IP21 Complete Summary PDF

Adrian’s INTERNATIONAL POLITICS for the 21st CENTURY [IP21C] Summary Introduction IP21C 1 23-09-24 → The lecture introduces several key concepts and issues in contemporary international politics, framing them within the context of growing global complexity. → The lecture begins by highlighting th...

Adrian’s INTERNATIONAL POLITICS for the 21st CENTURY [IP21C] Summary Introduction IP21C 1 23-09-24 → The lecture introduces several key concepts and issues in contemporary international politics, framing them within the context of growing global complexity. → The lecture begins by highlighting that complexity is a given and often a burden in international relations. This is exemplified by the complex nature of events like the UN General Assembly meeting in New York, which brings together important people to discuss crucial global issues. The agenda for such meetings typically includes topics like conflicts (e.g., Israel-Gaza, Middle East), economic issues, and various other global challenges. UN General Assembly and Security Council The lecture provides an overview of the UN General Assembly, describing it as "the world's parliament." While it allows all member states to speak and discuss global issues, its power for concrete action is limited. The Security Council is identified as the main body for ensuring international peace and security, though it faces criticism and calls for reform. The Security Council consists of five permanent members (P5) - the United States, Russia, China, France, and the United Kingdom - who have veto power, along with ten non-permanent members elected for two-year terms. There are ongoing debates about reforming the Security Council, with countries like Germany and Namibia advocating for permanent seats. However, changing the Security Council's composition requires amending the UN Charter, which needs approval from the P5, creating a "lock-in effect" that makes reform challenging. → The lecture introduces the concept of the liberal international order ( → LIO), described as a system created over many years, with the UN Charter being a crucial component. This order, primarily shaped by liberal powers like the US and UK, is based on certain ideas and values: International cooperation International institutions Interdependence Transnationalism Regional cooperation Human rights  Rule-based predictability Universality of certain principles LIO History: LIO 1.0 Woodrow-Wilson-era → Universal membership, based on moral standards LIO 2.0 post-1945 → Western-led, characterized by a dense institutional network LIP 3.0 post 9/11 → Deeply influenced by rising powers, complex network of interdependencies Liberalism vs. Realism and further concepts → The lecture contrasts liberalism with realism as two opposing perspectives in international relations: Liberalism: Emphasizes cooperation and progress Views the world as consisting of states and other actors Focuses on interaction between actors Some liberals (idealists/institutionalists) believe cooperation always leads to positive outcomes Realism: Focuses primarily on states as the main actors Views little room for progress; history repeats itself Sees limited cooperation, mainly when beneficial for states Often manifests in alliances Considers the world as a "dog-eat-dog" environment → The lecturer recommends Daniel Drezner's "Theories of International Politics and Zombies" as an accessible introduction to various IR theories. Realpolitik: The concept of realpolitik is introduced, associated with Otto von Bismarck. It represents a pragmatic approach to politics based on practical and material factors rather than ideological or moral objectives. Realpolitik involves making cost-benefit calculations in concrete situations. Geopolitics: The lecture notes a resurgence of interest in geopolitics, which focuses on how geographical factors influence international relations. This marks a shift from previous emphasis on globalization and global governance. The return to geopolitical thinking is exemplified by states becoming more vocal about spheres of influence, and even the EU defining itself in geopolitical terms in response to initiatives like China's Belt and Road. Globalization and Deglobalization: The lecturer contrasts the optimistic view of globalization prevalent when they were a student (post-Cold War era) with current trends towards deglobalization. The earlier perspective saw the world becoming a "global village" with increasing interconnectedness. However, recent developments have challenged this view, with geopolitics reasserting itself and some degree of deglobalization occurring. Global Governance: Global governance is presented as a complex concept that emerged after the Cold War to describe a system of norms, values, and rules (both formal and informal, public and private) that govern international relations in the absence of a global government. This system has been influenced by globalization but is distinct from it. International Organizations: The lecture defines international organizations as entities with states as members, created by founding documents, whose activities span multiple countries or regions. The United Nations is presented as a prime example. Contestation in Global Politics: The lecture introduces the concept of contestation in global and European politics, defining it as a social practice expressing disapproval of norms. It notes that contestation of the liberal international order and its values (including the EU) has grown, challenging their legitimacy and proposing alternative forms of cooperation. → The lecturer cites Michael Zürn's work, suggesting that global and European governance structures have become "victims of their own success." As more authority was given to international institutions and regional organizations like the EU, issues became increasingly politicized, visible, salient, and polarized, leading to contestation. Current Challenges in international IR → The lecture touches on several current challenges in international politics: Reform of international institutions, particularly the UN Security Council The role of the EU in the changing global order The resurgence of geopolitical thinking and its impact on international cooperation The tension between globalization and deglobalization trends The need to address global issues while navigating increased contestation of established norms and institutions Conclusion The lecturer emphasizes the importance of understanding these complex dynamics for students preparing to work in the field of international relations. The course aims to help students navigate this complexity by providing a deeper understanding of key concepts, actors, and issues in contemporary global politics. Introduction I & Introduction II - Literature IP21C 1&2-L 23-09-24 & 30-09-24 UN General Assembly speeches of António Guterres and Charles Michel 2023 Guterres UN Secretary-General António Guterres addressed the General Assembly, highlighting the critical state of global affairs. He described a world "becoming unhinged" with rising geopolitical tensions and mounting global challenges. Guterres emphasized the need for strong multilateral institutions in an increasingly multipolar world. The speech called for urgent reforms of global governance structures, including the UN Security Council and Bretton Woods institutions, to reflect current geopolitical and economic realities. Guterres warned of a "Great Fracture" in economic systems, trade relations, and technology strategies. He stressed the importance of upholding the UN Charter and international law, citing Russia's invasion of Ukraine as a violation of these principles. Guterres called for renewed efforts to achieve peace in various conflict zones and addressed the humanitarian crisis resulting from these conflicts. The Secretary-General emphasized the link between peace and sustainable development, noting that countries closer to conflict are further from achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). He called for a "global rescue plan" to support the SDGs and reform the international financial architecture. Climate change was a central focus, with Guterres urging drastic action to cut greenhouse gas emissions and ensure climate justice. He proposed a Climate Solidarity Pact and an Acceleration Agenda to address the crisis. The speech also covered human rights issues, including gender equality, poverty, and discrimination. Guterres highlighted the challenges posed by new technologies, particularly artificial intelligence, calling for a Global Digital Compact and announcing the appointment of a High-Level Advisory Body on AI. In conclusion, Guterres emphasized the UN's role in addressing global challenges and called for determination in healing divisions, forging peace, and reforming multilateralism for the 21st century. Michel Charles Michel, President of the European Council, addressed the 78th UN General Assembly, emphasizing the need for multilateral cooperation and UN reform. He highlighted global challenges including climate change, poverty, and Russia's war against Ukraine. Michel stressed the importance of restoring trust, resolving pressing problems, and repairing UN machinery. Michel called for reform of the UN Security Council and international financial institutions to reflect current global realities. He proposed amending the UN Charter to address the right of veto, improve representativeness, and enhance the role of regional organizations. Michel suggested creating a mechanism combining majority decision-making with flexible use of veto power. The speech emphasized the EU's role as a global partner and its commitment to development and peacekeeping. Michel addressed various regional conflicts and expressed support for a two-state solution in the Middle East. He called for increased funding for climate action and disaster relief, proposing the creation of an international disaster fund. Michel advocated for reform of the Bretton Woods system to make it fairer and more inclusive. He supported initiatives to reallocate special drawing rights and implement debt relief for vulnerable economies. The speech also touched on pandemic preparedness, calling for the conclusion of negotiations on an international treaty by May 2024. In conclusion, Michel urged collective action to address global challenges, emphasizing the power of collective intelligence and the need for a fairer, freer, and more prosperous world. Take-aways Similarities: Both speeches emphasize the need for UN reform, particularly of the Security Council. They stress the importance of multilateral cooperation in addressing global challenges. Both leaders highlight climate change as a critical issue requiring urgent action. The speeches address the need for financial system reforms to support developing countries. Both mention the impact of new technologies, particularly AI, on global governance. Differences: Michel's speech focuses more on the EU's role and regional organizations, while Guterres takes a broader, global perspective. Guterres provides more specific proposals for climate action, while Michel emphasizes EU initiatives. Michel proposes concrete changes to the UN Charter, while Guterres focuses on overall reform without specific charter amendments. Guterres dedicates more attention to human rights issues and gender equality.  Michel's speech includes more regional conflict examples, while Guterres provides a more general overview of global tensions. Conclusions on current geopolitics: The world is transitioning to a multipolar order, necessitating reforms in global governance structures. There is growing recognition of the interconnectedness of global challenges, from climate change to conflict resolution. Regional organizations are playing an increasingly important role in international affairs and security. The impact of new technologies, particularly AI, is becoming a central concern in global governance discussions. There is a pressing need to address the growing divide between developed and developing nations, both economically and in terms of representation in global institutions. Climate change is universally recognized as a critical threat requiring immediate and coordinated global action. The ongoing conflict in Ukraine has significant implications for global security and the international order. Richard Youngs 2021: The European Union and Global Politics Chapter 4 The chapter examines the European Union's approach to global order, highlighting the EU's enduring commitment to the liberal international order while also noting a shift towards more selective and flexible support of multilateral norms. The post-war liberal order has faced threats from non-Western powers and changes in US foreign policy. In response, the EU has positioned itself as the main champion and upholder of this order. The liberal international order, characterized by multilateral institutions, open markets, cooperative security approaches, and support for human rights and democratic values, has been weakening for years. Non-Western powers have increasingly challenged Western norms and policies, undermining international law in multiple areas. China, in particular, has used its rising power to challenge established norms and set up initiatives outside existing multilateral institutions. The threat to liberal international order intensified with President Trump's administration, which stepped away from important international agreements. The COVID-19 pandemic further shook the foundations of global order by drawing power away from a chaotic US, sharpening US-China rivalry, and prompting many states to turn inwards. The EU has long been invested in the liberal international order, with its 2003 European Security Strategy declaring "effective multilateralism" as the guiding tenet of EU foreign policy. However, during the 2010s, the EU gradually shifted towards a less purist vision of multilateralism, seeking more concrete and immediate results from international cooperation. The chapter highlights several key developments in the EU's approach: The 2016 Global Strategy introduced the concept of "principled pragmatism," suggesting a harder-edged EU external action less concerned with the global system's well-being. The notion of "strategic autonomy" gained prominence, mainly as a prompt to develop defense and security capacities separate from multilateral operations. EU support for the UN has diminished or become more conditional in many areas, including peacekeeping missions and aid. The EU has looked for ways around the impasse in many multilateral institutions, supporting plurilateral arrangements in sectors like health, arms control, internet governance, and trade. The COVID-19 pandemic led to calls for stronger global governance, but in practice, EU member states foregrounded nationally preferential responses. The chapter also examines the EU's relationships with key global players: United States: The EU's support for the liberal international order was forged in the shadow of US leadership. However, this relationship has become strained, particularly during the Trump administration. The EU increasingly insisted it was now the primary defender of the liberal order partly because of the shift in US foreign policy. China: The EU has gradually developed a tighter focus on order-maintenance considerations in its relations with China. While the EU initially sought to include China more fully within networks of international cooperation, it has more recently labeled China a "systemic rival" and criticized its tendency to undercut global rules. Other powers: The EU has intensified efforts to build strategic partnerships with non-Western, rising powers. Notable examples include upgraded cooperation with Japan, a new India strategy, and deepened partnerships across Asia. The chapter identifies several themes in the EU's approach to global order: A shift towards a more carefully rationalized and varied support for global norms, tailored towards a more proximate defense of European interests. A combination of expedient bilateral relations, plurilateral approaches, and traditional multilateralism. A complex and shifting triangular relationship between the US, China, and the EU, with the EU attempting to play a bridge-building role while also engaging in "soft balancing" against both powers. Increased focus on strategic engagement with middle-sized powers.  A tendency to imply that the old liberal order can be salvaged simply through more effort on the EU's part, potentially ignoring the need for qualitative change in the global order. The chapter concludes by summarizing key points: The ongoing restructuring of international power balances has prompted significant adjustments in EU external action since the mid-2010s. Issues related to global order command significant EU unity, while member states follow their own nuances around a central pillar of common principles. The EU's commitment to liberal international order has become more distinctive as some other powers have stepped back, yet European powers have also moved towards a more instrumental approach to global norms. The EU's approach to global order exhibits a protective logic, complementing its outward-looking agenda with a more immediate defense of its own interests. While the EU has been crucial in supporting international rules, norms, and institutions, it has not been able to fully revive the health of the liberal international order. Instead, it should be seen as one among many actors contributing to more tailored, conditional, and varied forms of multilateralism. Edith Drieskens 2021: Actorness and the Study of the EU’s External Action This book chapter examines the concept of "actorness" in studying the European Union's (EU) external action. The concept, which emerged in the early 1970s, aims to assess the extent to which the EU is an actor in international affairs. The chapter begins by tracing the origins and development of the actorness concept through four foundational publications: 1. Cosgrove and Twitchett (1970) introduced the notion of actorness, proposing three criteria: autonomous decision-making power, impact on international relations, and significance attached to the collectivity. 2. Sjöstedt (1977) defined actorness as an actor's capacity to behave actively and deliberately in relation to other actors in the international system. 3. Jupille and Caporaso (1998) operationalized actorness through four variables: recognition, authority, autonomy, and cohesion. 4. Bretherton and Vogler (1999) conceptualized actorness as a combination of presence, opportunity, and capability. The author notes that while these publications have significantly influenced actorness research, there is no consensus on a single definition or operationalization of the concept. The chapter then presents a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) analysis of actorness as a research tool: Weaknesses: Lack of agreement on what constitutes an international actor, leading to a "cottage industry" approach with tailored criteria for different cases. Strong association with the EU, potentially overestimating EU actorness and underestimating other actors. Issues with measurement, including the use of criteria as constitutive factors rather than variables. Threats: The influx of rival concepts since the early 2000s, such as Normative Power Europe and Market Power Europe. Opportunities: The changing empirical context, with the rise of collective actors and the return of power politics. Growing willingness to study actorness more systematically and beyond the EU. Strengths: Flexibility in applying to various policies, contexts, and time periods. Generation of knowledge, including case-specific insights and general findings on the EU's international functioning. Encouragement to look beyond the EU by including system-level variables and allowing for comparison with other actors. To demonstrate how different conceptualizations of actorness can lead to varying assessments, the chapter presents a case study of the EU's search for enhanced observer status at the UN General Assembly (UNGA) between 2010 and 2011. The case is analyzed using both Jupille and Caporaso's and Bretherton and Vogler's frameworks. Using Jupille and Caporaso's criteria: Recognition: Fulfilled, but not without difficulties and compromises. Authority: Not enhanced by the resolution. Autonomy: Increased, but with limitations. Cohesion: Apparent, but with caveats. The analysis suggests a substantial degree of actorness at first glance, but a closer examination reveals limitations. Using Bretherton and Vogler's criteria: Presence: The EU's assumptions about its influence were challenged.  Opportunity: The UNGA setting proved more constraining than enabling. Capability: More positive assessment due to the EU's ability to respond and adapt. This analysis suggests a lower degree of actorness, highlighting the importance of external context and perceptions. The chapter concludes by emphasizing the need for a more careful and transparent use of the actorness concept. While acknowledging the challenges in developing a single definition and operationalization, the author encourages scholars to clarify and justify their approaches and to extend their research beyond the EU. Summary The chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the actorness concept, its evolution, strengths, and limitations in studying EU external action. It highlights the need for more rigorous and comparative approaches to advance our understanding of the EU's role in international affairs. Amitav Acharya 2017: Towards a Global International Relations? The article argues for the development of a more global approach to International Relations (IR) theory and scholarship. The author contends that while IR is growing rapidly worldwide, it remains heavily biased towards Western perspectives and experiences, particularly those of Europe and the United States. The concept of "global IR" aims to address this imbalance by incorporating more voices and experiences from the non-Western world, or Global South. It seeks to broaden IR's scope without displacing existing theories, challenging them instead to acknowledge and integrate non-Western perspectives. Acharya outlines six main dimensions of global IR: 1. A new understanding of universalism that respects diversity while finding common ground. 2. Grounding IR more authentically in world history and the ideas of both Western and non-Western societies. 3. Subsuming, rather than supplanting, existing IR knowledge. 4. Giving center stage to regions in the study of international relations. 5. Avoiding cultural exceptionalism and parochialism. 6. Adopting a broad conception of agency in international relations. → The author argues that global IR is necessary because traditional IR theories often neglect or marginalize non-Western experiences. He points out that while some theories (like postcolonialism and feminism) have made efforts to include non-Western perspectives, mainstream theories still need to broaden their scope. !! Acharya emphasizes that global IR is not about rejecting Western contributions but rather enriching the discipline by incorporating diverse viewpoints. He suggests that this approach can help address global challenges more effectively by drawing on a wider range of ideas and experiences. The article also discusses potential criticisms and challenges of global IR, such as the risk of over-focusing on stronger non-Western countries at the expense of weaker ones, and the difficulty of studying diverse nations and civilizations under one framework without obscuring important variations. In conclusion, Acharya argues that despite these challenges, a global perspective is crucial for advancing the discipline of International Relations in an increasingly interconnected world. He calls for greater participation from scholars in the Global South and a broadening of IR curricula and research to reflect the full diversity of global experiences and perspectives. Introduction II IP21C 2 30-09-24 The lecture focuses on how the EU has been studied as an international actor, examining key concepts and approaches in the field. It begins by discussing the use of animal metaphors in international relations, particularly the elephant metaphor for the EU. Animal Metaphors in International Relations: The lecturer discusses how animal metaphors are used to represent countries and international organizations. Examples include: The Russian bear The British lion The Chinese dragon These metaphors often symbolize characteristics like power, strength, courage, and wealth. They can also be used for mockery or criticism. The EU has been depicted as an elephant since the 1960s. The Elephant Metaphor and the EU: The elephant metaphor for the EU originated from the story of blind men touching different parts of an elephant and coming to different conclusions about what it is. This represents how scholars have studied different aspects of the EU without grasping the whole picture. The elephant was initially used to represent collective actors in international relations, not just the EU. Two Key Questions in EU Studies: The lecturer identifies two main questions that have guided research on the EU as an international actor: 1. To what extent does the EU qualify as an international actor? 2. What kind of international actor is the EU? These questions have been addressed using different concepts and approaches. Actorness: The concept of "actorness" has been central to addressing the first question. Key points about actorness include: Originated in the 1970s to study collective actors in international relations Quickly became focused on the EU Defined by Gunnar Sjöstedt as "capacity to behave actively and deliberately in relation to other actors in the international system" Operationalized using different criteria sets, mainly by Jupille and Caporaso (autonomy, authority, cohesion, recognition) and Bretherton and Vogler (opportunity, presence, capability) Has been used inconsistently, creating a "cottage industry" of actorness studies Criticized for lack of clear definition, EU-centrism, and measurement difficulties Still valuable for its flexibility and ability to compare the EU with other actors The lecturer argues for improving actorness research by: Clearly defining what an international actor is Explicit operationalization Generalizing findings beyond the EU Using actorness to develop broader theories of international actors Power Concepts: The second question has been addressed using various "power" concepts, including: 1. Civilian Power Europe (1970s-80s): → EU as powerful due to its civilian nature, not military strength 2. Presence (1990s): → EU as a multi-dimensional presence playing an active role, difficult to operationalize  3. Normative Power Europe (2000s): → EU as powerful because it defines what is "normal" in international relations → Focuses on principles, actions, and impact 4. Market Power Europe (2000s): → EU as powerful due to its large single market with the ability to externalize its rules Recent trends involve blending these concepts, recognizing that the EU can embody multiple power types depending on the context. Decentering and Decolonizing: The lecturer introduces two recent approaches challenging traditional EU studies: 1. Decentering: Developed at KU Leuven Aims to move away from Euro-centric perspectives Calls for introspection, learning from external contexts, and recalibration of research 2. Decolonizing: More radical approach Calls for completely new beginnings in EU studies Criticizes projects of inclusion into existing dominant order Advocates for prioritizing voices of historically subjugated communities Encourages political positioning of researchers The lecturer expresses some reservations about the more radical decolonizing approach, particularly regarding political positioning in academic research. Key Concepts and Their Evolution: 1. International Actor: The lecture begins by highlighting the lack of a clear definition of what constitutes an international actor in EU studies. Scholars have used various criteria, including: Influence or impact on international affairs Autonomy or self-determination Formal recognition Capacity to act → The lecturer emphasizes that the concept of an international actor is more of a spectrum than a binary classification. 2. Actorness: The concept of actorness emerged in the 1970s to study collective actors in international relations. Key points include: Origin: Introduced by Cosgrove and Twitchett in their study of new international actors Initial focus: Not specifically on the EU, but on various collective actors Definition: Sjöstedt's definition of "actor capability" as "capacity to behave actively and deliberately in relation to other actors in the international system" Operationalization: Two main sets of criteria: ○ Jupille and Caporaso: autonomy, authority, cohesion, recognition ○ Bretherton and Vogler: opportunity, presence, capability Evolution: Became primarily focused on the EU Criticisms: Lack of clear definition, inconsistent operationalization, EU-centrism Strengths: Flexibility, allows for comparison with other actors The lecturer argues for improving actorness research by: Clearly defining what constitutes an international actor Explicit operationalization of actorness Generalizing findings beyond the EU Using actorness to develop broader theories of international actors 3. Power Concepts: Various "power" concepts have been developed to characterize the EU as an international actor: a) Civilian Power Europe (1970s-80s): Emphasized EU's non-military influence Based on economic and diplomatic tools b) Presence (1990s): Focused on EU's multi-dimensional active role in international affairs Difficult to operationalize precisely c) Normative Power Europe (2000s): Introduced by Ian Manners EU as a norm-setter in international relations Analyzed through principles, actions, and impact d) Market Power Europe (2000s): Developed by Chad Damro Emphasized EU's power through its large single market Focused on EU's ability to externalize its rules Recent trends involve blending these concepts, recognizing that the EU can embody multiple power types depending on the context and policy area. 4. Decentering: A recent approach developed at KU Leuven, aiming to move away from Euro-centric perspectives in EU studies. Key aspects include: Calls for introspection and self-reflection on research categories Emphasizes learning from external contexts Advocates for recalibration of research approaches Difficult to define precisely in practical terms 5. Decolonizing: A more radical approach to reforming EU studies: Calls for a complete break from traditional approaches Criticizes projects of inclusion into existing dominant order Advocates for prioritizing voices of historically subjugated communities Encourages political positioning of researchers Ranges from "soft" approaches similar to decentering to more radical calls for complete overhaul of the field ! The lecturer expresses some reservations about the more radical decolonizing approach, particularly regarding political positioning in academic research. Evolution of EU Studies: The lecture traces the evolution of EU studies as an international actor: 1. 1970s: Emergence of actorness concept Focus on collective actors in international relations Introduction of Civilian Power Europe concept 2. 1980s-1990s: Increasing focus on the EU specifically Development of presence concept Attempts to measure and operationalize actorness 3. 2000s onwards: Proliferation of power concepts (Normative Power Europe, Market Power Europe) Increasing critique of EU-centrism in the field Recent moves towards blending different power concepts Emergence of decentering and decolonizing approaches Challenges and Future Directions: The lecturer identifies several challenges and future directions for EU studies: Clearer definitions and operationalization of key concepts Moving beyond EU-centrism to develop broader theories of international actors Balancing between traditional approaches and calls for radical change Incorporating diverse perspectives while maintaining academic rigor Addressing the complex and multifaceted nature of the EU as an international actor The lecture emphasizes the importance of understanding these concepts and debates for students studying the EU's role in international relations. It encourages critical engagement with the literature and awareness of the ongoing debates in the field. Introduction III IP21C 3 04-10-24 → The lecture focuses on understanding the complexity of the EU as an international actor. It aims to provide students with conceptual tools and background knowledge to analyze the EU's role in international relations. The EU's Complex Structure The lecture emphasizes that the EU's international functioning is highly complex, with multiple "faces" representing the EU in international affairs. This complexity stems from the EU's design, which involves: Multiple facets Multiple methods Multiple levels Facets of EU International Functioning The EU's international role comprises four main facets: Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) Common Security and Defense Policy (CSDP) External Action External Dimensions of Internal Policies These facets are defined in different EU treaties: CFSP and CSDP are outlined in the Treaty on European Union (TEU) External Action and External Dimensions of Internal Policies are primarily covered in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) Methods of EU Decision-Making in international affairs: Intergovernmental method: Primarily used for CFSP and CSDP Community method: Used for External Action and External Dimensions of Internal Policies → The community method involves a "triangle" relationship between the Council, Commission, and Parliament. The intergovernmental method primarily involves the European Council and Council. ! In reality, the distinction between these methods is often blurred, making it difficult to categorize decision-making processes neatly. Levels of EU International Functioning: EU level National level (Member States) International level ! Understanding the interplay between these levels is crucial for grasping the EU's role in international relations. The lecturer notes that the EU's ability to act internationally is not solely determined by its internal structures but also by how it is received and recognized at the international level. Key EU Institutions and Actors: The lecture provides an overview of the main EU institutions involved in international affairs: European Council: ○ Composed of heads of state/government ○ Provides political guidance and momentum ○ Represented by its President (e.g., Charles Michel) at high-level international meetings Council of the EU: ○ Composed of ministers from member states ○ Has different configurations for various policy areas ○ Foreign Affairs Council chaired by High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy European Commission: ○ Plays a role in certain aspects of foreign policy, especially in areas of exclusive EU competence (e.g., trade) ○ Commission President (e.g., Ursula von der Leyen) represents the EU in some international settings  European Parliament: ○ Plays a role in EU international affairs through its legislative, budgetary, and supervisory functions European External Action Service (EEAS): ○ EU's diplomatic service ○ Manages EU delegations (embassies) worldwide ! The multiplicity of actors can lead to confusion about who represents the EU internationally, both for outsiders and sometimes for the EU itself. EU Competences: Exclusive competences Shared competences Supporting competences Coordinating competences Special cases → The distribution of competences varies across policy areas, affecting the EU's ability to act internationally. For example, the EU has exclusive competence in trade policy but more limited competences in health policy. Conceptual Tools for Understanding EU Complexity The lecturer introduces three conceptual tools for analyzing the EU's international role: 1. Facets: The different components of EU international functioning 2. Methods: The decision-making processes used in different areas 3. Levels: The various levels (EU, national, international) at which EU international affairs operate → These tools help in "unraveling" the complexity of the EU as an international actor. Additional Actors in EU International Affairs: Think tanks NGOs Lobby groups → These actors are not always visible in formal institutional diagrams but can significantly influence EU foreign policy. Evolution of EU International Role: The lecturer discusses how the EU's international role has evolved over time, particularly with the Lisbon Treaty. This treaty aimed to strengthen the EU's coherence in  international affairs, for example by creating the position of High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. Challenges in EU International Representation: The lecture highlights some challenges and awkward situations arising from the EU's complex representation in international affairs, such as: Multiple EU representatives attending international events (e.g., Nobel Peace Prize ceremony) Protocol issues due to unclear hierarchies (e.g., "Sofagate" incident with Turkey) → These incidents illustrate the practical complications of the EU's multi-faceted international representation. Importance of Understanding EU Complexity: Analyzing EU foreign policy Formulating policy recommendations Understanding the EU's effectiveness in international affairs Conclusion The lecture concludes by reinforcing the idea that the EU's international functioning is not a single, unified foreign policy but a complex system of multiple policies, methods, and levels. Understanding this complexity is essential for any meaningful analysis of the EU's role in international affairs. The lecturer encourages students to use this understanding as a foundation for exploring specific aspects of EU international affairs in future sessions, which will cover topics such as multilateralism, diplomacy, trade, and the EU's role in various global issues. Introduction III - Literature IP21C 3-L 04-10-24 S. Keukeleire & T. Delreux 2022: The Foreign Policy of the European Union. Chapter 1 The chapter examines the complex and multifaceted nature of the European Union's foreign policy. It provides a conceptual framework for understanding EU foreign policy, analyzing its key components, tensions, objectives, and the context in which it operates. Multifaceted Foreign Policy The authors conceptualize EU foreign policy as comprising four interrelated facets:  Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP): This provides the main platform for developing and implementing the political and diplomatic dimension of EU foreign policy. Established in the early 1990s, CFSP has gradually gained strength but remains controlled by member states through intergovernmental dynamics. Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP): While formally part of CFSP, CSDP is considered a separate facet due to its distinct features. It includes civilian and military crisis management instruments, primarily used in the EU's neighborhood and Africa. Member states retain control over CSDP, often opting for other frameworks like NATO for more intrusive military actions. External Action: This encompasses the EU's external trade policy, development cooperation, economic and financial cooperation with third countries, humanitarian aid, sanctions, and international agreements. These policies have been developed since the late 1950s and have strong legal competences, considerable resources, and a bureaucratic apparatus to implement them. External Dimensions of Internal Policies: Many internal EU policies, such as energy, environment, and migration, have external dimensions with important foreign policy relevance. !! EU foreign policy should not be equated solely with CFSP/CSDP, nor with the sum of national foreign policies of EU member states. It is neither exclusive nor all-encompassing, as member states retain control over many aspects of foreign policy. Multi-Method Foreign Policy EU foreign policy is characterized by two different policymaking methods: 1. Intergovernmental Method: Applied primarily to CFSP and CSDP, this method allows member states to retain control through the European Council and Council of the EU, with unanimity as the predominant decision-making rule. 2. Community Method: Used for external action and external dimensions of internal policies, this method involves a balance between EU institutions (Council, Commission, European Parliament, Court of Justice) and allows for majority voting on most decisions. → In practice, EU foreign policymaking often occurs in the gray zones between these two methods. Multilevel Foreign Policy EU foreign policy involves interaction between national and EU levels, with the balance varying depending on the issue. It also operates within a broader international context, including other multilateral settings such as NATO, UN, and G7/G20. The authors suggest the term "multi-location" foreign policy to indicate that the EU is one among various relevant locations for foreign policymaking. EU and National Foreign Policies The relationship between EU foreign policy and member states' national foreign policies is complex. While the EU has influenced member states through Europeanization processes, national foreign policies remain important. The authors question whether EU foreign policy should mirror national foreign policy, arguing that its specificity and added value may lie in emphasizing different issues and pursuing different objectives through alternative methods. Key elements shaping national foreign policies and influence EU foreign policy: Power and Capabilities: Member states vary greatly in terms of geography, demography, economic power, military power, and diplomatic power. This diversity affects their behavior in international relations and their approach to EU foreign policy. Interests: Member states have varying interests, which can be categorized as common interests, converging but competitive interests, diverging and incompatible interests, or absence of interest in certain areas. Worldview, Role Conception, and Identity: These factors shape how member states perceive the international system and their role within it, influencing their approach to foreign policy issues. Areas of Tension in EU Foreign Policy The authors identify four key areas of tension that impact EU foreign policy: 1. European Integration vs. Atlantic Solidarity: This tension stems from the pivotal role of NATO and the United States as security providers for many EU member states. It influences the development of EU foreign policy and defense initiatives. 2. Civilian Power vs. Military Power: This relates to whether the EU should be primarily a civilian power or develop military capabilities, and to what extent it should exert power on the international stage. 3. Intergovernmental Method vs. Community Method: This tension reflects member states' reluctance to lose control over foreign policy versus the need for more integrated and effective EU action.  4. External Objectives vs. Internal Objectives: EU foreign policy decisions are often driven not only by external goals but also by internal objectives related to managing member states' relations, affecting European integration, and asserting EU identity. Principles and Objectives of EU Foreign Policy The chapter examines the formal principles and objectives of EU foreign policy as stated in the EU treaties. These include promoting democracy, rule of law, human rights, and international law. The objectives cover a range of areas including security, development, trade, environment, and humanitarian aid. However, the authors note that these objectives are general principles that leave room for different interpretations and do not set clear priorities. Relational and Structural Foreign Policy The authors introduce two conceptual approaches to understanding EU foreign policy: 1. Relational Foreign Policy: This seeks to influence the attitudes and behavior of other actors and manage relations between actors. It involves both declaratory positions and operational actions, including diplomacy, economic instruments, and crisis management. 2. Structural Foreign Policy: This aims to sustainably influence or shape political, legal, economic, social, security, or other structures in a given space over the long term. It focuses on promoting structural changes and reforms, addressing structural problems, or supporting existing structures. → The authors argue that structural foreign policy is particularly relevant for the EU, given its comprehensive toolbox of instruments and ability to sustain long-term efforts. They emphasize that structural foreign policy must consider both material factors (functional institutions and mechanisms) and immaterial factors (legitimacy and internalization of structures). Globalizing Context of EU Foreign Policy The chapter discusses how globalization impacts EU foreign policy. Globalization presents both challenges and opportunities, making foreign policy simultaneously more essential and more difficult for individual states to conduct effectively. The EU plays a dual role in relation to globalization: 1. As a shield: The EU helps protect member states and citizens from negative consequences of globalization. 2. As an agent: The EU contributes to globalization through its trade policy and support for a global free market economy. !! The authors note that the 2008 financial crisis demonstrated the EU's vulnerability to global economic forces and challenged its ability to shield member states from the negative impacts of globalization. Key Implications and Conclusions Complexity of EU Foreign Policy: The chapter emphasizes that EU foreign policy is a complex, multifaceted system involving various policy areas, decision-making methods, and levels of governance. This complexity makes it challenging to develop coherent and effective policies. Tension Between EU and National Interests: The relationship between EU foreign policy and member states' national foreign policies is not always straightforward. While there are opportunities for complementarity, tensions often arise due to diverging interests, capabilities, and worldviews. Balancing Act: EU foreign policy involves constant balancing between different tensions, such as European integration vs. Atlantic solidarity, civilian vs. military power, and intergovernmental vs. Community methods. The ability to navigate these tensions is crucial for the EU's effectiveness as a global actor. Structural Approach: The concept of structural foreign policy offers a framework for understanding the EU's potential to influence long-term changes in other regions. This approach aligns with the EU's comprehensive set of instruments and its ability to sustain long-term efforts. Globalization Challenge: The EU faces the dual challenge of protecting its members from negative aspects of globalization while also acting as an agent of globalization. This dynamic shapes the EU's approach to global governance and its foreign policy priorities. Evolving Role: The chapter suggests that the EU's role in foreign policy is still evolving, with ongoing debates about its nature, scope, and effectiveness. The EU's ability to adapt to changing global circumstances while managing internal tensions will be crucial for its future as a foreign policy actor. Need for Coherence: Given the multifaceted nature of EU foreign policy, there is a constant need to strive for coherence across different policy areas and levels of governance. This includes aligning CFSP/CSDP with other external actions and considering the external dimensions of internal policies. Power Dynamics: The varying levels of power and capabilities among member states significantly influence EU foreign policy. While this diversity can be a strength, it also presents challenges in formulating common positions and actions.  Identity and Values: The chapter highlights the importance of the EU's identity and values in shaping its foreign policy. The promotion of democracy, human rights, and rule of law is central to the EU's self-conception as an international actor. Multilateral Context: EU foreign policy operates within a broader multilateral context, interacting with other international organizations and frameworks. This requires the EU to constantly position itself in relation to other global actors and institutions. Conclusion The chapter provides a comprehensive framework for understanding the complex nature of EU foreign policy. It highlights the multifaceted, multi-method, and multilevel characteristics of this policy area, while also emphasizing the tensions and challenges that shape its development and implementation. The concepts of relational and structural foreign policy offer valuable tools for analyzing the EU's approach to international affairs, while the discussion of globalization underscores the evolving context in which EU foreign policy operates. This conceptual foundation sets the stage for a deeper exploration of specific aspects of EU foreign policy in subsequent chapters of the book. Introduction I - III: Summary of the literature The provided reading materials for the introductory lectures cover a range of topics in International Relations (IR), focusing on the evolution of the discipline, its current challenges, and potential future directions. The main themes that emerge from these texts include: The changing nature of global order The need for a more inclusive and diverse approach to IR The tension between traditional and emerging powers The impact of globalization on international politics The debate between different theoretical approaches in IR Changing Nature of Global Order Richard Youngs' chapter discusses the reshaping of the international order, highlighting the challenges to the liberal international order that Western powers designed after World War II. He notes that non-Western powers have increasingly questioned and defied established norms, leading to a system based more on self-help geopolitical power. This shift has forced the European Union (EU) to adapt its approach to global order, moving towards a more selective and flexible support of multilateral norms. Similarly, Amitav Acharya argues for a "global IR" approach that recognizes the contributions of non-Western civilizations to international systems and world orders. He contends that IR should study not only anarchic international systems like the Greek city-states and post-Westphalian Europe but also hierarchical systems that prevailed in Asia and the Middle East before European colonialism. Need for Inclusive and Diverse Approach Acharya's call for a "global IR" is perhaps the most explicit argument for a more inclusive approach to the discipline. He emphasizes the importance of incorporating voices and experiences from the Global South, arguing that this will lead to a more comprehensive understanding of international relations. This approach aims to challenge existing theories to broaden their horizons and acknowledge the place and role of the non-Western world. Edith Drieskens' chapter on "actorness" also touches on this theme, highlighting the need for IR to consider a broader range of actors beyond traditional state actors. She argues for a more nuanced understanding of agency in international relations, considering both state and non-state actors. Tension Between Traditional and Emerging Powers Youngs' chapter highlights the growing tension between the EU and emerging powers, particularly China. He discusses how the EU has had to adapt its approach, labeling China a "systemic rival" while also recognizing areas of potential cooperation. This tension is reflective of broader shifts in global power dynamics, with emerging powers challenging the established Western-led order. Acharya's work also addresses this theme, arguing that global IR must consider the changing dynamics of North-South relations and give a central place to the voices and agency of the South. Impact of Globalization Keukeleire and Delreux's chapter extensively discusses the impact of globalization on EU foreign policy. They argue that globalization has made foreign policy both more essential and more challenging for individual states, leading to a greater role for the EU. They also note the ambiguous relationship between European integration and globalization, with the EU acting as both a shield against and an agent for globalization. Theoretical Debates in IR All the texts touch on ongoing theoretical debates within IR. Acharya's call for a global IR challenges traditional Western-centric approaches, while still recognizing the value of existing theories. He argues for a more pluralistic approach that incorporates diverse perspectives and experiences. Drieskens' chapter on actorness highlights the ongoing debate about how to conceptualize and measure the ability of entities (particularly the EU) to act in international relations. She notes the lack of consensus on what constitutes an international actor and how to evaluate actorness. Youngs discusses the EU's struggle with power, both in terms of whether it should be primarily a civilian or military power, and to what extent it should exert power at all. This reflects broader debates in IR about the nature and exercise of power in the international system. Addressing Current Challenges The authors propose various approaches to tackle current challenges in international politics: Global IR: Acharya advocates for a more inclusive approach to IR that incorporates non-Western perspectives and experiences. He argues this will lead to a more comprehensive understanding of global politics and more effective solutions to global challenges. Flexible Multilateralism: Youngs describes the EU's shift towards a "variable geometry multilateralism," which involves supporting different coalitions on different issues. This approach aims to keep international cooperation afloat in the face of challenges to traditional multilateral institutions. Broadening the Concept of Agency: Drieskens and Acharya both argue for a broader understanding of agency in international relations, considering a wider range of actors and forms of influence beyond traditional state power. Balancing Regional and Global Approaches: All authors recognize the importance of regional dynamics in shaping global politics. They suggest that understanding and engaging with regional orders and institutions is crucial for addressing global challenges. Adapting to Globalization: Keukeleire and Delreux emphasize the need for foreign policy approaches that can effectively navigate the challenges and opportunities presented by globalization. Persistent Controversies Despite these proposed approaches, several controversies persist in the field: Western vs. Non-Western Perspectives: While there's growing recognition of the need for more diverse perspectives in IR, there's still debate about how to integrate non-Western approaches without losing analytical coherence.  State-Centric vs. Multi-Actor Approaches: The extent to which non-state actors should be considered in IR theory and practice remains contentious. Universalism vs. Particularism: There's ongoing debate about whether IR should strive for universal theories or focus more on context-specific understandings. Hard Power vs. Soft Power: The relative importance of military and economic power versus ideational and normative influence continues to be debated. Global vs. Regional Approaches: While recognizing the importance of both, there's disagreement about how to balance global and regional perspectives in IR. Liberal International Order: There's significant debate about the future of the liberal international order, with some arguing for its preservation and others suggesting it needs fundamental reform or replacement. Conclusion The materials reflect a discipline grappling with significant changes in the global order and trying to adapt its theoretical and practical approaches accordingly. They highlight the need for more inclusive, flexible, and nuanced understandings of international relations in the 21st century. However, they also reveal ongoing debates about how best to achieve this, reflecting the complex and often contentious nature of international politics in a rapidly changing world. The texts suggest that addressing current global challenges will require a multifaceted approach that combines traditional IR insights with new perspectives, considers a broader range of actors and forms of agency, and remains adaptable to changing global dynamics. At the same time, they indicate that IR as a discipline must continue to evolve, incorporating diverse viewpoints and experiences to remain relevant and effective in understanding and addressing global issues. Multilateralism I & UNSC IP21C 4 07-10-24 The lecture focuses on multilateralism and the European Union's (EU) role at the United Nations (UN), particularly in relation to the Security Council. The lecturer aims to explore the question of whether there will be an EU seat at the Security Council in the future. The EU and Multilateralism → Multilateralism is cooperation between three or more states based on generalized principles of conduct (John Ruggie) The lecturer notes that while this definition emerged in a post-Cold War context of optimism, the current reality of multilateralism is more complex. Concepts like "ad hoc multilateralism," "minilateralism," and "messy multilateralism" have emerged to describe contemporary practices. The EU considers multilateralism a key part of its international identity, with concepts like "effective multilateralism" and "multipolar multilateralism" featuring in its foreign policy rhetoric. However, the lecturer argues that the EU's understanding and practice of multilateralism in international contexts has sometimes been flawed. The UN System and Observer Status The lecturer explains that while the UN is primarily an organization of states, it also includes observers - a diverse group of over 100 actors including intergovernmental organizations, NGOs, and non-member states like Palestine and the Holy See. The EU has a special status as an enhanced observer in most UN bodies. The lecturer compares the EU's presence in the General Assembly and the Security Council: General Assembly: All EU member states have seats The EU has enhanced observer status (since 2011) High level of EU coordination (about 1000 meetings per year) Many EU statements at plenary and committee levels Security Council: Only some EU members have seats (elected by the General Assembly) No official EU presence Limited EU coordination EU statements only in open debates EU member states prioritize their global role over their EU membership → The lecturer characterizes the EU's presence in the General Assembly as "maximalist" and in the Security Council as "minimalist" from an EU perspective, but still significant compared to other regional actors. EU's Enhanced Observer Status in the General Assembly The lecturer discusses the EU's campaign to upgrade its observer status in the General Assembly following the Lisbon Treaty. This process, occurring in 2011, revealed the EU's limited understanding of multilateral diplomacy: The EU assumed its upgraded status (post-Lisbon Treaty) would be automatically recognized  It presented a "wish list" of upgraded rights without considering reciprocity or negotiation The initial proposal faced significant opposition, especially from CARICOM countries After the initial failure, the EU had to revise its approach, engaging in more outreach and negotiation The EU eventually succeeded in getting enhanced rights, but the process damaged its reputation in New York Security Council Reform and EU Seat The lecturer argues that the chances of an EU seat on the Security Council are very low, citing several reasons: UN-related factors: Skepticism towards the EU due to the 2011 episode Lack of support for regional seats on the Security Council EU-related factors: Limited support within EU institutions for an EU seat Lack of consensus among EU members beyond a vague call for reform EU treaties specify that Security Council membership is a national prerogative Security Council Reform Considerations The lecturer outlines several factors to consider in Security Council reform: Amending the UN Charter requires a General Assembly majority and agreement from all permanent members The need to balance efficiency (small membership) with representation Past reforms have focused more on working methods than membership Changing the countries represented doesn't necessarily change Security Council outcomes Key Takeaways The EU's role in multilateral institutions like the UN is complex and varies between different bodies. Despite its rhetoric on multilateralism, the EU has sometimes struggled to navigate multilateral diplomacy effectively. The EU's attempt to upgrade its status in the General Assembly revealed limitations in its understanding of multilateral dynamics.  An EU seat on the Security Council is unlikely due to both internal EU factors and the broader international context. Security Council reform is a complex issue involving various political, practical, and legal considerations. Understanding the EU's role in international organizations requires considering both EU rules and the specific context of each international body. → The lecture provides a nuanced view of the EU's engagement with multilateral institutions, highlighting both its aspirations and the practical challenges it faces in realizing its goals within the complex world of international organizations. Multilateralism I & UNSC - Literature IP21C 4-L 07-10-24 Katie V. Laatikainen 2015: The EU and the United Nations The chapter provides a comprehensive overview of scholarship examining the relationship between the European Union (EU) and the United Nations (UN), focusing primarily on the UN institutions in New York. The author, Katie Verlin Laatikainen, traces the evolution of this field of study and identifies key themes, approaches, and gaps in the literature. Evolution of EU-UN Relations and Scholarship Laatikainen begins by noting how changes in the EU's institutional structure have driven much of the research on EU-UN relations. Before the 1992 Maastricht Treaty, scholarship focused mainly on limited European Community competencies in trade policy and minimal diplomatic coordination. The introduction of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) after Maastricht sparked increased interest in EU coordination at the UN, particularly in the General Assembly. The 2003 European Security Strategy, which proclaimed "effective multilateralism" as a cornerstone of EU global policy, marked another watershed. It prompted scholars to examine the EU's collective nature in multilateral settings beyond just voting cohesion. The 2009 Lisbon Treaty, which created the European External Action Service (EEAS) and changed EU representation at the UN, generated a new wave of research on how these reforms impacted EU-UN interactions. Key Conceptual Approaches Laatikainen identifies two main conceptual approaches in the literature on EU-UN relations: 1. Interorganizational Relations: This approach views the EU and UN as autonomous international organizations and examines their interactions, cooperation, and occasional conflicts. While some studies have explored EU-UN partnerships, especially in crisis management, this perspective is less common. 2. EU Actorness: The dominant approach focuses on establishing and analyzing the EU's status as an actor within the UN system. Many studies draw on Jupille and Caporaso's (1998) dimensions of actorness: authority, cohesion, autonomy, and recognition. The author argues that scholars have generally privileged questions of EU actorness over interorganizational dynamics in studying EU-UN relations. Themes in EU Actorness Research Authority: Legal analyses have examined the EU's competence to act in various UN bodies, explaining its varying participation across the UN system. Some scholars have also explored politically-derived authority using principal-agent frameworks. Coherence: Many early studies sought to establish EU coherence through voting cohesion analysis in the UN General Assembly. Others have examined the EU's ability to "speak with one voice" in various UN fora and the internal coordination processes between EU member states and institutions. Autonomy: Research has explored whether EU member states' UN diplomacy is being "Europeanized" and how the new EU Delegation operates alongside member state missions post-Lisbon. Recognition: Recent work has shifted towards assessing how non-EU states and actors recognize and engage with the EU at the UN, moving from internal consistency to external perceptions. Normative and Identity Approaches Some scholars have examined the EU's role at the UN through normative and identity-based lenses. Concepts like "Normative Power Europe" argue that the EU's emphasis on UN-embedded norms demonstrates its unique normative character. Others have explored how the EU's multilateral identity is expressed through its UN engagement. Role theory offers a more outward-oriented perspective, examining how the EU performs certain roles (e.g., leader on climate change) in relation to other actors' expectations in UN settings. Effective Multilateralism A significant strand of research critically engages with the EU's commitment to "effective multilateralism" by assessing effectiveness along several dimensions: Internal effectiveness: The EU's ability to act cohesively at the UN. External effectiveness: The EU's ability to achieve objectives and influence others. EU contribution to UN effectiveness. Overall UN effectiveness at problem-solving. → Most studies have focused on the first two types. Some scholars have developed more sophisticated frameworks to analyze EU performance in various UN bodies, considering factors like relevance, efficiency, and financial viability alongside effectiveness. Gaps in the Literature Laatikainen identifies two major lacunae in current scholarship on EU-UN relations: 1. Policy Substance: There is insufficient attention to the actual content of EU policies and priorities at the UN. Most research focuses on process and actorness rather than analyzing what the EU is trying to achieve substantively. 2. Politics: Both internal EU politics in formulating positions and external political interactions with other UN actors are understudied. The emphasis on establishing EU actorness has obscured the political dimensions of EU engagement at the UN. ! The author argues that these gaps stem from an overemphasis on conceptual approaches at the expense of empirical policy analysis. She suggests that treating the EU as a "normal" UN actor and applying policy analysis tools could enrich understanding of EU-UN relations. Missing Policy Analysis Laatikainen contends that scholars have not systematically examined what the EU does at the UN in New York, how it prioritizes issues, or the outputs of EU engagement beyond voting cohesion. While some policy areas like climate change have been studied across institutional settings, how these translate into EU action in core UN bodies is less clear. The author calls for more empirical work on EU policies at the UN, including analysis of resolution sponsorship, coalition-building, and diplomatic outreach. This would provide a substantive foundation to trace policy changes over time rather than relying on episodic case studies. Missing Political Analysis The literature largely overlooks both internal EU politics in developing common positions and external political interactions with other UN actors. Laatikainen argues for examining how EU positions emerge, including member state dynamics and New York-Brussels policy processes. External political analysis is also lacking. How the EU engages diplomatically with other states, regional blocs, and non-state actors at the UN is understudied. The author suggests that explicitly political approaches examining EU interactions in UN diplomacy across issue areas would complement existing institutional and legal perspectives. Conclusion Laatikainen concludes that while significant progress has been made in establishing the EU as an actor at the UN, scholarship on EU-UN relations may be over-conceptualized and under-substantiated. She advocates for a shift away from continually refining actorness concepts towards treating the EU as a normal UN actor and applying policy analysis tools. The author recommends two key directions for future research: 1. Detailed policy analysis of EU priorities, negotiation strategies, and outcomes across UN bodies and issue areas. 2. Examination of both internal EU politics in position-formation and external political interactions in UN diplomacy. These approaches would address the current gaps in understanding policy substance and political dynamics while situating the EU more firmly within the broader context of UN multilateralism. Summary Overall, this chapter provides a comprehensive overview of how scholarship on EU-UN relations has evolved in tandem with the EU's own institutional development. It highlights the field's preoccupation with establishing and refining concepts of EU actorness while identifying important substantive and political dimensions that warrant greater attention. By advocating for more policy-focused and politically-attuned research, Laatikainen charts a course for deepening our understanding of the complex relationship between these two major international organizations. EEAS & Delegations IP21C 5 11-10-24 (25-11-24) → The lecture positioned EU delegations within the broader context of international politics and diplomacy, connecting to previously discussed concepts of perceptual and emotional turns in international relations. → The speaker established a theoretical framework incorporating three key gaps in EU external relations: The perception gap The expectation-performance gap The emotions-action gap These concepts were presented as tools for understanding the complexity of EU external representation and the challenges of diplomatic practice. Historical Development of EU Delegations → The lecture traced the evolution of EU delegations from their origins in the 1950s as European Coal and Steel Community offices to their current status as comprehensive diplomatic representations. This development reflected broader changes in European integration, with a significant transformation occurring through the Lisbon Treaty, which converted commission delegations into Union delegations: The Treaty created the European External Action Service ( → EEAS), establishing what is essentially an EU diplomatic service. This shifted the EU's external representation from a primarily Commission-based approach to a more comprehensive diplomatic structure The Treaty transformed Commission delegations into Union delegations, granting them a broader mandate to represent the entire EU rather than just the Commission. This change affected: ○ Their legal status and diplomatic standing ○ Their relationship with member state embassies ○ Their mandate in representing EU interests ○ Their ability to coordinate EU positions in third countries Article 221 of the Treaty explicitly stated that "Union delegations in third countries and at international organizations shall represent the Union." This provided a clear legal basis for EU diplomatic representation and expanded the scope of delegation activities from primarily implementing Commission policies to representing the entire Union. The delegations were integrated into the newly created EEAS structure, which brought together: ○ Former Commission external relations staff ○ Council Secretariat personnel ○ Seconded diplomats from member states  The Treaty provided a clearer framework for EU external competencies, although maintaining varying levels of EU authority across different policy areas: ○ Exclusive competencies in certain areas ○ Shared competencies with member states ○ Supporting competencies in other domains The Treaty enhanced the delegations' role in coordinating EU positions and activities in third countries, requiring them to: ○ Work with member state embassies ○ Coordinate EU positions ○ Represent EU policies ○ Facilitate information exchange → The historical analysis demonstrated how EU delegations grew from a small number of offices to approximately 140 representations worldwide, representing a unique form of diplomatic presence that differs from traditional state embassies. Structural and Operational Characteristics The lecture detailed the distinctive organizational features of EU delegations, highlighting their hybrid nature as diplomatic missions without traditional state backing. Key structural elements include: The complex relationship between the head of delegation and ambassadorial status The division between political and operational sections The interaction between European External Action Service (EEAS) and Commission staff The role of local agents in delegation operations The analysis emphasized how these structural characteristics influence the delegations' ability to represent EU interests and implement EU policies in host countries: The delegations operate with distinct sections that sometimes function in isolation: ○ Political Section: Handles diplomatic messaging and political relations ○ Operations Section: Manages cooperation and technical projects ○ Trade/Economic Section: Oversees trade relations ○ HR/Finance/Contract Section: Manages administrative functions The sectional division can create challenges in coordination and unified representation. The lecture noted that while some delegations achieve effective cross-sectional collaboration, others experience limited interaction between sections, potentially fragmenting EU representation. The staffing structure impacts delegation effectiveness through: ○ Mix of EEAS and Commission staff  ○ Presence of local agents who provide crucial contextual knowledge ○ Varying levels of technical expertise among diplomats ○ Individual motivation and experience of staff members The lecture emphasized that the role of individuals, particularly their motivation, expertise, and experience, significantly influences delegation performance The head of delegation's role affects implementation through: ○ Their ability to coordinate different sections ○ Personal commitment to specific policy areas ○ Diplomatic experience and local relationships ○ Management of relationships with member state embassies The delegations' effectiveness is shaped by: ○ Available financial resources ○ Staff capacity and expertise ○ Technical infrastructure ○ Support from Brussels headquarters The structural relationship with EU headquarters in Brussels influences operations through: ○ Reporting requirements ○ Policy guidance from multiple EU institutions ○ Coordination mechanisms ○ Decision-making processes The lecture identified several core functions of EU delegations. Each function was examined through the lens of practical implementation challenges and varying levels of effectiveness across different contexts: Working with member states to coordinate EU representation ○ In locations with many EU embassies (like Washington), coordinating positions requires extensive meetings and alignment efforts ○ Different national priorities can complicate unified messaging ○ Need to avoid double funding in development programming Engaging with non-EU international actors and building relations with host country governments ○ Language barriers requiring local agent support ○ Complex state structures (as in Bosnia) making it difficult to identify correct counterparts ○ Varying levels of receptiveness to EU messages ○ Need to localize messages to match local context and priorities Implementing projects and programs  ○ Managing large bilateral envelopes requiring local expertise ○ Project selection and monitoring challenges ○ Balancing multiple priorities (e.g., climate change vs immediate poverty needs) ○ Ensuring effective use of resources Reporting to Brussels on local developments Engaging with local population ○ Challenge of reaching beyond diplomatic circles to local populations ○ Need to adapt messaging to local contexts ○ Social media engagement effectiveness varying by country ○ Risk of only reaching other EU actors rather than target audiences Effectiveness Variations Across Contexts: Resource-Based Variations: ○ Larger delegations (like those in enlargement countries) having more capacity ○ Smaller delegations struggling with multiple portfolios per diplomat ○ Varying levels of technical expertise affecting implementation Context-Dependent Effectiveness: ○ More effective in countries where EU has significant market power ○ Less effective where competing powers have stronger influence ○ Varying effectiveness based on local political stability ○ Impact of security situations on diplomatic activities Priority-Based Variations: ○ Higher effectiveness in areas matching local priorities ○ Lower impact when promoting issues seen as less relevant locally ○ Different levels of success based on alignment with local development stages Personnel-Based Variations: ○ Effectiveness depending on individual diplomat motivation and expertise ○ Impact of head of delegation's personal commitment to issues ○ Importance of local staff knowledge in achieving objectives The lecture further addressed how external circumstances, particularly the COVID-19 pandemic, affected delegation operations. This analysis revealed both constraints and opportunities: Limitations on traditional diplomatic practices Adaptation to virtual engagement methods Changes in priority-setting and resource allocation Innovation in diplomatic outreach Case Study: Climate and Energy Diplomacy → The lecture presented detailed research findings on how EU delegations implement climate and energy diplomacy, revealing significant variations in activity levels across different delegations. The analysis identified three key factors influencing delegation effectiveness: Internal capability factors, including individual diplomat expertise and motivation EU presence factors, such as economic relationships and perceived influence Opportunity factors related to local context and conditions → The study found that contrary to expectations, higher EU trade power did not necessarily translate into more effective climate diplomacy activities, as business interests were primarily managed by member state embassies rather than EU delegations. The research demonstrated that individual diplomat motivation and expertise, along with the ability to localize climate messages to match local development priorities, were more significant factors in determining delegation effectiveness in climate diplomacy. Case Study: Bosnia and Herzegovina → The lecture provided an in-depth examination of the EU delegation in Bosnia-Herzegovina, highlighting particular challenges in an accession country context. The analysis revealed: Complex institutional arrangements due to the country's political structure Tensions between EU expectations and local performance Challenges in mediating between Brussels' requirements and local realities The impact of perceptions and expectations on diplomatic effectiveness → A key finding was that the EU delegation, despite its significant size and resources, was perceived as too internally focused, spending considerable time on EU coordination rather than engaging with local actors. However, the study also found that the mutual recognition of these expectation-performance gaps created opportunities for empathy and understanding between parties. This case demonstrated how EU delegations must navigate complex political structures, manage varying levels of access to local actors, and balance EU accession requirements with local realities and perceptions. Theoretical and Practical Implications The research presented several important theoretical implications for understanding EU external action: The significance of individual agency within institutional structures The importance of local context in shaping diplomatic practice The impact of perception gaps on diplomatic effectiveness The role of institutional capacity in determining delegation performance The lecture concluded by examining current challenges and opportunities for EU delegations, including: Evolution of diplomatic practice in response to technological change  Adaptation to changing global power dynamics Development of new forms of diplomatic engagement Integration of traditional and innovative diplomatic methods Conclusion The comprehensive analysis of EU delegations provided valuable insights into the evolution of diplomatic practice in the 21st century and the unique challenges faced by supranational organizations in international relations. The presented research demonstrated how theoretical frameworks from international relations can be applied to understanding practical diplomatic challenges while highlighting the need for new conceptual tools to analyze emerging forms of international representation. EEAS & Delegations - Literature IP21C 5-L 11-10-24 (25-11-24) Karen E. Smith 2021: Emotions and EU foreign policy The article explores how incorporating insights from the "emotional turn" in foreign policy analysis (FPA) can enrich our understanding of EU foreign policymaking. While the EU is often viewed as a technocratic organization designed to remove emotion from interstate politics in Europe, Smith argues that examining the role of emotions can provide valuable insights into both the decision-making and implementation phases of EU foreign policy. The article begins by outlining the recent "emotional turn" in International Relations (IR) and FPA scholarship. This approach examines how emotions shape foreign policy decision-making, alter cognitive functions and reasoning, and play a role in diplomacy. While emotions have long been neglected in IR, FPA has a history of considering psychological factors in decision-making. Recent scholarship has moved beyond viewing emotions as simply causing mistakes, acknowledging that they can also contribute to rational behavior. Smith notes that studying emotions in IR and FPA poses definitional and methodological challenges. Emotions are complex phenomena, and scholars must grapple with how individual emotions become collective and political. Some argue that emotions are socially constructed and intersubjective, connected to norms and values. Group-level emotions are seen as distinct from individual-level emotions, shared within a group and motivating group behavior. The article focuses on two main areas where the emotional turn can provide insights into EU foreign policy: 1. The role of emotions in EU decision-making processes  2. The EU's use of emotional diplomacy in implementing foreign policy decisions Decision-making processes Regarding decision-making, Smith argues that intergroup emotions theory can help explain how participants in EU decision-making bodies may feel emotions as an "in-group." Constructivist scholars have noted that decades of cooperation have produced coordination reflexes, perceptions of common interests, and collective identification among EU member state representatives. This collective identification may produce in-groups where individuals self-identify as members of an EU decision-making group. Emotions felt by the group could then shape policy decisions. To illustrate this, Smith examines the EU's response to the downing of flight MH17 over eastern Ukraine in July 2014. This event occurred in the context of the broader Ukraine crisis, which posed significant threats to European security and stability. The unified EU response, including accelerated and strengthened sanctions against Russia, surprised some observers given the conflicting interests of member states. While some scholars have pointed to the importance of norms or trust in explaining this unity, Smith argues that emotions likely played a role in strengthening the perception of the EU as an in-group, with Russia as the clear out-group. Analysis of statements by EU officials reveals key aspects of intergroup emotions theory: stronger in-group identification, shared emotions in response to the event, and emotions directed at Russia as the out-group. Officials expressed shock, anger, and sadness, with emotions reportedly playing a role in toughening the EU's stance during a key Foreign Affairs Council meeting. Smith argues that shared emotional responses among the "in-group" shaped the outcome of accelerated and strengthened sanctions. Implementing foreign policy decisions Regarding the implementation of EU foreign policy decisions, Smith examines how emotions are represented in EU foreign policy communications through the lens of Todd Hall's concept of "emotional diplomacy." This involves the strategic use of emotions by foreign policy actors to shape perceptions and behaviors of other actors. Smith focuses on two types of emotional diplomacy - the diplomacy of anger and the diplomacy of sympathy. To explore this, the article analyzes EU communications on two cases: 1. The initial EU response to the Ukraine crisis in February-March 2014 2. The EU's response to the expulsion of Rohingya from Myanmar in 2017-2018 → In both cases, Smith finds evidence of the EU engaging in the diplomacy of anger and sympathy, but struggling to match its emotional rhetoric with substantive action. For Ukraine, the EU's communications demonstrated anger at Russia's actions and sympathy for victims of violence. This was backed by some sanctions, but they were initially limited. It took the more shocking event of MH17's downing to prompt a harder stance. In the Rohingya case, the EU's response was predominantly the diplomacy of sympathy, backed by humanitarian aid. Some anger was expressed, but with little substantive action initially. Targeted sanctions were only imposed months later. Smith argues the EU was reluctant to undermine Myanmar's transition government by taking stronger action. ! The analysis reveals what Smith calls an "emotions-action gap" - the emotions expressed by the EU in its communications are not matched by corresponding substantive action. This gap has implications for the EU's identity as a normative, ethical international actor. If the EU cannot credibly signal outrage when its proclaimed values are violated, it risks showing acquiescence to such transgressions. Smith concludes that incorporating insights from the emotional turn in FPA can generate valuable insights into EU foreign policymaking, despite the EU often being depicted as "dedramatized." Emotions can affect decision-making processes and outcomes, especially during crises. Intergroup emotions theory is applicable given the "we-feeling" that has developed among EU member state representatives. However, examining the external representation of emotions may reveal limitations of the EU as a foreign policy actor, as seen in the emotions-action gap. This gap suggests the emotion-laden identity of the EU as a normative actor is not matched by appropriate action. The significance and perception of this gap by other international actors merits further investigation. Conclusion In conclusion, Smith argues that taking the "emotional turn" could deepen and extend understanding of EU foreign policymaking, diplomacy, and international identity. While acknowledging methodological challenges, she contends that this approach offers valuable new insights into the complexities of EU foreign policy. Natalia Chaban & Ole Elgström 2021: Theorizing External Perception of the EU → The chapter examines the importance of studying external perceptions of the European Union (EU) and its external action. The authors argue that understanding how the EU is perceived by others is crucial for assessing the effectiveness of EU foreign policy and for bridging conceptual divides in EU External Action Studies. The chapter begins by defining perceptions as mental pictures composed of actors' cumulated experience-based knowledge and beliefs about desirable behavior. Perceptions serve as "road maps" and "focal points" for external observers to interpret and relate to their environment. The authors emphasize that perceptions include both cognitive and affective components. Chaban and Elgström contend that studying external perceptions is valuable for several reasons: It contributes to debates on EU actorness by examining how external actors recognize the EU. It helps assess whether the EU's self-image aligns with how others see it. It provides insights into the effectiveness of EU external action. It offers an "outside-in" perspective that is often lacking in Eurocentric studies. The authors review the state of the art in studying external perceptions, noting its roots in various IR theories like constructivism, realism, image theory, and role theory. They highlight the growing body of literature on EU external perceptions, which has found that while the EU's economic power is widely recognized, its military capabilities are seen as limited. The EU is often perceived as a potential leader, though recent crises have affected this image. Its normative power garners mixed reactions, from adoption to rejection. EU and Otherness Chaban and Elgström propose a perceptual approach to EU external action based on the concept of "Otherness" - the perceived distance between a third actor and the EU. They hypothesize that: The higher the degree of externally perceived "Otherness," the less likely EU external action is considered effective, unless the EU adapts to existing perception gaps. The larger the gap between expectations and perceived performance, the more likely the EU will adapt its foreign policy roles. The larger the gap between others' perceptions and EU self-perceptions, the less likely the EU will acknowledge and act upon the expectation-performance gap. The authors identify key perceptions to investigate, including power, intentions, cultural/political status, legitimacy, credibility, coherence, and ability to communicate/network. They discuss various methodological approaches to studying perceptions, including content analysis of media and policy discourses, interviews with elites, and public opinion surveys. They also emphasize the importance of considering temporal factors, studying perceptions both in the short-term (e.g., during crises) and long-term. To illustrate their approach, Chaban and Elgström present a case study on perceptions of EU conflict management in the Russia-Ukraine conflict. They find that Russia tends to perceive the EU as a hostile but weak and decadent actor that does not recognize Russia's legitimate interests. This perception could inspire a more confrontational Russian approach. Ukrainian elites, on the other hand, see the EU as an economically powerful ally but an unreliable partner due to internal disunity. These contrasting perceptions have hindered the EU's ability to engage in effective conflict management. Conclusion Overall, Chaban and Elgström argue that a perceptual approach to EU external action offers valuable insights by linking various concepts and approaches in the field. It highlights how gaps between expectations, perceptions, and performance can affect the EU's foreign policy effectiveness and roles. The approach also emphasizes the need to consider external viewpoints to avoid Eurocentrism and better understand the reception of EU policies abroad. The authors stress that studying external perceptions is particularly crucial in today's multipolar world, where the EU's public diplomacy competes with that of other established and emerging powers. By systematically analyzing how others perceive the EU, policymakers can better diagnose challenges and engage more effectively with foreign publics and stakeholders. In sum, this chapter makes a strong case for incorporating the study of external perceptions into analyses of EU foreign policy. It provides a theoretical framework, methodological guidance, and practical examples of how such an approach can enrich our understanding of the EU's role and effectiveness on the global stage. By bridging internal and external perspectives, the perceptual approach offers a more comprehensive and nuanced view of EU external action in an increasingly complex international environment. Katja Biedenkopf & Franziska Petri 2018: EU Delegations in European Union climate diplomacy. The role of links to Brussels, individuals and country contexts → The research examines the role and practices of European Union Delegations in implementing EU climate diplomacy, particularly during the period leading up to the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement. The study demonstrates how supranational diplomatic networks operate in contemporary international relations, showing the evolution from traditional state-based diplomacy toward more complex, multi-level diplomatic arrangements. Institutional Framework and Transformation The 2009 Lisbon Treaty marked a pivotal moment in EU external relations by establishing the European External Action Service (EEAS) and transforming Commission Delegations into EU Delegations. This institutional evolution reflects broader shifts in 21st-century international politics, where traditional diplomatic structures are increasingly complemented by supranational diplomatic networks. The transformation aimed to enhance the EU's capacity for coordinated external action, particularly in addressing global challenges like climate change. Findings Structural Architecture: The study reveals a complex institutional structure where EU Delegations function as agents of Brussels-based institutions. The European Commission's Directorate-Generals, particularly DG Climate Action, serve as primary points of contact rather than the EEAS headquarters. This finding challenges conventional assumptions about institutional hierarchies in EU external relations and demonstrates how modern diplomatic networks operate through multiple channels of communication and authority. Patterns of Diplomatic Activity: EU Delegations engage in various diplomatic activities, with diplomatic meetings and public diplomacy events being most prevalent. However, significant variation exists in the intensity and breadth of these activities across different Delegations. The research identifies three distinct levels of engagement: Highly active (28%) Medium activity (39%) Low activity (33%) ! This variation does not correlate with the strategic priorities outlined in the EU Climate Diplomacy Action Plan, suggesting more complex dynamics at play. The Role of Personal Networks and Expertise: Personal contacts and direct