Suchergebnisse

Taking its departure from the debate on the Iraq war, the article examines three so-called "doctrines" on European foreign policy. According to the first one, there is no such thing as an EU foreign policy. This may come as a surprise for policy-makers but is a common view among media commentators, analysts and some diplomats. The second doctrine holds that the EU's foreign policy has been, is, and always will be a failure. Reasons for this gloomy view show considerable variations and are most likely unsustainable in the long run. The third approach is more optimistic, counting on the EU's material volume, yet often ignoring the need to politically cash in if international clout is the quest.

This article examines the role of the European Union in multilateral diplomacy. By means of synthesizing and summarizing research on seven selected policy fields, the article aims to make more general claims than single policy or single case studies allow. The analysis focuses on five analytical dimensions: governance (that is, how the EU handles multilateral diplomacy in different international institutions); the role of EU domestic politics; negotiation style(s); outreach; and impact. As the seven policy fields comprise some very diverse issue-areas, it would not be wise to expect any uniform approach or general findings. However, the analysis does show that the EU is increasingly engaged in multilateral diplomacy, actually playing a leadership role in some policy fields. Findings do not correspond to traditional expectations concerning the EU's engagement in politico-economic and security issues, as the EU plays a limited role in financial and macro-economic diplomacy and a fairly significant role in non-proliferation and crisis management. The article suggests that an extension to more policy fields and more analytical dimensions would provide the comprehensive understanding of the European Union's role in multilateral diplomacy that the engagement deserves. Adapted from the source document.

Ausgehend von der Debatte über den Irak-Krieg diskutiert der Verfasser drei Positionen zur europäischen Außenpolitik. Der ersten Position zu Folge gibt es so etwas wie eine europäische Außenpolitik gar nicht. Politiker mag dies überraschen, unter Journalisten, politischen Beobachtern und auch bei einigen Diplomaten ist dies jedoch die gängige Auffassung. Die zweite Position behauptet, dass die Außenpolitik der EU ein Fehlschlag war, ist und es immer sein wird. Hierfür werden die verschiedensten Gründe angeführt, die langfristig aber wohl nicht tragfähig sein werden. Die dritte Position kommt optimistischer daher, sie zählt auf das weltpolitische Gewicht der EU, ignoriert aber oft die Notwendigkeit, politisch einzugreifen, wenn man international eine Rolle spielen will. (ICEÜbers)

For decades, international relations conferences have not been global; the reasons for this situation are diagnosed, including domination, disciplinary power, & hegemony at one level, & diversity, cosmopolitanism, & parochialism at another. However, the US international relations community, a scholarly great power, does have a strong cosmopolitan dimension. Six cures for the nonglobal reach of the discipline are discussed: dismantling the academic discipline, a high influx of funding, a systematic program to compare international relations communities, attention to the fuzzy border between international relations theory & civil society's political practice, acknowledging diversity in the discipline as an asset, & reconsidering the US & European international relations traditions. 45 References. M. Pflum

Digitised version produced by the EUI Library and made available online in 2020.