Search results

This book describes, analyses, explains and compares the role performance of different presidencies. The expert and international authors ask why member states have different approaches and play the role differently, prioritising different functions and using a variety of strategies to realise their aspirations. The book consists of three parts i) describes the functions of the presidency, ii) compares nine different presidencies and iii) a concluding section comparing media images, and summaries looking at member state characteristics and behaviour.

How do small states approach their security problems? What types of strategic instruments exist for small states, and when and why are certain strategies chosen rather than others? The security of `weak' states is problematic, demanding trade-offs in the decisions made. Using 19th century Swedish security policy as an example, it is argued here that small states, in their pursuit of security and autonomy, face a dilemma between abandonment and entrapment, leading to a choice between balancing between great powers or making an approach to one of them. This hard choice confronts both non-aligned and allied states. It is also argued that a focus on the images of decision makers is required as a complement to traditional realist theory in order to gain an in-depth understanding of small state security decisions. This book is special in its focus on small, non-aligned states. Most studies on balance-of-power behaviour limit their analysis to alignment decisions. The study also expands the domain of image constructs by introducing perceived regime characteristics into the analysis, besides images of power and intentions. Audience: Scholars and students interested in foreign policy analysis, particularly small-state behaviour. The book points to the importance of beliefs and ideas in security policy

This article investigates the informal networks of Member States that are claimed to be the drivers of EU gender and development policy. The aim is to highlight the negotiation strategies used in gender and development negotiations and to link these to network characteristics. I categorise the characteristics of the Nordic and the like-minded groupings, relying on network theory and investigate their modes of influence. The article is based on interviews with officials at the Permanent Representations and EU institutions in Brussels. My results demonstrate that the Nordics and the Like-Minded Countries constitute informal networks with frequent interaction. Network members share information and coordinate initiatives. The findings show a preference for gradual entrapment and framing rather than shaming and exclusion. The choice of strategies can be linked to network characteristics: the like-minded network is non-formalised and open, and as the ambition is to spread the norms of the like-minded also to reluctant actors, network participants prefer gradual entrapment and traditional diplomatic initiatives before confrontation. Norm promotion normally occurs in concentric circles negotiations, mirroring the layered structure of the network. This article contributes to the literature on informal governance in EU foreign policy by highlighting key strategies used in intra-EU policy networks.

The European Union's leadership capacity on the international arena is not decided only by the EU itself. It is also influenced by external actors' perceptions of the EU's roles and by their reactions to EU initiatives. The aim of this paper is to present a conceptual foundation for the study of external perceptions, and especially their effectiveness, and to apply this framework on the EU's involvement in global climate change negotiations. The first task necessitates a discussion of links between the study of perceptions and other theoretical constructs, such as credibility and legitimacy, and the study of EU coherence. I apply this conceptual apparatus to the EU's performance in global climate change negotiations by describing in what ways perceptions of the Union's credibility, legitimacy and coherence in this field have impacted upon its effectiveness, operationalized as perceived influence and leadership, and how this has changed over time.

This article analyses the leadership role of the European Union (EU) in international multilateral negotiations. The purpose is to problematize the role of the EU as a multilateral leader by contrasting its self-images as an active initiator with other negotiating actors' perceptions of the Union. This is done by comparing the role conceptions presented by EU representatives with the images presented by delegates from non-member states in three different multilateral negotiating contexts. My results present a picture of the EU as a `restricted leader'. The undisputable great power status that the EU is claimed to hold is not necessarily transformed into a leadership role. The causes vary: in two cases it is internal disunity and co-ordination problems that create obstacles to intellectual leadership; in the third case it is perceived role conflicts that make the EU less than credible in its leadership aspirations. The existing potential for structural leadership is therefore not translated into practice.

AbstractUsing role theory as its analytical basis, this article delineates and analyses the specific characteristics of the Chair in the European Union (EU). The focus is thus on the EU Council Presidency and on how expectations surrounding the office impact upon its performance as administrator, agenda manager, broker, leader and representative. The EU's institutional design is marked by a rotating Presidency, by relatively short Presidency periods and by a mix of unanimity and majority voting. These traits influence the ways in which the Chair performs its role. The major argument is, however, that existing structurally based expectations of the Presidency's role (that is, expectations of neutrality and impartiality, of effectiveness and of consensus-seeking) interact with the particular role conceptions that are brought to the office by individual member states to produce both common features and variety in role performance. Empirical illustrations are taken from recent EU Presidencies to highlight continuity and fluctuation in Presidency performances.