The EU as a community of practice: foreign policy communications in the COREU network

Abstract

This contribution shows the added value of analysing the European Union (EU), and more specifically the EU foreign policy system, as a community of practice, i.e. a group of people who routinely get together on a common or similar enterprise with the aim of developing and sharing practical knowledge. The paper analyses the COREU network, which allows member states and EU institutions to exchange confidential information about foreign policy. It argues that officials involved display the key features of a community of practice: (1) there is a high degree of mutual engagement; (2) the functions served by the network go well beyond what was first stipulated; (3) there is a shared repertoire of resources to negotiate meaning. The existence of such a community of practice suggests that there is in the EU foreign policy system at least one organizational structure able to transcend national boundaries and based instead on a European practice of foreign policy communications.

Keywords:

• Common Foreign and Security Policy
• community of practice
• COREU
• EU foreign policy

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am very grateful to Helene Sjursen, Ben Tonra, Stephan Stetter, Kirsten Ainley and the reviewers for comments, as well as to the participants in two seminars organized by ARENA in Oslo in September and October 2010, and in the workshop organized by the University of Maastricht in November 2010. I am also grateful to Lucia Garcia who pointed me in the direction of communities of practice and to Caterina Carta for assisting in the research for this paper.

This contribution emanates from RECON (Reconstituting Democracy in Europe), an Integrated Project supported by the European Commission's Sixth Framework Programme.

Notes

The technical name of the network is CORTESY (acronym of COREU Terminal System). This contribution is based on data obtained from the General Secretariat of the Council and on 16 interviews with practitioners directly involved in the running of the system. Given the confidentiality of the network, extra care has been taken here to protect their identities.

For an exception, see Dijkstra and Vanhoonacker (2011).

See Cox (2005) and Gherardi (2000).

See also Bremberg (2010).

Gherardi (2000: 214) based on Polanyi (1958/1962).

The level of ‘subversiveness’ embodied by communities of practice is a matter of discussion. In his subsequent work with McDermott and Snyder (2002), Wenger emphasized informal groups and the sharing of an interest. This seems to downplay the role of power, especially in larger organizations. But analyses of communities of practice could equally apply to ongoing power struggles within hierarchies (Hughes et al. 2007: 9–11).

Weick (1995: 91–100) distinguishes between ambiguity and uncertainty. In both cases, sense-making entails the invention of sense that precedes the interpretation of events.

Mérand et al. (2011: 127) define co-operation as ‘intensive exchange of important information and joint work towards the development of common positions’.

And potentially more than one, although the focus here is on the one based on the COREU network.

Another virtual network, not analysed here, is ESDP-net (see Duke 2006).

For interpretations of this partial decline, see Bicchi and Carta (2010).

The GSC has remained linked to the system also because of its administrative responsibilities in relation to the CFSP.

Via the Commission's internal network.

Technically, though, the GSC is at the centre, as it manages the system, while in terms of content it is the EEAS that is at the centre.

See Bicchi and Carta (2010).

The proposal, which goes under the acronym of SESAME (Secure European System for Applications in a Multi-vendor Environment), has been on the agenda since 2001, but conflicting national interests have complicated, and probably stalled, the discussion.

On this, see Bátora (2008: 240).

For specific figures, see Bicchi and Carta (2010).

Interview with senior EU official, December 2010. For a caveat about sources, see Note 2.

See Council's rules of procedure, Article 12(4), OJEC L106/29, 15 April 2004.

The procedure can also be used for the approval of internal documents such as agendas.

Interview with senior EU official, December 2010; with national representative, July 2010; written interview with senior official, GSC, July 2010.

See Aus (2008: 113) and Lewis (2008: 175), for an analysis of the written procedure in the European Communities context.

Interview with national representative, April 2010.

Interview with national representative, June 2010.

Interview with national representative, April 2010.

They also publish an annual report, which contributes to increased transparency. See Bauer and Bromley (2004).

Interview with national representative, June 2010.

Interview with national representative, November 2009; national representative, April 2010; national representative, June 2010; national representative, July 2010.

Interview with national representative, May 2010.

Interview with national representative, March 2011.

See also examples in Hocking and Spence (2002).

Interview with EU official, November 2010.

Interview with national representative, June 2010.

Interview with national representative, March 2011.

While Cross (2006) suggests that European diplomats represent a single community, Spence (2009) suggests that there is a community of more European-oriented and one of more national-oriented diplomats.