The Commission exerts far more influence over EU foreign and security policy than is commonly recognised

Given the political sensitivity of foreign affairs, the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) has generally been understood as one of the most intergovernmental forms of EU decision-making, with national governments maintaining high levels of control over their involvement in joint-actions. As such, it is often assumed that the European Commission plays only a minor role in the decision-making process, but is this actually the case in reality? Based on a recent study, Marianne Riddervold writes that the Commission has exerted a surprising level of influence over CFSP decisions. She argues that in light of these findings it may be necessary to reassess our understanding of how foreign and security policies are determined

Reactive Power EU: Russian Aggression and the Development of an EU Arctic Policy

There are many factors driving the development of European Union (EU) foreign policy. While much of the literature focuses on how particular interests, norms or internal processes within Brussels institutions, this article sheds light on the role of external factors in shaping EU foreign policy through an in-depth examination of the recent development of EU Arctic policies. We find that increased Russian aggression, not least in Ukraine, is key to understanding why the EU recently has taken a strong interest in the Arctic. In a more insecure environment, Member States are more prone to develop common policies to counter other powers and gain more influence over future developments, especially as it relates to regime-formation in the Global Commons. In effect, the EU demonstrates a kind of reactive power when it comes to dealing with new geopolitical threats.publishedVersio

Not so unique after all? Urgency and norms in EU foreign and security policy

The EU Global Strategy puts ‘principled pragmatism’ at the core of EU foreign and security policy. This has also been promoted as away of closing the gap between talk and action. Still, the concept has been widely criticized and interpreted as away of making the Union’s ‘organized hypocrisy’ less glaring. By exploring key EU foreign and security policy strategies and policies implemented over the past decade, this article suggests that a certain pattern for when the EU acts normatively and when it acts strategically can be identified. While the overall ambition is still to promote a more normative policy, also when it comes at a considerable economic cost, there is a limit to how it is willing to go. Evidence suggests that when faced with a situation perceived as urgent, the EU becomes more prone to implement policies that are at odds with its own principles.publishedVersio

The Commission’s informal agenda-setting in the CFSP. Agenda leadership, coalition-building, and community framing

Author´s accepted manuscript.Available from 17/08/2021.This is a post-peer-review, pre-copyedit version of an article published in Comparative European Politics. The final authenticated version is available online at: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41295-020-00218-1.acceptedVersio

Introduction: cooperation, conflict, and interaction in the global commons

The global commons – the High Seas, Antarctica, the Atmosphere, and Outer Space – are resource domains outside the authority of states. Historically, the global commons have been practically inaccessible and thus rarely subject to sovereignty claims and international regulations. With technological advances and environmental developments, the global commons have become a key site for international relations (hereinafter IR). Despite often competing claims from state and non-state actors to these areas, the global commons have remained mainly cooperative. This is not what one would expect from most IR perspectives in a close to anarchical environment and a volatile geopolitical international environment. This Special Issue sets out to address this puzzle by asking: To what extent and why is there little conflict in the global commons? For this purpose, this introduction develops a common framework that distinguishes between three models and corresponding hypotheses of the factors affecting the level of cooperation and conflict in these domains. While two are based on realist and liberal IR perspectives, we draw on constructivism, political theory, and law to develop a third model, called the Human Heritage model. To conclude, this introduction also sums up the findings and discusses their implications for the global commons and IR studiespublishedVersio

Failing through: European migration governance across the central Mediterranean

Both today and under Gaddafi’s authoritarian rule, externalised migration controls have played a crucial role in EUropean irregular mobility governance across the Central Mediterranean. Offloading migration management on Tripoli is puzzling due to the fragility of its institutions, the ill-preparedness of its security forces, and widespread abuse against migrants. Why have European member states and EU institutions relapsed to relying on Libyan forces to govern irregular migration? In this paper, we argue that the EU has failed through the migration crisis in the Central Mediterranean by drawing on already established albeit ineffective and contentious policy tools. The collapse of Libya’s state apparatus, European Court of Human Rights’ censure of Italy’s illegal pushbacks and public opinion pressure temporarily displaced but did not fundamentally change EUrope’s restrictive approach to irregular mobility governance. While some new and less restrictive border enforcement policies were developed in response to the soaring death toll, this humanitarian turn was short-lived. By combining the mechanism of failing forward with institutionalist insights, our concept of failing through explains why the EU and its member states soon backslid into pre-existing institutional arrangements like bilateral agreements with Libyan authorities notwithstanding their problematic legal, ethical and political implications.publishedVersio

The European Maritime Security and Defence Policy Architecture: Implications for Norway

Maritime security is high on the international and European security agenda, hence a number of new initiatives and actions have developed within the EU, NATO and through bilateral/minilateral agreements. To increase the common capabilities of Europe and secure more targeted responses, there is a need for better coordination between different organizations and forums. NATO’s 2022 Strategic Concept and the EU’s parallel Strategic Compass offer an opportunity to do this. Bilateral and minilateral defence groupings can strengthen European maritime security by accelerating capability development and fostering improved levels of interoperability. Norway should further develop its political dialogue and practical cooperation with the EU, and secure participation in major defence initiatives like the EDF and PESCO, various programmes, and cooperative arrangements with the European Defence Agency (EDA). Norway should pursue further leadership roles within NATO to bolster both its national interests and transatlantic security within the maritime security domain. Norway should actively promote enhanced EUNATO cooperation on maritime security issues, including closer alignment of strategic thinking, policies and investments of the two organisations. Mini-lateral’ structures can allow Norway to join forces with like-minded nations to act rapidly on maritime issues of common importance.publishedVersio

What previous crises tell us about the likely impact of Covid-19 on the EU

The Covid-19 crisis and its wide-ranging consequences illustrate the importance of understanding how the EU responds to crises. Drawing on a forthcoming book, Jarle Trondal, Marianne Riddervold and Akasemi Newsome discuss the potential long-term impact of Covid-19 on the EU. They write that while the initial response to the pandemic was slow, history suggests the EU will probably muddle through this crisis just as it has in the past

Transatlantic relations in times of uncertainty: crises and EU-US relations

acceptedVersio

Public Policy Europeanisation in Response to the Covid‐19 Crisis: The Case of Job Retention Schemes

To what extent and how did the Covid-19-pandemic trigger the Europeanisation of public policy in the EU member states? This article addresses this question by exploring member states’ responses to the labour market implications of the pandemic. Although the EU due to its free movement principles in effect has a common labour market, labour market policies have remained in the hands of the member states. Nonetheless, we find that they responded in a surprisingly similar manner to rising unemployment caused by lockdowns. Was this policy change linked to Europeanisation processes, and if so, in what way? We find that member states’ responses were related both to economic incentives and to contingent learning playing out in largely informal settings at the EU level. Our findings shed light on how crises may function as a critical juncture that triggers policy change, and how the EU may play a key role in such change. Our study thus also adds insights to our understanding of the mechanisms that underpin Europeanisation, in particular by shedding light on the importance of informal learning processes and the influence of the European Commission also in formally less integrated policy areas