How “the political” can make the European external action service more effective in the eastern region

ABSTRACT

Following the enactment of the Lisbon Treaty, the European External Action Service (EEAS) became a key player in the EU’s foreign policy. This article assesses and explains variations in the EEAS’ approach to the Eastern Partnership (EaP) region. It contends that EU Member States (MS) limit the discretion of the EEAS more in a bilateral than in a multilateral framework, thus accounting for varying degrees of political sensitivity. By restricting EEAS discretion to the level of bureaucratised politics especially in sensitive policy areas, MS miss the opportunity to bring “the political” back in and to make EEAS policy leadership more tangible.

KEYWORDS:

• EEAS
• eastern partnership
• principal–agent model
• politicisation

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor

Dr. Hrant Kostanyan is a Researcher at CEPS, a Senior Key Expert at the College of Europe Natolin and an Adjunct Professor at Vesalius College. His research focuses on EU institutions and decision-making, primarily on the European External Action Service (EEAS), the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) and the EU's relations with Eastern Neighbours and Russia. He has published extensively on EU decision-making and external policies. Hrant Kostanyan has taught courses on politics of the European Union, EU decision-making and inter-institutional relations, as well as the EU's relations with the post-Soviet space in the master and bachelor programmes. Kostanyan has extensive experience in conference speaking and giving guest lectures and training for bureaucrats, diplomats, and members of academia and civil society.

Notes

1. For more discussion of the themed issue, see the introduction to the volume.

2. The Parliamentary dimension of the EaP, that is, EuroNest and the Civil Society Forum, is also part of the multilateral framework.

3. Although visa dialogue is also part of the EaP bilateral track, it is not dealt with in this study, since the dialogue follows a logic that is not comparable to that of the AA.

4. Article 31 (2) TEU: “ … the Council shall act by qualified majority:

• when adopting a decision defining a Union action or position on the basis of a decision of the European Council relating to the Union’s strategic interests and objectives, as referred to in Article 22(1),

• when adopting a decision defining a Union action or position, on a proposal which the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy has presented following a specific request from the European Council, made on its own initiative or that of the High Representative,

• when adopting any decision implementing a decision defining a Union action or position,

• when appointing a special representative in accordance with Article 33.

• If a member of the Council declares that, for vital and stated reasons of national policy, it intends to oppose the adoption of a decision to be taken by qualified majority, a vote shall not be taken. The High Representative will, in close consultation with the Member State involved, search for a solution acceptable to it. If he does not succeed, the Council may, acting by a qualified majority, request that the matter be referred to the European Council for a decision by unanimity”.