In quest of a single European Union voice in the United Nations General Assembly: The politics of Resolution 65/276
| Published date | 01 December 2017 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0010836716684879 |
| Date | 01 December 2017 |
| Author | Spyros Blavoukos,Ioannis Galariotis,Dimitris Bourantonis |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
684879CAC0010.1177/0010836716684879Cooperation and ConflictBlavoukos et al.
research-article2017
Article
Cooperation and Conflict
2017, Vol. 52(4) 451 –468
In quest of a single European
© The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
Union voice in the United
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836716684879
DOI: 10.1177/0010836716684879
journals.sagepub.com/home/cac
Nations General Assembly:
The politics of Resolution 65/276
Spyros Blavoukos, Dimitris Bourantonis
and Ioannis Galariotis
Abstract
In May 2011, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) passed Resolution 65/276 that
enhances the European Union (EU) institutional mode of representation in the UNGA and other
multilateral fora operating under its auspices. This followed an earlier, failed attempt that caused
much embarrassment and political turmoil in the EU. The article examines the politics of this
resolution, tracing its background logic, its origins and the political interactions in the UN that
eventually led to its almost consensual embracement. It accounts for the failure in the first stage
of the negotiations and how the EU responded to it, adjusting its bargaining strategy accordingly.
This case study contributes to the better understanding of the links between intra-EU coherence
and EU effectiveness as an international actor. We posit that there is one additional dimension
of EU coherence not fully captured in the relevant literature. We distinguish between genuine
coherence and generated coherence. The former entails homogeneity, or at least a significant
degree of a priori convergence among EU member-states. The latter refers to EU positions that
have emerged after hard and protracted intra-EU negotiations. The two types differ in the degree
of flexibility bestowed on the EU in international negotiations.
Keywords
European Union coherence, European Union external representation, European Union
international effectiveness, Resolution 65/276, United Nations General Assembly
Introduction
One of the recurring issues in the study of European Union (EU) international interaction
is the exact relationship between coherence and external effectiveness, raising the crucial
question of whether ‘speaking with a single voice’ increases EU effectiveness and its
Corresponding author:
Spyros Blavoukos, Department of International and European Economic Studies, Athens University of
Economics and Business, 76 Patission Street, Athens 104 34, Greece.
Email: sblavo@aueb.gr
452
Cooperation and Conflict 52(4)
impact in various multilateral fora (Conceição-Heldt and Meunier, 2014). This assump-
tion that unity and coherence would translate into more influence in international affairs
has guided not only official EU rhetoric in the making of the 2004 draft Constitutional
Treaty and the 2007 Lisbon Treaty, but also academic treatises on the EU’s international
role more generally (Laatikainen and Smith, 2006b). This ‘one voice mantra’ (Macaj and
Nicolaïdis, 2014) has been criticised extensively, with the claim that a single message is
a necessary but insufficient condition for the EU to punch above its weight (Conceição-
Heldt, 2014; Delreux, 2014; Panke, 2014). This finding complements earlier works
that have reached the same conclusion and have cast doubts on the EU’s ‘one voice
strategy’ as an exclusive means to enhance the EU’s international role (Elsig, 2013;
Gehring et al., 2013; Niemann and Bretherton, 2013; Smith, 2010; Thomas, 2012; Van
Schaik, 2013).
Our work shares the same problématique. Besides the different parameters that have
been identified in the relevant literature, focusing on the international level of analysis,
we posit that the coherence–effectiveness relationship begins at the domestic intra-EU
level. Our analytical argument is that the genuine or generated nature of EU coherence
affects EU international effectiveness. Genuine coherence is associated with more flex-
ibility, which in turn facilitates agreement with the bargaining partners in an international
environment conducive to negotiation. Our case study examines how the EU has engi-
neered the institutional arrangements in the UN setting that enables the utterance of a
single voice in the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). It is a case study that
examines variation in a single unit over time, namely the shift from ineffective to effec-
tive EU action in pursuit of its own agenda and goals. Very much like the other scholarly
works mentioned above, we adopt a critical view towards the ‘single voice’ orthodoxy;
although the EU did speak with one voice throughout the bargaining process, the out-
come was different in the two stages of the negotiations. Thus, we examine in depth what
constitutes, to our mind, a typical case of problematic EU engagement in international
negotiations, complementing our current understanding of what makes the EU an (in)
effective international actor.
In brief, Resolution 65/276, passed in May 2011, heralded a new era in the EU mode
of representation in the various UN fora that fall under the UNGA’s auspices. According
to the resolution, the EU, as a single political entity, enjoys the right to make interven-
tions and participate in the general debate (without voting rights), to directly circulate
documents, to present oral proposals and amendments agreed by the EU member-states
and to exercise the right to reply regarding EU positions A/RES/65/276 (2011). It is an
arrangement that creates conducive conditions in which the EU can enhance its political
status (De Haro, 2012; contra Wouters et al., 2011); at the same time, it has affirmed the
UN’s intergovernmental nature and can also be extended to other regional organisations
(A/65/L.64/Rev.1, 2011). The resolution passed but not without complications and
political turmoil; the first EU attempt to table a draft resolution failed in September 2010,
revealing the contentious nature of this issue. The EU came back in May 2011, after a
period of protracted and intensive negotiations, this time with success.
The study is based on primary sources drawn from UN official documents and espe-
cially on interviews conducted by the authors in two sets; the first set took place in New
York in April and May 2014 and the second in Brussels in October and November 2014.
Blavoukos et al.
453
Forty-one interviews were conducted in total with officials from the European External
Action Service (EEAS) in Brussels and the EU delegation at the UN, as well as with dip-
lomats from the EU member-states’ and third countries’ missions in New York. Most of
the interviewees participated actively in UNGA proceedings in the early post-Lisbon
years (2010–2014) and therefore have first-hand knowledge of the politics surrounding
the resolution. Using this primary material, we engage in a systematic account of
Resolution 65/276, the difficulties encountered and the political efforts to overcome them.
In the next section, we discuss the relationship between coherence and effectiveness,
introducing the distinction between genuine and generated coherence that provides an
additional analytical dimension in the coherence–effectiveness saga. Following that, in
what constitutes the empirical thrust of this article, we discuss how the need emerged for
an enhanced institutional representation of the EU in the UNGA, the first failed EU
attempt to pass the resolution in autumn 2010 and what followed up to May 2011 when
the resolution was finally approved by UNGA members. Our concluding section links
our research with the broader discussion of EU international effectiveness.
On coherence and effectiveness
Coherence reflects the intra-EU dimension of EU international interactions; that is, the
internal capacity of the EU to emerge as a cohesive, authoritative and autonomous player
in the international arena and to become recognised by the other negotiating partners as
such. When it comes to the bilateral or multilateral interactions of the EU with other
international governmental or non-governmental actors, coherence captures the degree
to which the EU has reached a common position and is able to present that position with
a single voice – but not necessarily with a single mouth (Conceição-Heldt and Meunier,
2014: 964).
Different typologies, with a significant degree of intellectual overlap, can be found in
the literature (Gebhard, 2011; Mayer, 2013; Missiroli, 2001; Nuttall, 2005). The most
significant dimension of analysis is the vertical–horizontal axes of coherence. Vertical
coherence entails substantial agreement between the foreign policies of all EU member-
states and the common EU foreign policy, including not only full compliance with strate-
gic vision, principles and values, but also with more day-to-day agreed positions.
Horizontal coherence points to the intra- and inter-institutional coordination between the
different EU bodies and actors, reflecting in particular the older quest of consistency
between the intergovernmental and supranational pillars of the European integration pro-
cess. In addition to them, narrative coherence reflects the often great distance between
what the EU claims to do and its real undertaken action (Mayer, 2008). Finally, it is impor-
tant to mention that coherence also has a relational dimension. The EU does not operate
in a political, international vacuum; EU foreign policy develops in a mutually constitutive
engagement with other international actors. Its positions are...
To continue reading
Request your trial