Political accountability in the EU’s foreign and security policy: How, by whom and for what can the EU’s High Representative on Foreign Affairs and the European External Action Service be held to account?

Henökl, Thomas (2015) Political accountability in the EU’s foreign and security policy: How, by whom and for what can the EU’s High Representative on Foreign Affairs and the European External Action Service be held to account? [Conference Proceedings] (Submitted)

PDF - Submitted Version Download (679Kb)

Abstract

The Lisbon Treaty paved the way for restructuring the institutional landscape in EU foreign and security policy. In order to improve coherence and coordination, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs (HRVP) has obtained more powers and is now assisted by the European External Action Service (EEAS). The HRVP is the recipient of delegated authority from the member states (MS) to formulate, coordinate and implement the external policies of the European Union. Formal decision-making power pertaining to the EU’s common foreign and security policy lies with the Council, whilst substantial competences, notably in the field of the European Neighbourhood and Trade policies, as well as Development and Cooperation remain under the control of the European Commission (Commission). Concomitantly, as its supporting bureaucracy, the EEAS is situated within several, partly overlapping and conflicting accountability relationships. The questions, this paper seeks to answer, are: To what extent, how and by whom can the HRVP and/or the EEAS be held politically to account? In order to shed some light on this issue, the paper discusses the HRVP/EEAS’ relationships with three of its ‘significant others’, namely, the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament. Against three standards of political accountability – popular control, checks-and-balances and efficiency – we examine whether and to what the degree the above institutions are in the position to hold respectively the HRVP and the EEAS to account for their actions. With data from official documents, 47 semi-structured interviews with EEAS and Commission officials and a survey among 184 EU foreign policy-makers, the paper thus aims at providing a map and an assessment of the multi-level actor/forum relationships of the EU’s foreign policy machinery.

Actions (login required)