<p>An elementary precondition for the EU Member States to act coherently in the field of foreign policy is to reach a common standpoint on particular issues of the CFSP. Due to the intergovernmental character of decision-making in the sphere of the CFSP, the Member States reach a common position primarily through negotiations. In this regard the thesis focuses on an analysis of the EC/U Member States negotiations about two politically highly controversial foreign policy issues – the Yugoslav recognition crisis of 1991 and the Iraqi crisis of 2002/2003.</p><p>Developing a theoretical model of analysis based on merging Moravcsik’s liberal intergovernmentalism and negotiation analysis the author seeks to examine and explain the outcomes of these negotiations, while emphasising the necessity to view negotiation as a process throughout which a variation in certain factors can occur and hence influence the outcomes of negotiation in a decisive way.</p>

An elementary precondition for the EU Member States to act coherently in the field of foreign policy is to reach a common standpoint on particular issues of the CFSP. Due to the intergovernmental character of decision-making in the sphere of the CFSP, the Member States reach a common position primarily through negotiations. In this regard the thesis focuses on an analysis of the EC/U Member States negotiations about two politically highly controversial foreign policy issues – the Yugoslav recognition crisis of 1991 and the Iraqi crisis of 2002/2003. Developing a theoretical model of analysis based on merging Moravcsik’s liberal intergovernmentalism and negotiation analysis the author seeks to examine and explain the outcomes of these negotiations, while emphasising the necessity to view negotiation as a process throughout which a variation in certain factors can occur and hence influence the outcomes of negotiation in a decisive way.

No description available.

Since the competence provided in the CFSP and the AFSJ areas in certain situation can overlap, issues have arisen in the recent case law and literature concerning the choice of legal basis. The provisions of the two policy areas concern important international areas and the institutional balance, which is based on what legal basis is chosen, leads to a number of institutional consequences such as division of power between the Member states and the Union’s institutions. The idea behind this paper is to display an ample and just picture of a complicated situation in order to highlight the issues at hand that have arisen due to the complexness of the legal framework. If one of the policy areas are chosen as the correct legal basis, different rules in the treaty applies, which leads to different distribution of power since different institutions in EU play different roles depending on legal basis. The purpose of this work is therefore to analyse the external dimension of the AFSJ and the CFSP rules and examine how the correct legal basis can be determined by the legislator at the same time as the Member States and the EU’s ability to fulfil their objectives and goals is not undermined.

This essay examines the institutional coherence between the European Union’s Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and the field of Justice and Home Affairs (JHA), in order to combat jihadist terrorism. Coordinated instruments between the two policy areas are vital in order to maintain internal security within the European Union (EU) in its war against terrorism. However, as a result of several terrorist attacks in 2015, discussions surrounding the disintegration of the union have increased. This is paradoxical when looking at the strengthening of CFSP, an intergovernmental policy area, after 2015. By analysing the measures taken by the EU to counter terrorism in the wake of the terror attacks in Paris and Brussels in 2015 and 2016, it shows that CFSP-actors are becoming increasingly important in developing EU’s anti-terror policy. The result mainly concerns intelligence sharing and formal diplomacy, which blurs the boundaries between internal and external security. The result was achieved through a qualitative theory-consuming case study using neo-functionalism as a theory. The following research questions were asked: ‘’Has the CFSP, together with the JHA, been coordinated in a supranational manner to counter future terrorism in the wake of the terror attacks in Paris and Brussels 2015-2016?’’ and ‘’What driving forces can be identified for, or against, a supranational policy between the JHA and CFSP, from a neo-functional perspective?’’

At a time when the majority of conflicts are non-international, providing arms to the legitimate government or to the opposition forces may influence and even determine the outcome of a civil war. It is, therefore, not surprising that such a provision is subject to a web of rules. This dissertation focuses on those applicable to the EU Member States, which arise from international, European, and domestic law. Sanctions regimes are an integral part of this legal framework. Of primary importance are, naturally, sanctions adopted by the Security Council under Chapter VII, but also the more controversial EU restrictive measures are accounted for. The dissertation aims to clarify to whom EU Member States can legally provide arms and weapons during a civil war. This investigation is justified also in light of the positions adopted by individual EU Member States vis-a-vis the conflicts in Libya, Syria, and Yemen, three conflicts particularly relevant in political and economic terms for the EU and its Member States. By analysing these three case studies and putting the whole legal framework to the test the dissertation sheds light on how EU Member States justify their intervention. The adoption of these specific case studies allows for the assessment of their positions both when they provide arms to parties that intervene on request of the legitimate government and when they provide support to opposition forces. Despite being EU Member States subject to common European rules on arms exports and being all party to the Arms Trade Treaty, their practice is far from uniform. The result of these differences is far-reaching and has an impact not only on the civil war where the arms are provided but also on the EU.

This thesis studies the impact of small states in the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) in EU. The organisation of EU contains an interdependent power relationship between all countries. The aim of this study is to examine how this interdependence affect the influence of small states. Two theoretical framework are used. The first by Robert Keohane och Joseph Nye that developed the theoretical definition of interdependence, while the second one by Søren Christensen and his definition of direct and indirect power. The analytical model contains four hypothesis concerning asymmetrical and vulnerable interdependence, as well as direct- and indirect power. Through a case study of Sweden and Finland the conclusion is that small states have influence in CFSP, but it is limited due to bigger states with much more resources and the geographical position of the countries that creats asymmetrical interdependence. However, Sweden and Finland have influence in the decision-making in CFSP through vulnerable interdependence because of their many international defence cooperations with different organizations that strengthen their national position in the international political system. Also, the formal process of decision-making in CFSP enable direct and indirect power of small states. Therefore, the final conclusion is that small states have influence in CFSP even though is its limited in some aspects.

Sweden is currently viewed as a small country of North Europe. However, it can be proud of a long historical tradition with a number of political successes -- the fact that there has not been a war for more than two hundred years due to neutrality can be considered as the biggest one. The neutrality is perceived as a politico-security conception. The thesis tries to sum up the perception of Swedish neutrality, to chart its changes in time and to measure its compatibility with the EU membership through the observation of the Swedish foreign policy, the participation in Common Foreign and Security Policy, Common Security and Defence Policy and the preparation of the EU Council Presidency. The aim is to confirm the hypothesis that Sweden is due to changes in the perception of neutrality concept the full member of the European Union also in such complex things as Common Foreign and Security Policy and the Common Security and Defence Policy.

Cette thèse analyse l’institutionnalisation du Haut représentant de l’UE dans les négociations sur le programme nucléaire iranien entre 2003 et 2015. En combinant la sociologie de l’UE avec la sociologie des RI, elle interroge les dynamiques qui ont amené le Haut représentant à être reconnu comme légitime par l’ensemble des acteurs de la configuration du dossier nucléaire iranien. À partir de ce questionnement, ce travail propose un cadre d’analyse pour étudier l’institutionnalisation de l’Europe de la politique étrangère. En m’appuyant sur l’hypothèse de la différenciation des espaces sociaux, je prendrai en compte les logiques distinctes structurant l’arène globale de la négociation nucléaire et l’arène de la PESC, tout en les appréhendant comme des arènes enchevêtrées. À partir de l’analyse de l’institutionnalisation du rôle du Haut représentant dans le dossier nucléaire et en s’inspirant de la sociologie de Michel Dobry, ce travail permet de concevoir la variation de l’emprise des différents espaces sociaux sur l’institutionnalisation de l’action extérieure commune. Plutôt que de privilégier l’analyse d’une dimension sur l’autre, il est nécessaire de saisir la trajectoire de leur rapport afin d’appréhender le caractère aléatoire de la construction de l’Europe de la politique étrangère dans toute sa complexité. Au-delà de cela, l’étude de cas questionne l’idée de l’institutionnalisation de l’UE en tant que processus d’intégration. En effet, l’inscription de l’UE dans l’espace global de la diplomatie internationale nous permet de voir qu’il s’agit aussi bien d’une dynamique d’autonomisation, de différenciation et d’exclusion / This thesis analyses the institutionalisation of the EU High representative in the negotiations on Iran's nuclear programme between 2003 and 2015. By combining sociology of the EU with sociology of IR, it examines the dynamics that led the High representative to be recognised as legitimate by all those involved in the configuration of the Iranian nuclear dossier. Based on this guiding question, this work proposes an analytical framework for studying the institutionalisation of Europe's foreign policy. In line with the hypothesis of the differentiation of social spaces, I will take into account the distinct logics structuring the global arena of nuclear negotiation and the arena of the CFSP, while apprehending them as entangled arenas. Based on an analysis of the construction of the role of the High representative in the nuclear dossier and drawing inspiration from the sociology of Michel Dobry, this work makes it possible to conceive the variation of the influence of various social spaces on the institutionalisation of common external action. Rather than focusing on the analysis of one dimension over the other, it is necessary to grasp the trajectory of their relationship in order to grasp the random nature of the construction of Europe's foreign policy in all its complexity. Beyond this, the case study questions the idea of the institutionalisation of the EU as an integration process. Indeed, the EU's inclusion in the global space of international diplomacy allows us to see that it is also a dynamic of empowerment, differentiation and exclusion

<p>During the Cold War era, the edifice of the world configuration was built on a bipolar structure. The security of west European countries was not only important in the eyes of the Europeans but also in the American ones. But the end of this era in 1989-91 also put an end to this world structure and brought it into a unipolar one. The US became the world hegemon and Europe started to fear that US security priority would not remain Europe in the awakening of this structure. Therefore, some improvements occurred in terms of EU cooperation security in the framework of the conflict in Kuwait, but the main change happened because of the conflict in Ex-Yugoslavia. Especially Great Britain and France became aware of the need to develop an EU military capability in order to handle autonomous peace-keeping operations, outside of the NATO framework. The EU understood that any action developed by NATO was reliant on the US and without the support of the US the possibility to operate was restrained.</p><p>The move towards a more autonomous European security from the cooperation within NATO created a fear of loss of American influence over European politics. However, when the EU stated that NATO would remain the primary organisation to handle European security matters and that the CFSP would only reinforce the European pillar of NATO, the US appeared to support the cementation of this pillar.</p><p>France, Germany and Great Britain are contributing actively to the development of this pillar and they have all their reasons to support it. Germany is self-committed to the European integration process and cooperation in order, on one hand, to inhibit the raise of nationalism into Germany and on the other hand, to use it as a mean to play a major role in the international arena. France is a medium size power trying to keep its voice in the world arena. Its presence in the EU is marked by its strong link with Germany to enhance its role internationally. France uses the EU in order to promote its national interests. Great Britain maintains special relations vis-à-vis of the US and has not the desire to commit to any European cooperation that could hurt or threaten this link. But Great Britain changed its attitude towards its foreign and security policy due to its new interpretation of the structure during the Ex-Yugoslavian conflict. Therefore, its policy shifted in the need to develop a closer EU cooperation within the security, even if they stated that NATO still remains the primary organisation to handle European Security. This change is also strategic because Great Britain is motivated to become a EU leader instead of a spoiler.</p><p>The EU has to face a number of issues in different areas before it will be able to implement an efficient CFSP. First of all, the military capability gap that has widened the dependence on NATO military assets. Secondly, the difficult decision making process that has to deal with the domestic demands of all MS generated by a reluctance in ceding sovereignty of security matters to a qualified majority vote.</p><p>The development of the CFSP has electrified the transatlantic relations creating tensions but nothing that will damage the transatlantic link between the EU and the US. The CFSP will become complementary of NATO and not a competitor at all. The military capabilities and the domestic demands of all EU MS will guarantee this statement. The US will remain an unenthusiastic global actor in a unipolar world, pushing the international agenda in favour of a unilateral approach.</p>