ESSAY:

What are the characteristics of the European Union as a diplomatic actor? How might these impact on the development of the External Action Service?

College of Europe EU International Relations and Diplomacy Studies Brian HOCKING: Diplomacy Today: Theory and Practice Student number: 20110308 Word count: 1998

At the occasion of the adoption of the Council decision to establish the External Action Service (EEAS), the High Representative Cathrine Ashton rejoiced that the EU can now move forward to build a modern, effective and distinctly European service for the 21st century.1 The innovations introduced by the Lisbon Treaty to upgrade the EUs role as global actor 2 led to the creation of new actors and organizations in the field of European external relations. 3 Many argue that the recent establishement of the EEAS as a sui generis diplomatic service is a central factor for the construction of the EU as a diplomatic actor.4 Actorness can be defined as the capacity to act, which means the ability to function actively and deliberately in relations to other actors in the international system.5 Actorness encompasses four categories: recognition, authority, autonomy and cohesion.6 Diplomacy is a broad term with multiple definitions. It can be defined as an institution implying a set of rules and routines that define appropriate actions of states in the international environment in terms of relations between their roles as states and situations. 7 Thus, the classical definition of diplomatic actor in the international system is related to states. Diplomacy has been based on the Westphalian system which defined states as the only international actors. The Congress of Vienna in 1815 established the practices and routines for future relations between states8, which were later anchored in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Conduct in 1961.9 According to Btora, the process of European integration challenged diplomacy as a framework of principles, rules and organized patterns of behaviour regulating interstate relations in the Westphalian system of states.10 Given its complex, hybrid and outstanding structure, the EU is often viewed as a post diplomatic order disconnected from diplomacy. 11 Because the EU is currently setting up its own diplomatic service, which used to be an exclusive prerogative of states, it is interesting to examine the characteristics of the EU as a diplomatic actor, and how these would impact on the development of the EEAS. Therefore, this essay will analyse to what extent can the EU as a non-state diplomatic actor, develop its own European diplomatic service.
1

Council of the European Union, Press Release: Council establishes the European External Action Service, 12589/10, Presse 218, Brussels, 26 July 2010. 2 M.Emerson et al., Upgrading the EUs role as global actor. Institutions, law and the restructuring of European Diplomacy, Centre for European Policy Studies, January 2011.,p.1 3 J.Wouters & S.Duquet, The EU, EEAS and Union delegations and International Diplomatic Law: New Horizons, Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies, Working paper no.62, May 2011, p.7. 4 J.Btora, Does the European Union Transform the Institution of Diplomacy?, Journal of European Public Policy, vol. 12, no. 1, 2005,p.58. 5 J.Huigens & A.Niemann, The EU within the G8: A Case of Ambiguous and Contested Actorness, EU Diplomacy Papers, no.5, 2009.,p.4. 6 Ibid,p.5 7 Btora, op.cit, p.48. 8 Ibid, p.47. 9 Ibid, p.48. 10 Ibid, p.44. 11 B.Hocking & J.Btora , Diplomacy and the European Union, The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, vol.4, no.2, September 2009, p.114

I will argue that the Treaty of Lisbon enhanced the EUs capability to act as a real diplomatic actor on the international scene with the support of its key diplomatic instrument; the European External Action Service. (I) However, its sui generis structure makes the EU a complex, multi-layered diplomatic actor, which implies that the development of the EEAS would probably follow a different path from that of other traditional diplomatic services (II). I.The evolution of the EUs characteristics as a diplomatic actor and the establishement of the EEAS Since the beginning of the European integration, the EU has seeked to develop a role as a global diplomatic actor. 12 For instance, the EU has developed a large international network by establishing delegations of the Commission in nearly all third countries and at the headquarters of some international organizations. It has also developed very important external relations with third countries in the field of trade and development policy. Thus, the EU has gradually become a sui generis diplomatic actor in the international system, as it is not a state and much more than a classical international organisation. 13 The complex multi-pillar system of the EUs external representation and the lack of legal personality undermined the EUs credibility as a diplomatic actor for a long time, which inspired the institutional reforms introduced by the Lisbon Treaty. Given that representation is one of the essential dimensions of diplomacy14, the EU had to focus on the basic dimensions of diplomatic representation such as function (objectives of representation), access (targets of representation) and presence (modes of representation) 15 in order to enhance its role as a diplomatic actor. As a result of re-thinking the EUs diplomatic representation, new actors, such as the permanent President of the European Council and the triple-hatted High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, were appointed after the entry to force of the Lisbon Treaty. The EEAS, a sui generis European diplomatic service was officially launched 1 December 201016 to support the High Representative according to Article 27(3) TUE. 17 With the establishment of the EEAS, the Commissions delegations automatically became the Unions delegations which implies that they could even develop into real European embassies in the future. Theoritically, these institutional innovations helped the EU to acquire a more state-like character as a diplomatic actor. The fact that the EU has obtained a legal personality as a whole18, finally enabled it to establish its own diplomatic service; the EEAS. However, the EU remains a sui generis diplomatic actor characterized by a great complexity and by the use of various levels and kinds of diplomacy.
12 13

J.Wouters & S.Duquet, op.cit, p.19 Ibid, pp.4-5. 14 C.Jnsson & M.Hall, Essence of Diplomacy, Houndmills, Palgrave, 2005, p.4. 15 Hocking& Btora, op.cit, p.7. 16 E. Drieskens & L.Van Schaik (eds.), The European External Action Service: Preparing for Success, Clingendael Institute, The Hague, Clingendael Papers, no. 1, The Hague, December 2010., p.3. 17 Ibid, p.7. 18 Article 47 TUE

II. The complexity and the limits of the EUs diplomatic actorness impact on the development of the EEAS While the Treaty of Lisbon reinforced and re-defined the diplomatic actorness of the EU, the EU remains a sui generis diplomatic actor.19 This is due to the fact that the EU envolves in a diplomatic milieu in which the practice of diplomacy responds to pressures from different levels of interests and activity.20 Indeed, multi-level diplomacy makes the EU a particular diplomatic actor, and this also affects the structure and the general development of the EEAS. Bilateral diplomacy within the EU implies the growing interconnection between the domestic administrative systems of member states21 while their structure of bilateral relations with third countries remains the same. 22 Foreign ministries and diplomatic services in member states have become three-dimensional23, which means that they had integrated the European dimension to their structures. According to Btora, this phenomenon leads to an intraEuropean diplomacy, which is an emerging set of norms and rules regulating interaction of states in a rule-based legal environment.24 Thus, there is an increasing coordination and mediation between the member states and their environment (the EU), which shows that member states foreign ministers are shifting from being gate-keepers to boudary spanners.25 According to Hockings definition, the gatekeeper image lies in controling national boundaries and insulating the state from its environments, while the boundaryspanner image defines this in terms of mediating within and accross spaces between the state and its environments. 26 Mediation between member states and the EU could impact positively on the EEAS network by facilitating the cooperation between EU delegations and member statess foreign offices. Nevertheless, diverse positions between EU delegations and member states diplomatic services on a certain issue within bilateral diplomacy could hinder the EUs ability to speak with one voice. The multilateral diplomacy of the EU is different from the traditional multilateral diplomatic fora27, as it happens at different levels. A huge upstream coordination takes place at the level of the Council of Ministers and in particular in the COREPER, between member states, the Presidency of the EU, the EU Commission and indirecly the EU Parliament. 28 This has contributed to the development of a specific common diplomatic technical language and working methods among these different actors, which could serve as a basis for a common European diplomatic language. The other level of multilateral diplomacy is the EUs
19

J.Wouters & S.Duquet, op.cit, p.4. B.Hocking & J.Btora Bilateral diplomacy in the European Union: Towards Post-Modern patterns?, Netherlands Institute of International Relations Clingendael, April 2008, p.2 21 Idem 22 Idem, p.53 23 Idem, p.55 24 Idem, p.54 25 S.Rasmussen, Discourse Analysis of EU Public Diplomacy: Messages and Practices, Discussion Paper in Diplomacy, no. 115, July 2009, p.29 26 B.Hocking & D.Spence (eds.), Foreign Ministries in the European Union: Integrating Diplomats, Houndmills, Palgrave, 2005,p.12-13 27 Btora, op.cit,p.56 28 Idem
20

participation in international fora and international institutions. However, as multilateral diplomacy is a state-centered practice, in most cases only states can become members of international representations. 29 This shows the EUs difficulty to increase its visibility and to upgrade its status in various international organizations and fora, such as the UN and the G8, and highlights the fact that the EU is constatly confronted to the difficulty to be accepted both at the internal and the external level as a diplomatic actor. Thus, the complex internal coordination mechanisms and the difficult acceptance of the EU as a diplomatic actor in multilateral fora affect negatively the development of the EEAS. For example, some member states fear that the EEAS would replace or encroach on the competences of their national foreign ministers and diplomatic services. Thus, even if the delegation of some consular tasks from national diplomatic services to the EEAS would help budget cuts, some member states remain opposed to the idea. The structure of the EEAS also reflects the complex relationship between member states and the EUs key institutions. Indeed, the provenance of the EEASs staff from national diplomatic services, from the General Secretariat of the Council and from the former DG Relex of the Commission highlights that all of these institutions want to keep control on the evolution of the EU as a diplomatic actor. Finally, the external diplomatic relations of the EU should be analysed. Its in this field that the EEAS plays a central role and that the EUs diplomatic actorness and its limits appear the most. Many argue that the EEASs success will depend on its esprit de corps; a common diplomatic culture. 30 In this regard, the EU should develop to a coherent diplomatic actor through its committment to soft power31 and to diplomacy as an instrument of structural foreign policy32, so that the EEAS could deliver a single message. However, the limits of the legal and sructural characteristics of the EU as a diplomatic actor cannot enable the EEAS to be always coherent. For instance, the legal status of EU ambassadors in third countries is still not clear as it is disputed whether the head of Union delegation can utilize the title ambassador. 33 To conclude, the EU is a sui generis diplomatic actor confronted to a complex multi-level diplomatic system. Although the EU has acquired some state-like characteristics as a diplomatic actor, its recognition, authority, autonomy and cohesion remain limited in the international system. The EU, as a non-state actor, has been empowered to establish its own diplomatic service. Nevertheless, the success of the EEASs development will strongly depend on the EUs ability to overcome the numerous persisting limits to its diplomatic actorness. Thus, the development of the EEAS and the development of the EU as a diplomatic actor in the 21st centurys international system are closely interlinked.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
29

S.Gsthl, EU Diplomacy after Lisbon: More Effective Multilateralism?, Brown Journal of World Affairs, vol.7, no.2, Spring/Sumer 2011, p.182.. 30 E. Drieskens & L.Van Schaik (eds.), op.cit, p.15 31 D.Spence, Taking Stock: 50 years of European Diplomacy, The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, vol.4, no.2, September 2009, pp.258. 32 S.Keukeleire, The European Union as a Diplomatic Actor: Internal, Traditional, and Structural Diplomacy, Diplomacy& Statecraft, vol. 14, no.3, September 2003, p.31. 33 J.Wouters & S.Duquet, op.cit, p.11.

Avery, Graham, The EUs External Action Service: new actor on the scene, Commentary, European Policy Centre, 28 January 2011, pp.1-2. Btora, Jozef, Does the European Union Transform the Institution of Diplomacy?, Journal of European Public Policy, vol. 12, no. 1, 2005, pp. 44-66. Council of the European Union, Council Decision: Establishing the Organisation and Functioning of the European External Action Service, 11665/1/10, Brussels, 20 July 2010. Council of the European Union, Press Release: Council establishes the European External Action Service, 12589/10, Presse 218, Brussels, 26 July 2010. Drieskens Edith & Van Schaik Louise (eds.), The European External Action Service: Preparing for Success, Clingendael Institute, The Hague, Clingendael Papers, no. 1, The Hague, December 2010., pp.1-49. Emerson, Michael et al., Upgrading the EUs role as global actor. Institutions, law and the restructuring of European Diplomacy, Centre for European Policy Studies, January 2011., pp. 1-143. Fernndez Sola, Natividad, The New External Action Service of the EU: A European Diplomatic Entity in the making?, Miami-Florida European Union Centre of Excellence,vol.6, no.8, May 2009, pp.1-14. Gsthl, Sieglinde, EU Diplomacy after Lisbon: More Effective Multilateralism?, Brown Journal of World Affairs, vol.7, no.2, Spring/Sumer 2011, pp.181-191. Hocking, Brian & Spence, David (eds.), Foreign Ministries in the European Union: Integrating Diplomats, Houndmills, Palgrave, 2005, ch.1(pp.1-17) , ch.2 (pp.19-37)and ch.16 ( pp.273-286) (Gatekeepers and boundary spanners: thinking about foreign ministries in the European Union; The Evolving Role of Foreign Ministries in the Conduct of European Union Affairs; Conclusion). Hocking, Brian& Btora, Jozef, Bilateral diplomacy in the European Union: Towards PostModern patterns?, Netherlands Institute of International Relations Clingendael, April 2008.,pp.1-20. Hocking, Brian & Btora, Jozef, Diplomacy and the European Union, The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, vol.4, no.2, September 2009, pp.113-120. Huigens, Judith & Niemann, Arne, The EU within the G8: A Case of Ambiguous and Contested Actorness, EU Diplomacy Papers, no.5, 2009., pp.1-37. Jnsson, Christer & Hall, Martin, Essence of Diplomacy, Houndmills, Palgrave, 2005, pp. 123. Kelley, John R., The New Diplomacy: Evolution of a Revolution, Diplomacy and Statecraft, vol. 21, 2010, pp. 286-305.

Keukeleire Stephan, The European Union as a Diplomatic Actor: Internal, Traditional, and Structural Diplomacy, Diplomacy& Statecraft, vol. 14, no.3, September 2003, pp.31-56. Leguey-Feilleux, Jean-Robert, The Dynamics of Diplomacy, Boulder, Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2009, pp. 1-22. Rasmussen, Steffen Bay, Discourse Analysis of EU Public Diplomacy: Messages and Practices, Discussion Paper in Diplomacy, no. 115, July 2009, pp. 1-29. Spence, David, EU Governance and Global Governance: New Roles for EU Diplomats, in Cooper, Andrew F., Brian Hocking and William Maley (eds.), Global Governance and Diplomacy: Worlds Apart, Houndmills, Palgrave Macmillan, 2008, pp. 63-84. Spence, David, Taking Stock: 50 years of European Diplomacy, The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, vol.4, no.2, September 2009, pp.235-259. Wouters, Jan & Duquet Sanderijn, The EU, EEAS and Union delegations and International Diplomatic Law: New Horizons, Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies, Working paper no.62, May 2011, pp.1-20.