The Evolution of the Competences of the European Union´S Institutions in the Foreign Policy Field
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Institutul de Relaţii Internaţionale din Moldova RELAŢII INTERNAŢIONALE. Plus INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL DISCOURSE: RELEVANT PROBLEMS THE EVOLUTION OF THE COMPETENCES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION´S INSTITUTIONS IN THE FOREIGN POLICY FIELD Valentin BENIUC, doctor habilitate in Political Sciences, university professor, IRIM ([email protected]) Liliana BENIUC, PhD in political sciences, IRIM ([email protected]) Abstract The European Union exercises the foreign policy in a very complex institutional setting, difficult to conceptualize as an instrument and as a competence, but also as a highly fragmented policy. For more than sixty-five years, researchers and experts try to compare the European integration with existing models, demonstrating that the European Union is a special political system and suggesting a new concept of inter- national relations that changes the traditional way of defining foreign policy. By the concept of “European Union´s foreign policy system” we mean the totality of the institutions which determine the development and implementation of foreign policy on behalf of the EU, in a decentralized and multilateral way. EU member sta- tes are the most important actors of the system and European institutions such as the 212 Institutul de Relaţii Revistă ştiinţifico-practică Nr.1/2019 Internaţionale din Moldova European Commission, the European Council, the Council of the European Union, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the European External Action Service - exert influence on the process of developing and implementing European foreign policy. Keywords: European Union foreign policy, European political cooperation, Common Foreign and Security Policy, High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, European External Action Service, European Council, European Commission CZU: 327:341.1(4) Introduction. The European Union exercises the foreign policy in a very complex institutional setting, difficult to conceptualize as an in- strument and as a competence, but also as a highly fragmented policy. For more than sixty-five years, researchers and experts try to compare the European integration with existing models, demonstrating that the European Union is a special political system and suggesting a new con- cept of international relations that changes the traditional way of defin- ing foreign policy. By the concept of “European Union´s foreign policy system” we mean the totality of the institutions which determine the development and implementation of foreign policy on behalf of the EU, in a decen- tralized and multilateral way. EU member states are the most important actors of the system and European institutions such as the European Commission, the European Council, the Council of the European Union, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the European External Action Service - exert influence on the process of developing and implementing European foreign policy. In accordance with the founding treaties of Paris (1951) and Rome (1957), the European communities were international law subjects, ben- efiting from competences at the international level. According to supposi- tions of Mario Teló, internal policies (eg, agricultural policy, the creation of the single market) represented the first factor of international influence for European communities as they have had an important international impact both on neighbors and on global governance [1, p.183]. The politicization of different sectoral issues created the ground for the “Europeanization”, which has become an instrument of European foreign policy through the export of internal rules and values of the 213 Institutul de Relaţii Internaţionale din Moldova RELAŢII INTERNAŢIONALE. Plus European communities abroad. Ion M. Anghel argues that the external actions of the European Community/European Union are quite diverse and comprise many spheres: trade policy, ties with associated coun- tries and external territories, relations with international organizations, research and technological development, environmental policy, youth, public health, education, trans-European networks [2, p. 405-406]. The European Communities enjoyed exclusive responsibilities in the areas of trade and development cooperation, and the European external activ- ity in the initial period was predominantly economic. As a result, there is a lack of clear distinction between the economic aspects (compe- tences conferred to the European Community) and those of the foreign policy (competences conferred to the member states). Applied methods: analysis, systemic approach of foreign policy, structural-functional approach of EU institutions, generalization of fac- tological information. The results of the investigation. The political dimension of the community construction, though it was present in Robert Schuman’s Declaration of 9 May 1950, was postponed in favour of economic in- tegration [3, p. 9]. According to the French researcher Marie-France Christophe-Tchakaloff, the Political Community project presented by Paul-Henri Spaak in 1952, supported by Konrad Adenauer and Alcide de Gasperi, was the first initiative regarding the organization of a Eu- ropean authority, which should also include common defense as part of the political construction [4, p.33-34]. The Political Community was to absorb the attributions of the European Coal and Steel Community, the European Defense Community and to coordinate the foreign policy of the member states, but without undermining their sovereignty. The failure of the European Defense Community and the draft of the Political Community in 1954 was determined on one side by France’s refusal to ratify the Treaty on the European Defense Community and, on the other side, by the evolution of the international situation in 1953- 1954 (Stalin’s death - March 5, 1953, Korea’s armistice - July 27, 1953, France’s outbreak from the war in Indochina, July 30, 1954), demon- strating the premature character of political integration and dependence on the privileged partnership between France and Germany [3, p. ]. Nicolai Afanas appreciates the failure of European military and politi- cal communities as one of the biggest failures in the history of European 214 Institutul de Relaţii Revistă ştiinţifico-practică Nr.1/2019 Internaţionale din Moldova integration, greater than the political crisis in the European Economic Community caused by French President Charles de Gaulle in 1965- 1966 [5, p. 36]. Adrian L. Ivan in the same context mentions that the failure of political and military integration, fundamental pillars of the federal European construction, favoured the functionalist approach pro- moted by Jean Monnet, according to which the European Community was to be implemented on sectors, with the ultimate goal of establishing a “European Federation” [6, p. 345-346]. According to Marie-France Christophe-Tchakaloff, General Charles de Gaulle intends, together with the heads of the six governments, to examine and adopt decisions on international policy, defense and econ- omy. The establishment of US military troops in Europe and the acces- sion of the German Federal Republic to the North Atlantic Treaty Orga- nization, which altered the balance of forces on the European continent, led to the change of General Gaulle’s position [4, p.52]. In this context, Georges-Henri Soutou notes that Charles de Gaulle was attempting to promote the vision of a Europe of States initially founded on the six member states (France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg), but subsequently opened for other European countries, which would evolve towards a confederation [7, p.152]. The Gaulian vision was materialized in the Fouchet Plan (19 Octo- ber 1960), which provided the creation of a “political Europe” by the progressive unification of the six states’ foreign policies. Two Com- mission projects chaired by Christian Fouchet were proposed during 1961-1962, but successively rejected because of the impossibility to overcome the institutional divergences between France, attached to a “confederal Europe” and opposing federal opinion, and its partners, followers of a “Europe of the people”. Adrian L. Ivan argues the posi- tion of France by asserting that the confederation, based on the “Patri- otic Europe” concept, conferred a wider power on national states over the Community institutions, which, according to Charles de Gaulle, were technical bodies without authority and political influence [6, p. 346, 348, 349]. The only credible institution was to become the Council of Ministers, representing the states and through which the monopoly on the promotion of European policies was maintained. Adrian L. Ivan suggests that France, through the Council of Ministers, wanted to estab- lish a more rigorous intergovernmental control of the Communities [6, 215 Institutul de Relaţii Internaţionale din Moldova RELAŢII INTERNAŢIONALE. Plus p. 351-352]. The “European Concert” proposed by General de Gaulle would bring together Heads of State and Government, and the bodies of the European Committees would have been constituted by officials. In other words, as Adrian L. Ivan mentions, it was a cooperation be- tween states but without the delegation of power, and the European construction, according to Charles de Gaulle’s vision, had to be based on the Franco-German nucleus, thus determining the German Chancel- lor Konrad Adenauer to partially support the French project [6, p. 349]. The Fouchet Plan, presented on