Looking towards the East: the High Representative’s role in EU foreign policy on Kosovo and Ukraine

ASBTRACT

My article addresses the role of the two post-Lisbon High Representatives (HRs), Catherine Ashton and Federica Mogherini, in EU approach to the Eastern neighbourhood. Adopting a broad conceptualisation of EU foreign policy and drawing on the scholarly literature on new intergovernmentalism, it focuses on events that marked the HRs' mandates in the cases of Kosovo and Ukraine. In the case of Kosovo, it examines the HRs' role in the conclusion of the so-called Brussels Agreement (April 2013); and of the August 2015 agreements. In the case of Ukraine, it reconstructs how the HRs dealt with the events leading up to the November 2013 Vilnius Summit; and with those leading up to the conclusion in February 2015 of the Minsk II Agreement. The article argues that the European Council exerts tight control over the post-Lisbon HR, and EU foreign policy-making processes more generally. Nonetheless, the empirical analysis demonstrates that, under certain circumstance, the HR can significantly influence EU foreign policy in the post-Lisbon era.

KEYWORDS:

• Lisbon Treaty
• High Representative
• eastern partnership
• enlargement
• Kosovo
• Ukraine

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes on contributor

Maria Giulia Amadio Viceré is a Post-Doctoral Fellow and Adjunct Professor at LUISS University (Rome, Italy). She is also a Research Associate at the Istituto Affari Internazionali (IAI) (Rome, Italy). Before that, she has been an Assistant Professor at the University of Leiden (NL); an elected member of the Academic Association for Contemporary European Studies' Graduate Forum Committee (UACES); a Blue Book Trainee at the European Commission (Service for Foreign Policy Instruments); and a research trainee at the European Policy Centre (Brussels, BE). Over time, she has held visiting positions at the European University Institute (RSCAS, Florence, Italy); at the University of Washington, as an EZ Founders Scholar (Seattle, WA, USA); and at the Policy Institute at King's College, (London, UK).

Notes

1 In this article, I devote special attention to the distinction between the HR’s role as FAC’s chair and that as European Commission’s VP. Therefore, I chose to adopt the abbreviation HR, rather than HR/VP.

2 Although my count does not include Euro Summits, it considers European Council’s informal meetings.

3 European Council’s conclusions of 16 September 2010; 23–24 June 2011; 9 December 2011; 1–2 March 2012; and of 13–14 December 2012.

4 European Council’s conclusions of 9 December 2011.

5 This acronym stands for the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo.

6 The European Council met on 18 December 2014; on 12 February 2015 (informal meeting); on 19–20 March 2015; on 23 April 2015 (extraordinary meeting); and on 25–26 June 2015.

7 European Council’s conclusions of 16 September 2010; 28–29 October 2010; 24–25 March 2011; 23–24 June 2011; 23 October 2011; 7–8 February 2013; and on 24–25 October 2013..

8 The EaP’s methodology mirrors that of EU enlargement. Yet it does not explicitly envisage the EU membership in exchange for EU conditionality.

9 The December 2012 Council highlighted Ukraine’s lack of reform progress (Council of the EU, FAC 2012).

10 On the Normandy Format see de Galbert, S. (2015) and Hardy (2016).