussels, it also argues that negotiating practices are performed through a mix of partial agency and persistence of national dispositions. On the whole, changing practices is difficult, even in dense and largely autonomous settings such as EU foreign policy. The social construction of EU foreign policy occurs only to a partial extent.

This note takes issue with two aspects of PTJ's keynote speech. The first one concerns the internal validity of his analysis. It argues that the matrix (which produces the four forms of knowledge) uses ambiguous and conceptually contestable boundaries and that implicitly (and paradoxically) seems to rely on an essentially positivist understanding of epistemic knowledge. The second claim raises the issue of the external scope of PTJ's argument. If human beings have produced for millenniums (international) political knowledge through any sort of work, and if PTJ convincingly gives these works a solid intellectual legitimacy, the repercussions of this endeavour on how IR is (ought to be) taught and researched are vague and/or seem to be limited (or conservative). On a whole, PTJ's note has conveniently set up the stage for further (hopefully enriching) debates within and across different disciplines interested to study the cross-boundary encounters with difference.

Using an original database of 138 questionnaires, the article explores how national officials perceive their role when participating in European Union (EU) foreign policy committees. It first shows that they systematically assume not only intergovernmental but also supranational role conceptions: a good number of diplomats understand EU foreign policy as a collective political project with the objective to craft a common European policy. The article then investigates some scope conditions. If the overall picture is complex and heterogeneous, it reveals that socializing activities occur in this policy field. More specifically, the number of years spent in Brussels is a relatively strong predictor of a supranational attitude. At the same time, diplomats' conceptions are formed also outside EU contexts: the structure and the pro-European opinions of the national polity affect the formation of a diplomat's orientation. Remarkably, member states' military power is a weak and non-significant variable in all the models tested.

This paper was accepted for publication in the journal Cooperation and Conflict and the definitive published version is available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0010836714558638. ; Using an original database of 138 questionnaires, the article explores how national officials perceive their role when participating in European Union (EU) foreign policy committees. It first shows that they systematically assume not only intergovernmental but also supranational role conceptions: a good number of diplomats understand EU foreign policy as a collective political project with the objective to craft a common European policy. The article then investigates some scope conditions. If the overall picture is complex and heterogeneous, it reveals that socializing activities occur in this policy field. More specifically, the number of years spent in Brussels is a relatively strong predictor of a supranational attitude. At the same time, diplomats' conceptions are formed also outside EU contexts: the structure and the pro-European opinions of the national polity affect the formation of a diplomat's orientation. Remarkably, member states' military power is a weak and non-significant variable in all the models tested.