New Directions in EU Foreign Policy Governance: Cross‐loading, Leadership and Informal Groupings

Abstract

This article explores new patterns of interaction in foreign affairs among European Union (EU) Member States post‐Lisbon, which have increased reliance on horizontal and informal practices. It argues that cross‐loading among Member States outside EU institutions has moved centre stage and contributed to smaller groups of like‐minded Member States working together. This shift challenges much of our understanding of Europeanization, which is based on vertical forms of uploading and downloading. We illustrate these dynamics using the case of Sweden's recognition of Palestine in October 2014. While this seemed to break away from the established EU consensus, Sweden's decision aimed at leading the way and imparting momentum, especially within the like‐minded group of EU countries. Rather than being an example of de‐Europeanization, this case shows how Member States can seek new ways of exerting influence in the post‐Lisbon environment.

The high representative and the Covid-19 crisis: a preliminary assessment

“…At least up until the beginning of the pandemic. Hence, whetherand the extent to whichthis informal practice will remain an essential feature of the EU negotiations in the post-Covid world remains open to question (see Aggestam & Bicchi, 2019;Delreux & Keukeleire, 2017).…”

“…Although the Lisbon Treaty's modifications in the foreign policy field were considered strategic ones, most of the multiple crises the EU faced in the post-Lisbon era were directly related to the foreign policy dimension even if in different degrees -(see Amadio Viceré, Tercovich, & Carta, 2020). Against this backdrop, existing literature points towards an increasing complexity, if not hybridization, of the institutional practices occurring within EU foreign policy governance post-Lisbon (Aggestam & Bicchi, 2019;Bassiri Tabrizi & Kienzle, 2020).…”

Learning to Lead? Germany and the Leadership Paradox in EU Foreign Policy

“…We argue that German leadership has to be understood in context of the new distinctive patterns of interaction that have emerged in the post-Lisbon EU foreign policy governance system. Rather than leading to a top-down centralised process of Europeanization, a new pattern of horizontal and informal interactions involving cross-loading between EU Member Statesas a whole or in smaller 'like-minded groups'have emerged (Aggestam and Bicchi, 2019). The drivers of these changes are both internal and external.…”

“…In contrast to arguments that stress continuity in German foreign policybased on its civilian power heritage (Harnisch and Maull 2001), 'leadership avoidance complex' (Paterson 2015, 316) or primacy of geo-economic interests (Kundnani 2014)we point to a new willingness to provide political and strategic leadership in European foreign, security and defence policy. As a result of changes in post-Lisbon EU foreign policy governance, German leadership is manifested in new forms of informal leadership practices within the CFSP, in which new patterns of cross-loading interaction between EU Member States are increasingly prevalent and significant (Aggestam and Bicchi, 2019).…”

Leaderisation in foreign policy: performing the role of EU High Representative

“…This hybrid and sui generis locationstraddling both intergovernmental and supranational institutional networkscould potentially be a key place from which to exercise and, not least, narrate strategic leadership in the European governance matrix. The post-Lisbon setup has provided the High Representative/Vice President (HR/VP) with a more prominent and more visible stage on which to perform leadership, even if agency continues to be constrained by intergovernmental state practices (Aggestam and Johansson 2017, Aggestam and Bicchi 2019, Helwig 2016.…”