A contradiction in terms? NGOs, democracy, and European foreign and security policy

Abstract

In this contribution, we use a governance lens to assess the possibilities for political participation of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the European Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). We illustrate their engagement in the case of the European Code of Conduct/Common Position on Arms Export. We show that, while processes related to the emergence of the Code fit the description of intergovernmental approaches, developments since then, however, more closely resemble governance. With the growing institutionalization of the CFSP in general, and that related to the Code in particular, access points for NGOs became increasingly available. Through information and symbolic politics as well as rhetorical entrapment, civil society organizations contributed not only to the tightening and widening of the Code's provisions, but also to the increasing willingness of governments to provide information to each other as well as their own publics about arms exports.

Keywords:

• Arms exports
• Code of Conduct
• governance
• NGOs

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank Helene Sjursen, Sophie Vanhoonacker, the anonymous reviewers, and the participants of the Eurotrans Workshop for their helpful comments; and Natalia Dalmer for her research assistance. We would also like to thank the NGO representatives, state and EU officials who agreed to be interviewed.

Notes

Although scholars have studied Europe's defence industry (e.g., Guay 1997; Guay and Callum 2002) and the interactions between interest and civil society groups on the one hand and EU governments on the other in the lead-up to international agreements such as, for example, the Kyoto Protocol (e.g., Oberthür 1999) or the Rome Statute in 2000 establishing the International Criminal Court (e.g., Deitelhoff 2009), their role in EU policy-making is not well understood. More recent standard works on the CFSP fail to mention NGOs (e.g., Cameron 2007; Howarth 2007; Keukeleire and MacNaughtan 2008; Smith 2009) just as those on interest representation in the EU omit chapters on foreign and security policy (e.g., Warleigh and Fairbrass 2002; Greenwood 2003).