Skip to main content

2020 | Buch

European Union Contested

Foreign Policy in a New Global Context

herausgegeben von: Dr. Elisabeth Johansson-Nogués, Dr. Martijn C. Vlaskamp, Prof. Esther Barbé

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Buchreihe : Norm Research in International Relations

insite
SUCHEN

Über dieses Buch

The European Union's foreign policy and its international role are increasingly being contested both globally and at home. At the global level, a growing number of states are now challenging the Western-led liberal order defended by the EU. Large as well as smaller states are vying for more leeway to act out their own communitarian principles on and approaches to sovereignty, security and economic development. At the European level, a similar battle has begun over principles, values and institutions. The most vocal critics have been anti-globalization movements, developmental NGOs, and populist political parties at both extremes of the left-right political spectrum.

This book, based on ten case studies, explores some of the most important current challenges to EU foreign policy norms, whether at the global, glocal or intra-EU level. The case studies cover contestation of the EU's fundamental norms, organizing principles and standardized procedures in relation to the abolition of the death penalty, climate, Responsibility to Protect, peacebuilding, natural resource governance, the International Criminal Court, lethal autonomous weapons systems, trade, the security-development nexus and the use of consensus on foreign policy matters in the European Parliament. The book also theorizes the current norm contestation in terms of the extent to, and conditions under which, the EU foreign policy is being put to the test.

Inhaltsverzeichnis

Frontmatter
Chapter 1. EU Foreign Policy and Norm Contestation in an Eroding Western and Intra-EU Liberal Order
Abstract
The idea of the European Union being increasingly contested, whether globally or at home, is a frequently reiterated notion. It is believed that such challenges to the European integration stem from a number of diverse but interlinked global and intra-EU crises that, combined, amount to the current ‘perfect storm’ affecting the EU and its foreign, security and defense policy. We will explore here how the EU is being put to the test in terms of the norms and fundamental values which guide its foreign policy. It is an important issue within the broader debates of the European crises, as such norm contestation may have a deeper structural and longer-term effect on the EU’s external action and its ‘resilience’ as an international actor. We employ insights from the norm contestation literature to scrutinize a number of the most important current challenges articulated against EU foreign policy norms in recent years, whether at the global, ‘glocal’ or intra-EU level.
Elisabeth Johansson-Nogués, Martijn C. Vlaskamp, Esther Barbé
Chapter 2. The EU and Controlling the Use of the Death Penalty: An Organising Principle for Which Fundamental Norm?
Abstract
The abolition of the death penalty has been an important foreign policy objective of the European Union for over a decade and it claims to be ‘the leading institutional actor in the fight against the death penalty worldwide’ (EEAS, 2013: 2). The EU has played a prominent role in efforts since 2008 to pass resolutions in the United Nations General Assembly Third Committee calling for a moratorium on the use of the death penalty. This chapter examines the contestation that has taken place regarding controlling the use of the death penalty, and whether it is an organising principle of the fundamental norm of the right to life or alternatively, non-intervention in the domestic affairs of sovereign states. Following the common framework of the book, the chapter identifies four modes of contestation used by retentionist and abolitionist states alike and establishes when and where (either the UNGA or Human Rights Council) they are used to support each sides’ claims that controlling the use of the death penalty is a type-2 norm for their respective type-1 fundamental norms. The chapter concludes that the majority position—that it is an organising principle associated with the right to life—is pervasive, thus reflecting the EU’s preferred normative stance. However, in recent years, an acknowledgement that non-intervention cannot be ignored has become more pronounced.
Robert Kissack
Chapter 3. Common but Differentiated Responsibility in International Climate Negotiations: The EU and Its Contesters
Abstract
In the negotiations of a follow-up agreement to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change’s (UNFCCC) Kyoto Protocol, the European Union (EU) was a vocal proponent of revisiting the ways in which the organizing principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibility (CBDR) was enshrined. The chapter analyzes the ways in which the EU promoted its distinct interpretation of CBDR and how other Parties to the UNFCCC contested the EU’s interpretation during the four-year climate negotiations that culminated in the adoption of the 2015 Paris Agreement. We performed a qualitative content analysis of the Earth Negotiations Bulletins (ENB) on the climate negotiation meetings between 2011 and 2015, thereby identifying not only the main contesters of the EU’s norm understanding but also the main themes of contestation over time. The analysis revealed that the EU pursued a firm, yet compromise-building approach to promote its own (re)interpretation of CBDR. Faced with hard contestation by developing countries, the EU engaged in a less hardline discourse than some of the other developed countries. This bridge-building positioning positively affected the EU’s perceived legitimacy in the global effort to combat climate change.
Franziska Petri, Katja Biedenkopf
Chapter 4. China Contestation of the EU’s Promotion of the Responsibility to Protect: Between Solidarists and Sovereignists
Abstract
China and the EU are two international actors which have clearly differentiated international identities as well as perceptions and ideas about the rules which should guide the international system. In the area of humanitarian intervention to protect civilian populations from violence inflicted by their government, the EU and its member states have frequently defended the right and necessity of the international community to intervene to ensure against genocide. China has on occasion supported such a view, while on other insisting on sovereignty and non-intervention as fundamental norms trumping human rights. This chapter will explore the Chinese view of the principle of Responsibility to Protect and discuss the Chinese reaction to concrete humanitarian crises situations (Syria, Darfur and Libya). It will then compare and contrast with the EU and its member states’ views and explain how China’s norm contestation has influenced the EU’s approach to humanitarian crisis situations.
Lluc López i Vidal

Open Access

Chapter 5. India’s ‘Silent Contestation’ of the EU’s Perspective on Local Ownership
Abstract
Local ownership has become a central theme in today’s discourse on peacebuilding, with the EU being very vocal in embracing the norm. On the surface, it thus seems that the EU is supported in its perspective on local ownership by the international community at large. Looking more closely at the discourse surrounding peacebuilding practices, it becomes however apparent, that local ownership remains contested, particularly among emerging countries such as India. The chapter, therefore, sets out to explore why and how India is contesting the EU on local ownership, and how far this impacts the legitimacy of the EU’s norm. Using document analysis on India and the EU’s speeches at the UN, as well as policy documents outlining their peacebuilding strategies, the chapter finds that while India is critical of the content of the norm and the degree of its institutionalization, it chooses more indirect modes of contestation, such as ‘silent contestation’. As a result, the European Union has not been receptive to India’s critique. This is amplified, as the EU has developed its perspective on local ownership among like-minded countries, within the OECD-DAC context and hence relies on internal legitimization of the norm.
Lara Klossek
Chapter 6. Good Natural Resource Governance: How Does the EU Deal with the Contestation of Transparency Standards?
Abstract
Transparency is an organizing principle of the norm of good governance. The EU has adopted a number of policies to promote this norm as a way to address corruption and cronyism in the natural resource sector of many countries. On the global scale, the EU supports the standards of the Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative. At home, the EU Accounting and Transparency Directives make it for EU companies mandatory to report payments to domestic and foreign authorities for oil, gas and timber extraction rights. This norm has been contested from different sides. China argues that economic development precedes good governance, instead of the other way around. Natural resource-rich countries see global standards as an intrusion of their sovereignty. The extractive industry in Western countries claims that national policies could disadvantage them by creating an uneven playing field. The chapter argues that these contestations remained predominantly soft and did not affect the legitimacy of the organizing principle too much. None of the contesters openly challenged the principle of transparency, but they rather tried to reduce its importance or to change the standardized procedures that came from it. As the EU did not waiver, these efforts have so far not been very successfully.
Martijn C. Vlaskamp
Chapter 7. The European Union and the International Criminal Court: Contested Abroad, Consensual at Home?
Abstract
A breakthrough in the evolution of international criminal law, the International Criminal Court (ICC) came into force in 2002 with the authority to bring to justice individuals guilty of war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and—since 2017—crimes of aggression. Much has been written about the contestation of norms and practices embodied in the ICC, best exemplified by the deteriorating relations between the Court and the African Union, the withdrawal of Russia and the fluctuating stance of the USA. Contrary to these actors, the EU is normally conceived of as a loyal supporter; the ICC fits in its promotion of the fundamental norm of justice in a multilateral rules-based order. Nevertheless, there are recurrent bouts of disagreement in the EU too. Differences tend to re-emerge at significant junctures in the development of the Court, usually accompanied by contestation from other actors in the international system. In this chapter, we focus on the relationship between the internal and external levels and ask how the EU has reacted to external contestation of the ICC. ¿Can the EU rally behind a common position or does external contestation promote internal differences?
Gemma Collantes-Celador, Oriol Costa
Chapter 8. The European Union and Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems: United in Diversity?
Abstract
This chapter focuses on norm contestation in the emerging stage by exploring the possible prohibition of lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS), which is advocated by the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots. At the UN Convention on Conventional Weapons, there is a shared agreement regarding a new organizing principle on human control. But different normative views on how human control should be regulated are leading the debate to a deadlock situation. On the one hand, the group advocating for inaction and on the other hand, the group of countries willing to ban LAWS. To avoid this, Germany and France together with the EU delegation worked on a soft law instrument. At the intra-EU level, an interinstitutional agreement between the European Commission, the European Parliament, and the Council of the EU has agreed to do not fund LAWS within the European Defence Fund. All in all, in both international organizations deliberation as a mode of contestation was dominant and resulted in a soft contestation of the emerging norm. As a result, the EU at the international level-triggered norm followership, where its fundamental norms and values of EU foreign policy proved to be resilient, while at the intra-EU level it enhanced internal cohesiveness.
Esther Barbé, Diego Badell
Chapter 9. Norm Contestation in Modern Trade Agreements: Was the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership a “One-off”?
Abstract
The norm of free trade, and an open trading system, is central to the European Union. Yet, the EU’s promotion of free trade is not without internal criticism. Primarily, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations with the USA, and to an extent, the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) with Canada, were strongly politicized. The authors argue that TTIP, in particular, was a special case. Modern trade agreements include negotiations on rules and regulations (deep integration), and civil society organizations (CSOs) employed effective lobbying techniques, framing strategies, and social media campaigns to raise public salience, awaken negative European perceptions of the USA, and promote mobilization against TTIP. This combination made the negotiations different from any other. EU trade negotiations with Japan were largely uncontroversial, and CETA only became salient when investor protection provisions in TTIP were also linked to CETA. As the chapter explains, while the EU still deems the promotion of free trade to be a fundamental norm, it has changed some of its standardized procedures and regulations on trade in response to intra-European opposition to TTIP.
Leif Johan Eliasson, Patricia Garcia-Duran
Chapter 10. Military Capacity Building as EU’s New Security and Development Strategy: The New Rules for Peace Promotion?
Abstract
The security-development nexus has served as an organising principle to the EU to achieve its fundamental norm of promoting sustainable peace and development. This principle implies that security is not possible without development and vice versa. While the security-development nexus has always had a tendency to place a greater accent on security to the detriment of development, the EU is now trying to defend itself and the international order by primarily making third states more militarily capable. A new initiative, the Capacity Building for Security and Development, has been created to provide non-lethal military capacity, including equipment and training. This shift has been controversial for sectors within the Council, the Commission, the Parliament and civil society, who have contested the shift away from civilian goals and the possible redirection of development funds for military capacity purposes. Drawing on interviews with EU representatives and relevant documents, the chapter analyses this contestation as well as the impact on EU’s legitimacy and authority. It shows that there is significant overlap between ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ contestation and that while the contestation itself does not jeopardise EU’s legitimacy and authority, it raises concerns about how the EU is responding to challenges, which may end up compromising both its legitimacy and authority.
Marta Iñiguez de Heredia
Chapter 11. When Contestation Is the Norm: The Position of Populist Parties in the European Parliament Towards Conflicts in Europe’s Neighbourhood
Abstract
Populism defines numerous political movements with heterogeneous ideological platforms within the EU, but they share the self-definition as being the true representative of the ‘the people’ versus the national and EU ‘elite’. European populist parties have consolidated as an element of the political landscape in Europe, however, the positions of populist parties towards EU foreign policy remain understudied. This chapter asks how European populist parties contest EU foreign policy in the European Parliament. It argues that the populist approach to EU foreign policy in the European Parliament defies the organising principle of consensus and seeks to normalise the contestation above any substantive considerations. To illustrate this argument, this chapter analyses the practices of contestation of far-left (European United Left–Nordic Green Left/GUE-NGL) and far-right (Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy/EFDD) populist parties during the plenary debates and in motions for resolution on the Ukrainian and Syrian crises. Even though both the left-wing and right-wing populist parties continuously oppose the mainstream approach taken by other EU institutions and dominant EP political groups, they promote very heterogeneous alternative approaches. Therefore, the influence of populist parties on the European Parliament role in the EU foreign policy has been limited so far.
Milan van Berlo, Michal Natorski
12. Correction to: India’s ‘Silent Contestation’ of the EU’s Perspective on Local Ownership
Lara Klossek
Metadaten
Titel
European Union Contested
herausgegeben von
Dr. Elisabeth Johansson-Nogués
Dr. Martijn C. Vlaskamp
Prof. Esther Barbé
Copyright-Jahr
2020
Electronic ISBN
978-3-030-33238-9
Print ISBN
978-3-030-33237-2
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33238-9

Premium Partner