EU actorness and effectiveness under political pressure at the Copenhagen climate change negotiations

This paper analyses the extent of European Union (EU) actorness and effectiveness at the fifteenth United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference of the Parties (COP) meeting in Copenhagen in December 2009. For over a decade the European Union has been characterised as a leader in international climate policy-making and as an important actor in international climate change negotiations. The COP15 meeting in Copenhagen has overall brought about disappointing outcomes, especially from the perspective of the European Union. This casts doubts on EU leadership and begs the question of what has happened to EU actorness and effectiveness in this field. In terms of actorness we take Jupille and Caporaso (1998) as a point of departure and then specify a more parsimonious actorness framework that consists of cohesion and autonomy. Effectiveness (i.e. goal attainment) is seen as conceptually separate from actorness. Effectiveness is conceptualised as the result of actorness conditioned by the ‘opportunity structure’, i.e. the external context (of other actors, events and ideas) that enables or constrains EU actions. We hold that the EU’s actorness has been only moderate, especially given somewhat limited preference cohesion. In terms of the opportunity structure in Copenhagen we argue that the high degree of politicisation constrained the EU’s ability to negotiate and thus to attain its goals. Another external factor that had a substantial adverse impact on the EU’s effectiveness at the Copenhagen negotiations was the strong involvement of other actors with rather different positions, namely the United States (US) and the BASIC countries (Brazil, South Africa, India, and China).

The EU an actor sui generis? A Comparison of EU and ASEAN actorness

The core argument of this article is to advocate the recognition of regional organizations as international actors. Conceptions of the European Union (EU) as an international actor are not new. However, a great deal of the literature regards the EU as sui generis in nature and lacking in external capabilities when compared to nation-states. Other regional organizations, such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) fare even worse. This article notes that we need to move beyond a state-centric view of world politics to assess the actor capabilities, nascent or advanced, of other players in the global arena, particularly regional organizations.

Um ator europeu: um estudo de caso da atuação da União Europeia no FMI e na OMC

A presente dissertação busca demonstrar o comportamento da União Europeia como um ator unitário nas Organizações Internacionais. Com o aprofundamento da integração europeia e seus desdobramentos institucionais, é possível perceber o surgimento de um novo ator no cenário internacional, que engloba 27 Estados e vem ganhando força impactando nas negociações internacionais. Através de dois estudos de caso, a pesquisa demonstra a actorness da União Europeia e o seu comportamento em duas Organizações Internacionais, o Fundo Monetário Internacional e a Organização Mundial do Comércio.

A move toward hybrid interregionalism in Asia

The chapter provides a critical overview of European engagement with Asia, and reviews the contemporary economic cooperation and trade relations between the two regions. The chapter concludes with a critical assessment of the nature of EU interregionalism and speculates on the influence and actorness of the European Union in Asia.

The Euro Crisis, the Other Crisis and the Need for Global Thinking

In addition to the euro crisis the EU faces a second, more existential crisis, in the form of an ill-defined notion of the Union’s global role. This contribution argues that the euro crisis should not redefine perceptions of the EU on the global stage, which it is in danger of doing. Instead, the EU and its members should embark upon a strategic reassessment in order to define three core interrelated factors. First, the nature of the EU’s actorness remains ill-defined and it is therefore necessary to explain, both within and beyond the Union, what its global role is. Second, in order to facilitate the joining up of the myriad of sub-strategies in EU external relations, the notion of ‘red lines’ should be considered which define specific aspects of behaviour that are mainstreamed throughout the EU’s external actions and, more importantly, upheld. Third, in spite of the rapid development of the harder elements of the EU’s actorness over the last decade or so, there remains a worrying gap between rhetoric and reality. This aspect is of particular concern for the United States and will affect perceptions of the EU’s ability to be a genuine strategic partner at a time of dramatic change in the international system. By engaging in what will inevitably be a difficult debate, the EU and its members will not only help give purpose and strategic direction to the Union’s actions on the international scene, it will also speak to the euro crisis since both are fundamentally about the future shape and direction of European integration.

Comparing regional organizations in global multilateral institutions:ASEAN, the EU and the UN

Structural change brought about by the end of the Cold War and accelerated globalisation have transformed the global environment. A global governance complex is emerging, characterised by an ever-greater functional and regulatory role for multilateral organisations such as the United Nations (UN) and its associated agencies. The evolving global governance framework has created opportunities for regional organisations to participate as actors within the UN (and other multilateral institutions). This article compares the European Union (EU) and Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) as actors within the UN network. It begins by extrapolating framework conditions for the emergence of EU and ASEAN actorness from the literature. The core argument of this article is that EU and ASEAN actorness is evolving in two succinct stages: Changes in the global environment create opportunities for the participation of regional organisations in global governance institutions, exposing representation and cohesion problems at the regional level. In response, ASEAN and the EU have initiated processes of institutional adaptation.

EU-ASEAN relations in the post-Cold War era:an analysis of the impact of normative factors on interregionalism

This thesis examines the relationship between the European Union (EU) and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) with a focus on why their normative elements, e.g. values and norms, affect their ties in the post-Cold War era. Since the end of the Cold War, policy-makers and academics have become interested in region-to-region interaction, termed interregionalism. Though interregionalism is considered to have become an indelible feature of post-Cold War international politics, there are question marks over its importance. It is often argued that interregionalism reinforces the collective identity of the regional organisations involved. It is also maintained that its overall relevance to the international system depends on the level of actorness, which is primarily measured in institutional and material terms, of the participant regional organisations. This thesis contends that the normative components of the EU and ASEAN are also fundamental constituents of their actorness and, consequently, define significantly their interregionalism. This is based on a crucial observation that normative factors are of importance to the regional and international relations of the EU and ASEAN. Yet, while they strongly espouse norms and values to guide their internal and external activities, their normative premises radically differ from each other. Furthermore, these normative differences jeopardise their cooperation. Building on this observation the inquiry takes the normative components of the EU and ASEAN as the criterion as well as the focus for investigating their interregionalism. In doing so, it hypothesises that the EU and ASEAN are two different regional actors that adopt two dissimilar sets of norms to conduct their regional and international affairs and that such normative differences hinder their relations. Within this hypothesis, it seeks to address three central questions. First, what are the normative features that constitute the EU and ASEAN as actors in world politics and that make them different from each other? Second, what are the main sources of their normative differences? Finally, why do their normative differences become an obstructive factor in their relationship? To address these issues, the inquiry adopts a constructivist interpretation (of International Relations) and opts for a narrative and empirical inquiry, which is based on information and data acquired from official documents, scholarly works and interviews and questionnaires. In doing so, it finds that as they were born and evolved in two dissimilar temporal and spatial settings, the EU and ASEAN are two different norm entrepreneurs and normative powers. The former advocates a set of liberal cosmopolitan norms whereas the latter champions a set of traditional communitarian principles. Their normative differences become a major obstacle to their cooperation, especially when one regional organisation’s norms are refused or violated by the other. Thus, a key lesson drawn from these findings is that in order to explain more fully EU-ASEAN interregionalism, it is essential to consider their norms, the reasons behind their normative differences and the implication of those differences to their relations

Interregionalism

Interregionalism is deeply rooted in the foreign policies and external relations of the EU. Interregional cooperation today not only encompasses trade and aid but also political dialogue, cultural relations and even security cooperation. Although the EU’s official ambition has been to formalize and institutionalize its interregional relations with other regional bodies or organizations (so-called ‘pure interregionalism’), in practice there are a bewildering variety of interregional or group-to-group relations on display (Hänggi 2006; Baert et al. 2014). The EU is rapidly evolving as a global actor and while doing so it has been trying to export its own civilian and normative values. Interregionalism is an important tool in this process, contributing to the EU’s policy of fostering regionalism worldwide, not only in the triad (Europe, North America and East Asia) (De Lombaerde and Schulz 2009). Through interregionalism, the EU and its regional others enhance their presence, gain recognition, tighten institutional cohesion and define identities. Interregionalism, therefore, occupies a special position in the construction of regional actorness in global affairs (Wunderlich 2012). However, the link between interregionalism and regionalism is both complex and underexplored (Baert et al. 2014; Doidge 2007). Much depends on the type of interregional relations, and the balance of other forms of cooperation, which appears to play out differently in different regions. All this leads to a number of research questions that should be addressed by the academic literature, including is there a preference for interregional relations in EU’s foreign policy? If so, for what reason(s)? What are the consequences of such a preference? What is the role of interregionalism in the broader context of EU’s external policies? How are expressions of regionalism related to expressions of interregionalism? Does the sui generis character of the EU lead to a sui generis character of EU interregionalism? This chapter provides a general overview of the evolution of the field, the key conceptual and analytical debates, as well as the main research questions that drive the research agenda. Emphasis is also placed on identifying the main gaps in the field and suggesting directions.