Cross-pillar politics: functional unity and institutional fragmentation of EU foreign policies

Abstract

This article explores the key functional and institutional dynamics of EU foreign politics. It argues that the original pillar design of the Maastricht Treaty, which separated EU foreign policies into two only loosely connected pillars, has over time been replaced by a cross-pillar politics setting. This cross-pillarization has been the result of the pressure emanating from the functional indivisibility of this policy area. The article identifies a specific allocation function of EU foreign policies, namely the provision of policies that establish patterns of inclusion and exclusion for the EU polity and, thereby, gives shape to an emergent EU sovereignty. Notwithstanding this functional unity of the policy area, EU foreign policies are characterized by a complex and highly fragmented institutional structure. The article provides a detailed empirical study on this institutional fragmentation by focusing on the relations within the legislative triangle -the Council, the Commission, the European Parliament -in EU decision-making.

Mission Impossible: the European Union and Policy Coherence for Development

“…Two broad methods of decision making co-exist in the EU, though this difference is now questioned (Stetter 2004). In the case of supranational policies -such as trade, agriculture, fisheries -decision-making processes are based on the interaction between the three key institutions, with the European Commission spearheading the efforts to promote policy coherence.…”

Security and Democracy in the European Union: An Introductory Framework

“…in the field of migration and asylum. 47 Moreover, the phenomenon of 'cross-pillar' policy-making in the EU, observable for instance in the realm of foreign policy, 48 also increasingly applies to other areas of EU policy-making. Indeed, security policies at the EU level not only encompass the policy areas of CFSP, ESDP and AFSJ, but also concern a number of policy fields within the 'first pillar'.…”

Managing the conceptual gap on sovereignty in China–EU relations

“…In the light of their own post-war experience, many Europeans assert that the EU is a result of voluntary sovereignty transfer by its Member States, which gives rise to the notions of "pooled", "shared", or "perforated" sovereignty. Irrespective of the controversy over whether the EU is already a sovereignty entity or whether the Common Foreign and Security Policy does "give shape to an emergent EU sovereignty" (Lepsius 2000;Stetter 2004;Chen and Geeraerts 2003), it is widely perceived that the idea that sovereignty can be shared or divided at a transnational level serves as the theoretical basis underpinning European law and legal order. To a certain extent, however, conventional sovereignty rules, while having been modified by the European Union, have not been ultimately abandoned.…”