Network resilience and EU fisheries policy engagement in third countries: Lessons for post-Brexit governance
| Author | Arno Van Der Zwet,John Connolly,Christopher Huggins,Craig McAngus |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/13691481211067146 |
| Published date | 01 February 2023 |
| Date | 01 February 2023 |
| Subject Matter | Original Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/13691481211067146
The British Journal of Politics and
International Relations
2023, Vol. 25(1) 121 –138
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/13691481211067146
journals.sagepub.com/home/bpi
Network resilience and EU
fisheries policy engagement
in third countries: Lessons for
post-Brexit governance
Arno Van Der Zwet1, John Connolly1,
Christopher Huggins2
and Craig McAngus1
Abstract
This article examines the ways in which third countries can engage with, and respond to, European
Union policy-making processes. A novel analytical framework based on the concept of network
resilience which consists of an institutional, political and policy dimension is operationalised
to understand third country access to European Union policy-making. Empirically, the article
examines the experiences of three non-European Union countries, Iceland, the Faroe Islands and
Norway in the context of the European Union’s Common Fisheries Policy. The article concludes
by presenting a research agenda based on an in-depth analysis of network resilience and reflects
on what the findings mean for future research, particularly within the context of understanding
the development of UK–EU post-Brexit relations.
Keywords
Brexit, EU external relations, European integration, fisheries policy, network resilience, third
countries
Introduction
The European Union’s (EU) policy decisions often have spillover effects on third coun-
tries (Bretherton and Vogler, 2006). Many non-EU countries have treaties and agreements
with EU institutions, and these facilitate channels for policy exchange and dialogue to
manage the impact of EU policy. Yet, the extent to which third countries have access, or
indeed have the strategies and tactics in place to engage with EU policy processes, are
diverse and often obscured due to a lack of formalised policy spaces (Kux and Sverdrup,
2000; Lavenex, 2015; Stead, 2014). Policy stakeholders must be agile in order to navigate
1School of Education and Social Sciences, University of the West of Scotland, Paisley, UK
2School of Social Sciences and Humanities, University of Suffolk, Ipswich, UK
Corresponding author:
Arno Van Der Zwet, University of the West of Scotland, Paisley PA1 2BE, UK.
Email: Arno.van-der-Zwet@uws.ac.uk
1067146BPI0010.1177/13691481211067146The British Journal of Politics and International RelationsVan Der Zwet et al.
research-article2022
Original Article
122 The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 25(1)
changing policy environments and power dynamics. In this respect, third country actors
need to develop network resilience to be successful.
This article examines how third countries build network resilience in EU policy pro-
cesses in the context of fisheries policy based on the experiences of policy actors in
Iceland, Norway and the Faroe Islands. Fisheries is a salient policy area to examine net-
work resilience because policy actors need to balance the territorial sovereignty of fishing
waters with economic concerns (in terms of access to export markets) and environmental
necessities, which require countries to cooperate internationally (Wincott, 2017). This
dynamic requires policy actors to invest in resilient networks in order to manage the inter-
ests of different political and industry stakeholders. As the largest single economic mar-
ket, and a major international policy actor in relation to environmental policy, the EU has
a major impact on third countries, particularly those with which it shares borders and, in
the case of fisheries policy, marine resources.
Against this background, the research questions that underpin this research are as
follows: What have been the policy experiences of Iceland, Norway and the Faroe
Islands in EU policy-making for fisheries? What learning can be drawn from these
experiences in terms of third countries’ network resilience in their relations with the
EU, and how do these apply to the Brexit context in the United Kingdom? To answer
these questions, this article develops a novel threefold framework, consisting of an
institutional, political and policy dimension to capture different dimensions of net-
work resilience. This framework is then applied to the experiences of the three coun-
tries. The study includes 21 semi-structured qualitative interviews with key policy
stakeholders.
The research findings elucidate the strategies deployed by third countries to sustain
their network resilience in the face of macro-governance changes. The article provides
lessons about understanding how other third countries interface with EU policy processes.
As a result, the framework advanced by the article serves as a useful tool for future analy-
ses of EU-third country relations, however it is also particularly pertinent in the case of
Brexit.
Indeed, it remains in the interests of the United Kingdom to continue to build on their
policy record over decades of being a key ‘uploader’ or ‘pace-setter’ in EU affairs (Burns
et al., 2019; Connolly, 2014; James and Quaglia, 2020). Leaving the EU means that the
United Kingdom is largely outside of the jurisdiction of the EU. Yet, EU decisions can
still have an impact in the United Kingdom. This necessitates the need to work through
and via more informal policy channels in order to ensure network resilience. There are
several important features of fisheries policy which support a continued high level of
integration between the United Kingdom and EU policy. In order to ensure legal continu-
ity, the United Kingdom has repealed the European Community Act 1972 and temporarily
transferred all EU legislation, including the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), into UK
law. These can be amended but they do serve to ensure some continuity in the short and
medium term. Furthermore, the United Kingdom is required to fulfil its international
obligations under United Nations Convention of the Laws of the Sea (UNCLOS) III,
again ensuring continuity with previous principles. More generally, despite strong voices
from within certain parts of the catching sector for full autonomy (Huggins et al., 2018),
there is recognition that cooperation and negotiations between the United Kingdom, EU
and other third countries need to continue and therefore a partnership between the United
Kingdom (as a third country) and the EU will need to develop (Huggins et al., 2020;
Phillipson and Symes, 2018).
To continue reading
Request your trial