Learning the ropes and embracing the rules: CFSP institutions as arenas for learning and strategic socialisation

The aim of this article is to analyse those situations in which learning and socialisation take place within the context of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), in particular, at the level of experts in the Council Working Groups. Learning can explain the institutional development of CFSP and changes in the foreign policies of the Member States. Some scope conditions for learning and channels of institutionalisation are identified. Socialisation, resulting from learning within a group, is perceived as a strategic action by reflective actors. National diplomats, once they arrive in Brussels, learn the new code of conduct of their Working Groups. They are embedded in two environments and faced with two logics: the European one in the Council and the national one in the Ministries of Foreign Affairs (MFA). The empirical evidence supports the argument that neither rational nor sociological approaches alone can account for these processes.

Poland’s adaptation to the CFSP: success or failure?

This paper attempts to analyse the process of Poland’s adaptation to the European Union in the area of CFSP before the enlargement in order to show if such institutional processes might have impact on the present Polish position in the EU’s foreign policy. The first, introductory section sets out the analytical framework of such processes based upon the adaptation concept definition. The second section provides the analysis of Polish predisposition to adapt to the emerging external challenge. The third section is dedicated to the analysis of the institutional relations between Poland and EU paying special attention to the CFSP area. The fourth section discusses the Polish behavior towards different aspects of CFSP cooperation and her positions regarding further development of this area of European integration.

The CFSP/ESDP, Parliamentary Accountability, and the ´Future of Europe´ Convention debate

This paper examines the importance that the current Convention on the Future of Europe is giving (or not) to the question of democratic accountability in European foreign and defence policy. As all European Union (EU) member states are parliamentary democracies1, and as there is a European Parliament (EP) which also covers CFSP (Common Foreign and Security Policy) and ESDP (European Security and Defence Policy2) matters, I will concentrate on parliamentary accountability rather than democratic accountability more widely defined. Where appropriate, I will also refer to the work of other transnational parliamentary bodies such as the North Atlantic Assembly or NAA (NATO´s Parliamentary Assembly) or the Western European Union (WEU) Parliamentary Assembly3. The article will consist of three sections. First, I will briefly put the question under study within its wider context (section 1). Then, I will examine the current level of parliamentary accountability in CFSP and defence matters (section 2). Finally, I will consider the current Convention debate and assess how much attention is being given to the question of accountability in foreign and defence policies (section 3). This study basically argues that, once again, there is very little interest in an issue that should be considered as vital for the future democratic development of a European foreign and defence policy. It is important to note however that this paper does not cover the wider debate about how to democratise and make the EU more transparent and closer to its citizens. It concentrates on its Second Pillar because its claim is that very little if any attention is being given to this question