Dimensions and Mechanisms of the Europeanization of Member State Foreign Policy: State of the Art and New Research Avenues

Abstract

The concept of Europeanization is relevant also to the foreign policy realm, as it facilitates an exploration of the distinctiveness of the foreign policies of states which are members of the European Union (EU). Reviewing the state of the art in the Europeanization of foreign policy, this article illustrates that the concept of Europeanization, albeit in a refined form, is a useful tool for examining the complex interactions and linkages between the EU and national levels in European foreign policy-making. Considering policy-learning and socialization as key mechanisms that drive the Europeanization of foreign policy in both its uploading and its downloading dimensions, this article provides a further clarification of how the Europeanization of foreign policy works and can be analyzed. It highlights particularly interesting avenues for future research by elaborating on important issues such as operationalization and the scope conditions for learning and socialization.

Key Words:

• Europeanization
• foreign policy
• Common Foreign and Security Policy
• Common Security and Defense Policy
• learning
• socialization

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the anonymous referees and colleagues who read earlier drafts of this article for their helpful comments and constructive criticisms.

Notes

1. Foreign policy falls under the pattern of facilitated coordination, that is, policy processes are not subject to European law, the powers of supranational actors are weak, and decisions are taken by unanimity.

2. Some authors have referred also to ‘crossloading’ as a further dimension of Europeanization, emphasizing that changes may not only be due to the EU but may also occur within it (Major and Pomorska 2005; Wong 2007). In this article, the horizontal interactions and exchanges between member states are considered to fall under the notion of Europeanization as ‘uploading.’

3. While in this article we focus on the mechanisms of socialization and learning in the CFSP, it is important to note that additional mechanisms exist to escape the problematic consequences of joint decision-making. Within the perspective of rationalist institutionalism, for instance, the practices of ‘log rolling,’ most importantly in the form of side payments or of ‘package deals,’ can help to produce policies above the lowest common interest denominator (Scharpf 1988, 264).

4. In situations of repeated negotiations, as in the case of the CFSP, actors may adapt to EU policies and positions because they are willing to trade the losses of one round of negotiations against the higher benefits of a subsequent round, gained by accomplishing a cooperative reputation. Non-cooperation, in turn, entails the risk of being isolated and marginalized in the decision-making process.

5. While this article focuses on uploading strategies available to member states to influence EU-level decision-making in the ‘negotiation phase,’ other routes of influence exist (Major 2008). Very importantly, member states might seek to shape the EU’s foreign policy agenda and form coalitions with like-minded states to influence the issues that will be subject to EU-level negotiations and deliberations.

6. From such a social constructivist perspective, actors may start to perceive each other increasingly as partners who have to solve joint problems, rather than negotiating opponents in a bargaining game (Smith 2004b, 102).

7. Even though authors differ as to which actors should be included in a policy network, it is generally assumed that these actors have privileged access to (new) information, ideas, and positions outside the normal run of organizational actors as well as the capacity to inject new ideas into the policy-making process (Heclo 1974, 307).