Skip to Main Content
Have library access? Log in through your library
Research Report

EU Representation in the OPCW after Lisbon:: Still Waiting for Brussels

Vincent Delaere
Louise G. Van Schaik
Copyright Date: Aug. 1, 2012
Published by: Clingendael Institute
Pages: 45
OPEN ACCESS
https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep05441

Table of Contents

Export Selected Citations Export to NoodleTools Export to RefWorks Export to EasyBib Export a RIS file (For EndNote, ProCite, Reference Manager, Zotero, Mendeley...) Export a Text file (For BibTex)
  1. (pp. [i]-[iv])
  2. (pp. [v]-[vi])
  3. (pp. 1-2)
  4. (pp. 3-6)

    After the Lisbon Treaty entered into force in 2009, the European Union (EU) was expected to speak with a single voice in all international organisations. For issues of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), external representation is to be conducted by the EU’s High Representative (HR) (Treaty on European Union, Article 27:3). The European External Action Service (EEAS) was established in 2010 to assist the HR. Further assistance comes from the former European Commission delegations in, for instance, New York, Paris and Geneva, which were renamed EU delegations and are now also responsible for CFSP issues. As there was...

  5. (pp. 7-12)

    This paper analyses EU effectiveness in its relation to EU actorness. Research on EU actorness goes back to the 1970s when the EU was defined as a ‘Civilian Power’ with a presence in world politics (Sjöstedt, 1977). It was developed inter alia by Bretherton and Vogler (1999 and 2006), Jupille and Caporaso (1998), and Groenleer and Van Schaik (2007). EU actorness was depicted as not being well developed in all fields and its emergence as not relying solely on competence being transferred to the EU (as often indicated by politicians), but also by other factors, such as coherence or the...

  6. (pp. 13-22)

    The EU’s position in the OPCW is part of its striving for non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). This objective will only succeed if EU member states move in the same direction, preferably with the same commitment (Van Ham, 2011: 2). Most of the attention in the EU’s official strategy against WMD proliferation (EU, 2003) is devoted to the fight against nuclear proliferation by states and to some extent threats of terrorism. The strategy points out that “while the international treaty regimes and export control arrangements have slowed the spread of WMD and delivery systems, a number of states...

  7. (pp. 23-26)

    The involvement of the EU’s new foreign policy actors on EU decision-making on positions for CFSP issues, such as barring the production and use of chemical weapons, should have been tightened after Lisbon, but not much really changed. This is partly because the EU has no active role in the OPCW and mainly because discussions taking place at the OPCW have not been high on the EEAS’s agenda. This is understandable when looking at the low priority that is given to chemical weapons in the EU’s security policy when compared, for instance, to the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.

    Even though...

  8. (pp. 27-28)

    Under the Swedish Presidency in the second half of 2009, the way forward with regard to the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty was still sketchy. Back then, plans for a pilot scheme were developed for EU delegations in Geneva and New York to take over EU coordination and external representation at international organisations (Drieskens, 2012), but no such plans existed for The Hague. The Swedes concluded that until further notice there would be no change in the way that EU coordination worked at the OPCW, and that the responsibility for local EU coordination remained in the hands of the rotating...

  9. (pp. 29-30)

    This paper posed the question of how bad it is that ‘Brussels’ has still not arrived at the OPCW in The Hague. Research showed that, in the current situation, the EU is perceived as not operating terribly badly, but also not as effectively as might be possible, a finding that confirms other case studies on the EU’s role in international institutions. The EU’s newly established EEAS has obtained authority over at least most of the issues discussed at the OPCW since the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty and the EU does by and large operate as one actor...

  10. (pp. 31-34)
  11. (pp. 38-38)